Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. Indeed, it is true that every case must be dealt with on its own facts bearing in mind that all factors are relevant to be understood by a prudent purchaser of land and the judge while determining the compensation must keep those factors in mind. In the said context, Exhibit 53 sale deed was executed in favour of Danjibhai Samji Patel, Kantibhai Veljibhai Patel and Manibhai Veljibhai Patel for plot no. 33 of Survey No. 954 admeasuring 59.29 square metre situated in Navjivan Cooperative Housing Society. The purchaser Kantibhai was brought in witness box and his statement is Exhibit – 52, wherein he has categorically deposed that, he and his brothers purchased the plot from the Society. In rebuttal, a bald statement to say sale deed is not genuine, was not enough to not accept the same for a [2025] 3 S.C.R. Hiralal Motilal Parikh (Deceased Through Lrs) v. Spl. LAQ Officer & Anr. reason that the purchaser of the land was not motivated to pay the higher price for execution of the said sale deed because it was in colony developed by Society. The land of sale deed is proximate to the land acquired. In this view, relying upon the principles enunciated in Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) and Mehtra Ravindrarai (supra), we are constrained to accept the document Exhibit – 53 as exemplar. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that Collector of the District himself allotted the land of Survey No. 864 in the name of Harishchandra Hiralal Dalwadi at the rate of Rs. 65/- per square metre prior to acquisition, meaning thereby, the government wanted to fetch higher amount by allotting land to an individual. In such scenario, computation of compensation by Reference Court and High Court at a lower rate for the land acquired cannot be accepted. As such, said exemplar is also relevant to determine the fair and reasonable amount of compensation.
12. So far as contention of potentiality of the land qua compensation is concerned, the statement of Shripat Dattatreya (departmental witness) is relevant, whereby it is admitted by him that railway station and the bus station are one kilometer away from the place of acquisition, therefore, potentiality of the land cannot be doubted.
13. We have perused the reasonings given by Reference Court on Issue No. 1, wherein the details of Exhibit 53 have been specifically mentioned in paragraph 8 to 10 indicating that the said land is adjoining to the subject land acquired by the respondent. It is true that the Court has not given findings in this regard, but without disputing the contentions as advanced by the counsel for the appellant, compensation has been determined at the rate of Rs. 45/- per square metre. During hearing before us, it has not been objected by the respondent that the subject land and the land indicated in exemplar Exhibit 53 are not adjoining, therefore, we accept the fact that the land acquired, and the land of exemplar Exhibit 53 are adjoining.
14. Proceeding further, since the land acquired is a non-agricultural land and its acquisition is for use and occupation by Housing Board for residential/housing/construction purpose, therefore, it is imperative for the Housing Board to have development of the land. Thus, for the purpose of development, some part of the subject land is required to be left. As we are accepting the exemplar of a piece of land situated in a colony developed by Navjivan Cooperative Society, therefore, at least 30% of the acquired land is required to be left by the Housing 1530 Board for the development out of the subject land. In the said event, if we accept the value of Exhibit 53 – sale deed, which is a piece of plot, after leaving the land for development, in the said contingency, on deduction of 30% as the development cost, the compensation would come at the rate of Rs. 107/- per square metre, as rightly discussed by the Reference Court in paragraph 14.
15. As already noted above, even prior to the notification, the land was allotted by the Collector at the rate of Rs. 65/- per square metre [Exhibit 44]. Thus, even if we take mean of the documents Exhibit 44 and Exhibit 53 [i.e., (65 + 152.37) / 2] which comes to Rs. 108.68/- per square metre. The said value is also nearer to the value as determined in the above paragraphs i.e., Rs. 107 per square metre.
16. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and considering the entirety of facts, the compensation as determined by the High Court at the rate of Rs. 53/- per square metre is on the lower side. In lieu of acceptance of exemplar Exhibit 53 at the rate of Rs. 53/- and mean of exemplars Exhibits 44 and 55 comes to Rs. 108.68/- per square metre. Therefore, we direct that the compensation of the land be determined accepting value at the rate of Rs. 107/- per square metre and the question as posed is answered. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed in part.
17. The other benefits regarding solatium, severance charges, per annum interest from the date of publication of the notification, till the date of award/date of taking possession along with interest as specified in the order passed by the Reference Court shall also commensurately be allowed.
18. The respondents are directed to calculate the compensation and paid to appellants within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey