Delve into the legal intricacies of a recent land compensation dispute where the court’s analysis regarding the valuation of acquired non-agricultural land came under scrutiny. The case involved a meticulous examination of factors such as proximity to developed areas and amenities in determining the market value of the land. Stay tuned for a detailed exploration of the court’s reasoning and its impact on the outcome of the case.
Facts
- The landowners appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
- The High Court had assessed the compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 56,500 per hectare.
- The order of the Reference Court, which had increased the compensation to Rs. 1,95,853 per hectare, was set aside in the present appeal.
- The land admeasuring 2.42 hectares was intended to be acquired for resettlement from Lower Wardha submergence project.
- Compensation at the rate of Rs.56,500/- was granted on 31.07.2000 by Special Land Acquisition Officer.
- Reference Court found per hectare market value to be Rs.1,95,853.55/- for the land in sale deed Exh.33.
- Landowners claimed proximity to populated area of Deoli town with various amenities.
- Acquired landowners mentioned nearness to land in sale deed Exh.33 reserved for non-agricultural use.
- Architect mentioned acquired land is around ½ km from a highway, refuting a suggestion of 5 to 7 km distance.
- Sale exemplars Exh.31, Exh.32, and Exh.33 were considered; Exh.34 and Exh.35 excluded for being post-acquisition notifications.
- Reference Court set base value at Rs.130.73 per sq. mtr. noting the land’s adjacency to road in contrast to map details.
- Sale deed Exh.33 executed by Nagar Parishad, Deoli post a public auction.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment on Compensation for Fatal Accident
Arguments
- The appellant prayed for restoration of the order passed by the Reference Court.
- The sale exemplars Exh.31 and Exh.32 are of agricultural land, not comparable to the acquired non-agricultural land for residential and commercial purposes.
- The learned Reference Court deducted 90% from the best sale instance near the acquired land, which was unjustified according to the appellant.
- The respondent argued that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was interfered with illegally by the High Court due to the difference in agricultural versus non-agricultural land.
- The respondent’s witness did not provide specific details regarding the location or proximity of the land to key facilities like Educational Institutions, Banks, Tahsil Office, Hospitals, and Courts.
- The appellant contended that the High Court’s decision to interfere with the Reference Court’s order was not sustainable given the nature and purpose of the acquired land.
- The High Court set aside the compensation based on a sale exemplar of 151 square meters.
- The sale exemplar was deemed to represent a small area and was not a fair reflection of the actual compensation owed.
Also Read: Land Acquisition Compensation Analysis
Analysis
- The acquired land is close to developed residential, commercial, or institutional areas.
- Exh.31 and Exh.32 are not comparable to the acquired land.
- Evidence shows the acquired land’s proximity to educational institutions, banks, and a Tahsil office.
- No evidence suggests that the irrigated agricultural land can be used for residential or commercial purposes.
- Market value should consider various factors including proximity to developed areas and roads.
- Land acquired is half a kilometer away from the road.
- The High Court erred in setting aside the market value determination by the Reference Court.
- The High Court’s reasoning is fallacious and not sustainable.
- The High Court made an error in law by comparing irrigated agricultural land to unirrigated land for determining market value.
- The proximity of the land in question to developed areas should be considered in determining its market value.
Also Read: Judicial Review of Search and Seizure Authorization
Decision
- Appeals allowed
- High Court order set aside
- Order of Reference Court restored
Case Title: MADHUKAR Vs. VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (2022 INSC 120)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000368-000369 / 2022
