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

PETITIONER: THE PRESIDENT, A.P.M.C. TALUKA DARWHA,DISTRICT YAVATMAL, MAH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANIKANT & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel on both sides.      Notification  under   Section  4   [1]  of   the   Land Acquisition act  1894 [for  short, the  "Act"] was published initially on January 8, 1970 acquiring an extent of nearly 3 acres and  odd of  land; part  of the  same was withdrawn by notification under  Section 48  [I],  Subsequently,  another notification was  issued on  September 6,  1993 acquiring  a part. of  the land which was withdrawn by notification under Section 48 [1]. Ultimalely, the land acquired now remains is 3 acres 33 gunthas. The Land, Acquisition Officer determined the market  value @  Re.0.36 per sq. foot. On reference, the Civil Judge  enhanced the  market value  to Re.1/-  per  sq. foot.   The appellants have not carried the matter in appeal to the  High Court  against the market value enhanced by the reference Court.   On  further appeal  by the claimants, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1.30 per sq. foot for the  land  covered  under  the  second  notification  by impugned judgment  dated July  30/31, 1992  made  in  Appeal No.241/88, Thus this appeal by special leave.      The Land Acquisition Officer in his award has described the typography and potentiality of the land thus:      "The land  under acquisition  falls      within  the   municipal  limit   of      Digras. Digras is a pressures [sic]      and commercial  town. Previously it      was a  renowned cotton market. This      land  falls      on   Digras-Manora      District Major  road.   It is  also      adjoining to  Darwha-Pusad    road,      The   market   yard,   godown   and      offices  of  A.P.M.C.  Digras,  are      just  adjoining to the Abadi of the      town. A   anew  locality of Shastry      Nagar is  on the   Western  side of      this land.   Now   constructions of      the buildings  are in   progress in      the vicinity of this land.  This is

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

    a  plan   and  table   land.    The      Ginning    Factory     of    Digras      cooperative     Society   is   also      adjoining  to   this  land.     The      existing  cotton   market  is  just      adjoining to  this land.  The shade      of     the  Grain  market  is  also      adjoining  to    this  land.    The      construction of  residential houses      of D.Y.K.   S.  Cooperative Society      are also  constructed   on  eastern      side of  this land. Since the  plot      No.sheet  no.  is  given  in  Nazul      record to  this land it was already      converted  into   non  Agricultural      purposes. So  this  land  had  non-      agricultural potentiality  in  view      of the  above description."      That was affirmed by the reference Court. The claimants relied upon  the sale deeds, Exs. 43,40 and 61. Ex. 43, sale deed executed  on January 8, 1970 relates to 4 acres of land sold at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per acre.  It was on the same date of  publication of  the notification.  Ex.40 relates to sale transaction  of 1  acre of land dated December 6, 1970, one year  thereafter sold  for Rs.15,000/-.  Ex. 61 is dated August 27, 1971 under which 3 acres gunthas of land was sold for Rs.61,501/-  which worked out to the rate of Rs.16,000/- and odd  per acre.  Therefore,  the  courts  below  wee  not justified in  enhancing the  compensation @  Re.1/- Per  sq. foot and Rs.1,30 and Rs.1.70 sq, foot as determined therein.      It is now well settled legal position that when a large extent of  land was acquired for established of market yard, no willing  purchaser would be prepared to purchase the land on square Foot basis. Therefore, the very principle on which the courts below had proceeded to determine the compensation is  vitiated   by  obvious  error  of  law.    However,  the appellants did  not challenge  the award  of  the  reference Court which had become final as against them. Therefore, any inference even  by this  Court would  not be beyond what was determined by the reference Court though done wrongly on the square foot  basis. The  High Court, therefore, was in error in enhancing  the compensation to Rs,1.30 per square foot in relation to  the First  notification and  Rs.1,70 per square foot in relation to the second notification.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree of  the High  Court stand  set aside  and that of the reference Court stands restored as having attained finality. No costs.