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

PETITIONER: SMT. KAMALABAI JAGESHWAR JOSHI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  981            1996 SCC  (1) 669  JT 1995 (9)   127        1995 SCALE  (6)764

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Notification under  s.4(1) of  the Land Acquisition Act was published  on May  10,1962 acquiring  a total  extent of 62.5 acres  belonging to  the appellant for extension of the South Eastern Railway Station. The award under s.11 was made on May  13, 1965 determining the compensation @ Rs.250/- per acre. On  reference under  s.18 by  award and  decree  dated December 8, 1971, the Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,000/- per  acre. On  further  appeal  under  s.54,  the Division Bench  of the  High Court  by judgment  and  decree dated September  29, 1984  further enhanced the compensation to  Rs.7,000/-   per  acre.   Dissatisfied  therewith,   the appellant has  filed this appeal by special leave. The State did not file any appeal against the enhanced compensation.      Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant contended that  the   appellant,  even   before  the  acquisition  was initiated, had offered the land @ Rs.4/- per sq. yd. and the Department had  agreed and  proceeded with  the acquisition. The High  Court should  have granted  compensation at Rs.4/- per sq.  yd. It is also contended that the High Court having accepted the  sale deeds,  item 1,  2 and  7 which served as instances  of  comparable  market  value,  they  would  form reasonable basis to determine the compensation. But the High Court committed  grievous  error  of  law  in  ignoring  the maximum price  that were fetched in those sale deeds and the High Court  ought to  have granted  maximum price determined under those  sale deeds. Having heard the learned counsel on both the  counts, we  think that there is no force in either contention.      So far  as the claim @ Rs.4/- per sq. yd. is concerned, it was  only an offer made by the appellant and there was no concluded  agreement   nor  at   least  acceptance   by  the Department to purchase the lands at that rate. The concerned engineer had  written to the appellant to give his offer for acquisition of  the land whereat he had quoted at Rs.4/- per

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

sq. yd.  There was  no  acceptance  thereof.  However,  they referred the  matter to the Collector for acquisition. Under those circumstances, it remained to be at the stage of offer without any  acceptance. It  cannot be  said that there is a concluded agreement between the requisitioning authority and the appellant  to purchase  the lands  @ Rs.4/-  per sq. yd. With regard  to the  three sale deeds, it is true that there is some  typographical error  in item  2 with  regard to the assessment of  the price  fetched therein. But one important factor that  cannot, under  any stretch  of imagination,  be lost right  of, is  that all  the lands  including the  land covered under  item 2  are situated  in green belt area. The land in  item 2  is of an extent of 260 x 85 sq. ft. and the consideration referred  to therein  was Rs.11,500/-. Even at the time  of acquisition,  as per  the report  of  the  Land Acquisition Officer  in the award, there was no development, though the  lands are situated within the master plan of the municipal limits.  Yet the lands remained to be agricultural lands. It  is true that sanction was obtained for converting the lands  into non-agricultural  lands. It would be obvious that having  become aware  of the  proposal for acquisition, the permission  for conversion was obtained by the appellant with a  view to inflate the market value. All the sale deeds relate to  small extents  of agricultural lands purchased on square feet  basis. They  would offer no reasonable basis to further enhance  the compensation though they fetched higher market  value   worked  out  at  Rs.33,000/-  per  acre.  No reasonable and  prudent purchaser  would offer  to  purchase this vast  extent of  land at  that rate.  Except  obtaining sanction for  conversion no  further action  to develop  the lands was taken.      Considered from  these angles the High Court having had the advantage of considering the entire evidence, determined the compensation  at Rs.7,000/-  per acre.  We do  not think that  we   would  be   justified  to   further  enhance  the compensation. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.