Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10598/2009

STATE OF GOA & ANR. … PETITIONERS - VS.- GOPAL BABURAO GAUDO & ORS. … RESPODNENTS

O R D E R

Acquisition  proceedings  were  initiated  in  regard  to  several  lands  including  Survey  No.  85  of  Curti  Village  belonging to the respondents under preliminary notification  dated 14.2.1991 for construction of Panda By-pass road. The  Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate  of  Rs.7/-  per  sq.m.  The  Reference  Court  increased  the  compensation to Rs. 154/- per sq.m. The High Court did not  disburse the amount awarded by the Reference Court, as it  found that in an appeal arising from the award in LAC No.  48/1995  relating  to  a  comparable  land  compensation  at  a  higher rate had been awarded at the rate of Rs.200/- per  

1

sq.m. Leave is sought to challenge the said judgment of the  High Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.  

2. The  petitioner  alleges  that  the  acquired  land  measuring 2715 sq. meters, was a narrow strip which fell  within the 40 meters margin from the centre of the highway  where constructions were prohibited. It is contended that  as the acquired land could not be used for construction,  the land had to be considered as not having any development  potential; and that therefore it could not be compared with  the land (which was the subject matter of LAC No. 48/1995)  for which compensation had been determined having regard to  its potential for development. It was also contended that  being a narrow strip it was also not of much use even for  agriculture purposes.  

3. A long strip of land measuring more than two-third of  an acre lying alongside and adjoining the Highway cannot be  treated as a land without value or without any potential  for development, merely on the ground that the law relating  to Highways prohibited construction on either side of the  Highway, upto a depth of 40 meters from the centre of the  Highway.  All  that  was  required  to  create  or  realize  potential of such land was to annex or merge the said strip  

2

of land with the land to its rear. In that event, the strip  of land will become the ‘access’ to the rear-side land from  the  main  road  and  will  also  become  the  frontage  of  the  aggregate land, thereby enhancing the potential and value  of the rear-side land, as also creating a potential for its  own use. The contention that a land adjoining the Highway  should be treated as having no development potential (and  therefore  as  land  without  much  value  except  as  ordinary  agricultural land), while considering the lands to its rear  which are farther away from the road, or other adjoining  lands of the same extent, but having more depth (so as to  extend beyond the 40 meters margin) as having potential for  development, is illogical and cannot be accepted.  

4. We may demonstrate the absurdity of such a contention  with reference to an illustration. Let us take the example  of a residential plot of land measuring 60’ X 100’. Let us  assume that the Municipal Bye-laws require a front (road  side) set-back of 20’ for construction of houses in a plot  of that size. Therefore, the owner would leave a twenty  feet  wide  front  strip  in  the  said  plot  free  of  any  construction while putting up the construction in the plot.  Obviously,  he  cannot  thereafter  construct  in  that  front  strip.  Let  us  further  assume  that  the  front  strip  is  

3

acquired  for  road  widening.  Can  the  acquiring  authority  deny compensation to that strip on the ground that the said  20’ strip acquired for road widening could not in any event  be used for any construction purpose and therefore, was not  of any value? Obviously not.  

5. Therefore,  determination  of  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  with  reference  to  the  value  of  comparable  land cannot be faulted.  

6. Another argument put forth by the petitioners is that  if the statutory benefits like solatium under section 23(2)  and  additional  amount  under  section  23(1A)  of  Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short), and interest are  added to the compensation awarded, the compensation would  bloat  up  having  severe  financial  implications,  and  therefore,  while  determining  compensation,  the  extent  of  statutory benefits should be taken note of or kept in view.  There is absolutely no merit in the said contention. It is  well-settled  that  the  solatium,  additional  amount  and  interest have no bearing on the determination of the market  value under first clause of section 23(1) of the Act. The  reason for grant of the additional statutory benefits are  clearly  different.  The  additional  benefit  under  section  

4

23(1A) is to mitigate the hardship to the owner on account  of  deprivation  of  enjoyment  of  the  land  because  of  the  delay  in  making  the  award  and  offering  payment.  The  solatium  under  section  23(2)is  in  consideration  of  the  compulsory nature of acquisition. Interest under section 28  of the Act is paid for delay in paying the compensation  from  the  date  on  which  possession  is  taken.  They  are  distinct from the determination of market value. The fact  that  the  landowner  would  also  be  entitled  to  statutory  benefits cannot be taken into account, when determining the  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  for  purpose  of  compensation.  

7. We find that the High Court has rightly decided the  matter  with  reference  to  the  facts  of  the  case.  The  judgment does not call for interference. The Special leave  petition is therefore dismissed as having no merit.

………………………………………………………J. (R V RAVEENDRAN)  

………………………………………………………J. (B SUDERSHAN REDDY)

New Delhi; September 14, 2009

5