IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5269 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.6169 of 2006)

Jivanbhai Ambalal & Ors. … Appellants

Vs.

Special L.A.Q. Officer & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CA No. 5270 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No.7293/2006)  CA No. 5271 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No.7863/2006)  

O R D E R

CA No. 5269 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No.6169/2006)  

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.  

2. The matter relates to determination of compensation for acquisition of

land  at  Dantali  Village  near  Gandhinagar  in  Gujarat  under  preliminary

notification  dated  22.6.1989  for  construction  of  Narmada  Canal.  The

Special  LAO awarded  Rs.4.50  per  sq.m.  The  Reference  Court  awarded

Rs.62.50 per sq.m by judgment and award dated 14.3.2002. The appeal by

the appellants claiming enhancement of compensation to Rs.71/- per sq.m

was  dismissed  by the  High  Court  by judgment  dated  21.9.2005.  Feeling

aggrieved, the land-owners are in appeal.  

3. For determining the market value, the Reference Court relied on its

own judgment and award dated 3.12.1999 in regard to acquisition of similar

lands for the same purpose in the same village under previous Notification

dated 2.1.1986, which had attained finality. In that case, the collector had

awarded Rs.2.50 per sq.m and the Reference Court increased it by Rs.52 per

sq.m thus awarding Rs.54.50 per  sq.m. In  this  case, the Reference Court

held  that  the  market  value  for  the  land  acquired  in  1989,  should  be

determined with reference to the market value determined with reference to

the  acquisition  of  2.1.1986,  by  increasing  the  value  by  10%  per  year.

However, the Reference Court made a mistake in assuming that the amount

awarded in respect of the acquisition in 1986 was Rs.52/- per sq.m instead

of Rs.54.50 per sq.m. It also wrongly calculated the increase for only two

years, though the gap was more than three years. The reference court thus

calculated the market value as Rs.62.50 per sq.m by taking the base rate as

Rs.52 and adding Rs.10.50 towards 20% escalation. The High Court held

that as there was no evidence to show that there was an annual increase in

2

market value by 10%, there was no need to interfere with the determination

of market value. It however modified the award of the reference court, in

regard to interest.  

4. This Court, in General  Manager, ONGC vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai

Patel (Civil Appeal No.5192 of 2002 decided on 31.7.2008) has accepted

that generally there is an annual increase of 10% to 15% in the market value

of lands in urban and semi-urban areas and 5% to 7.5% in the market value

of lands in rural areas. In this case, as the acquired land as per evidence was

hardly at a distance of 7 km from Karol, and 8 km from Gandhinagar and

about 1 km from a residential township, it has to be treated as semi-urban

area. If the market value is to be calculated in accordance with principles in

Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (Supra) by applying a cumulative rate of 10%

per annum for three years over the market value of Rs.54.50 in 1986, the

market value will be Rs.72.60 per sq.m. However, as the appellants have

restricted their claim to Rs.71/- per sq.m before the High Court, we increase

the compensation from Rs.62.50 per sq.m to Rs.71 per sq.m.  

5. The appeal is thus partly allowed and the compensation is increased

from Rs.62.50  to  Rs.71  per  sq.m.  The  award  of  the  Reference  Court  as

3

modified  by  the  High  Court  in  regard  to  solatium,  additional  amount,

interest etc., will apply. Parties to bear respective costs.  

CA No. 5270 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No.7293/2006)  

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.  

2. In this appeal, the facts are similar to the first matter except that the

acquisition  was  under  preliminary  notification  dated  6.8.1988/24.5.1988.

The  Reference  Court  had  awarded  Rs.58.50  by  its  judgment  dated

31.12.2001. The High Court refused to increase the compensation to Rs.66

per sq.m as claimed by the appellants.  

3. For the reasons stated in the order in the first matter, this appeal is

also allowed and the rate of  compensation is  increased from Rs.58.50 to

Rs.66  per  sq.m (by increasing  the  1986  market  value  of  Rs.54.50  by  a

cumulative rate of 10% per year for two years). The award of the Reference

Court as modified by High Court in regard to solatium, additional amount,

interest etc., will apply. Parties to bear respective costs.  

CA No. 5271 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No.7863/2006)  

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.  

4

2. In this appeal also, the facts are similar to the first matter except the

date of preliminary notification which is 7.4.1988. The Reference Court has

awarded  Rs.58.50  by  its  judgment  dated  31.12.2001.  The  High  Court

refused  to  increase  the  compensation  to  Rs.66  per  sq.m  as  claimed  by

appellants.  

3. For the reasons stated in the order in the first matter, this appeal is

also allowed and the rate of  compensation is  increased from Rs.58.50 to

Rs.66  per  sq.m (by increasing  the  1986  market  value  of  Rs.54.50  by  a

cumulative rate of 10% per year for two years). The award of the Reference

Court as modified by High Court in regard to solatium, additional amount,

interest etc., will apply. Parties to bear respective costs.  

…….………………………..J [R. V. Raveendran]

………………………………J [Lokeshwar Singh Panta]

New Delhi;  August 26, 2008.  

5