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

PETITIONER: CHINTAMAN & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/08/1996

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

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)101

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Notification   under   Section   4(1)   of   the   Land Acquisition, 1894  (for Short,  the ’Act’)  was published in respect of  different parcels  of lands on February 23, 1964 and March  1, 1964  acquiring an extent of 6.67 acres in the first notification and 2.75 acres in the second notification for the  purpose of  setting up spinning mill. The lands are situated near  Nagpur Municipal  Corporation practically now within urban  agglomeration. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated October 6, 1966, determined the compensation @  Rs.5,000/-   per  acre  in  respect  of  some  lands  and Rs.3,000/- per  acre in  respect of other lands in the first notification and  Rs.2,000/- per  acre for  the lands in the second notification  and solatium and interest under Section 23(2) and Section 34 of the Act.      On reference  the civil Court by decree and award dated November 18,  1968 enhanced  the compensation to Rs.0.40 per sq.ft. On  appeal by  the State  and cross-objection  by the claimants, the  High Court  reversed the decree and award of the  reference   Court  and   confirmed  the  award  of  the Collector. Thus, these appeals by special leave. Though learned  counsel for  the appellants  stated that the High Court  was in  error in  not relying upon the sale deed (Exts. 39 and 40) to an extent of Rs.5,000/- per sq. ft. and Rs. 4,000/-  per sq.ft.  respectively, the  High  Court  was wholly right  in its  conclusion for the reason that neither the  sale  deeds  not  the  certified  copies  thereof  were exhibited  in   the  Court.   In  these  circumstances,  the documents are  inadmissible, though  the witnesses, AW 9 and 10 have been examined to speak on these transactions. In the absence of  the sale deeds, no oral evidence could be relied upon. The  reference Court  had committed  manifest error of law in relying on that evidence. But the fact that the lands are very near to the city and possessed of a potential value is not  in dispute. Under these circumstances, we think that the appropriate course would be that the market value of the

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

lands in  respect of  which Rs.5,000/-  was awarded  by  the Collector shall be determined @ Rs. 8,000/- per acre and the lands for  which Rs.3,000/-  was awarded,  would be valued @ Rs. 6,000/-  per acre.  Similarly, in  the  case  of  second notification,  the   market  value  would  be  determined  @ Rs.4,000/- per acre.      The award and decree of the reference Court is modified to the  above extent. The claimants are entitled to solatium and interest  under Section  23(2) @  15%  on  the  enhanced compensation and  interest under  Section 28  @ 6% per annum from the  date of  taking possession till date of deposit of enhanced compensation.      The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.