http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PITAMBAR HEMLAL BADGUJAR (DEAD)BY LRS. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHULE & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   546        1996 SCALE  (2)270

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.       This appeal by special leave arises from the  judgment and decree  of the  High Court  of Bombay  in   First Appeal No.829 of  1982 made  on August  24, 1992.  The notification under Section  4 (1) was published in  respect of 2 acres of land covered  in Survey  No. 339/B  on October  30, 1965 and Survey No.339/A2  of 1 acre 34 gunthas on March 11, 1971 for the purpose  of  establishing  Market  Committee.  The  Land Acquisition Officer  awarded compensation  at the rate of 25 paise per sq. ft. in respect of B land acquired in the first notification and  35 paise  in respect of A land acquired in the second  notification. On reference under Section 18, the District Judge enhanced the compensation to the land covered under second notification at the rate of Rs.2.50 per sq. ft. and confirmed  the market  value determined by the Collector for the  land  covered  under  the  first  notification.  On appeal,  the   learned  Judges  of  the  High  Court,  while confirmed the  compensation determined  in respect  of lands covered   by   the   second   notification,   enhanced   the compensation to  Rs.1.20 per  sq. ft.  in respect  of  lands acquired by the first notification. The claimants have filed this appeal  for further  hike in compensation whereas State has not come up in appeal.      It is  settled by series of this Court’s judgments that determination of  the compensation  in respect  of the lands acquired  on  the  sq.  ft.  basis  is  an  obvious  illegal principle being  adopted by  the courts  only to inflate the market value  and no  reasonable prudent  purchaser would be willing to purchase the land on the sq. ft. basis when large extent of  land is  offered for  sale. Same is the case when land is acquired for public purpose. The courts are required to considers  sitting  in  the  arm  chair  of  the  prudent purchaser acting in normal conditions prevailing in the open market, whether,  when offered  to purchase  the land  by  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

willing vendor,  he would  purchase  the  same  in  an  open market. The  Court on  that touchstone  should evaluate  the market value.  No feat  of imagination is necessary to cloud the consideration lest it runs into arena of misconduct. The courts, therefore,  have proceeded  on  illegal  premise  in determining the  compensation on  sq. ft.  basis. It is seen that the  High Court noted that there is no development from 1968 to  1971. It  is true that the High Court has proceeded on wrong  footing of the date of notification of 1968. There appears  to   be  some   confusion  with   regard  to  first notification  dated   October  30,   1965  and   the  second notification dated  March 11, 1971. In view of the fact that there is  no hike in the value of the land and no sale deeds have been  produced, it  would be  obvious that  there is no appreciation of  the value  of the  lands. So  it is  highly hazardous to  rely upon oral evidence wherein witnesses have stated that  prevailing market  value ranges  from Rs.4/- to Rs.5/- per  sq. ft.  Under these  circumstances, we  are not impressed with any evidence warranting further increase.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.