Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn. and Others

M. R. SHAH, J. 1. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of appeals from the same land acquisition proceedings, all thes e appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All these appeals arise from the land acquisition proceedi ngs undertaken by the State Government for the Maharashtra Indus trial Development Corporation (MIDC) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Acquiring Body’), for extension of industrial estate in village Bhoyar, Taluka and District Yavatmal. The State Government issued a notification on 09.03.1995 under Section 32(2) of the Maharashtr a Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as t he ‘Act’) for acquisition of the lands in question pertaining to village Bhoyar. By the said notification, several extents of land located in various survey numbers 153 spread out in the village of Bhoyar, belonging to the original claimants, were acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the awards and determined the quantum of compensation payable to the origi nal claimants, particulars of which are given hereinbelow. The original claimants preferred reference applications under Section 34 of the Act, read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Reference Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation. Against the com mon judgment and award passed by the Reference Court both, the orig inal claimants as well as the acquiring body preferred appeals before the High Court. The original claimants preferred the appeals for enhancement of compensation. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has disposed of all the appeals and cross objections and has partly allowed the appeals preferred by the acquiring body and has reduced the amount of compensation determined and awarded by the Reference Court as under. Hence, the original claimants have preferred the present appeals. 3. The factual aspects in case of each claimant and the appeal/s are as under: Civil Appeal No. 2732/2022 @ SLP (C) No. 23250/2018 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in First Appeal No. 133/2007. Land admeasuring 4.91 Hectares in Survey No. 31/2 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award dated 27.11.1997 and determined the compensation at Rs.50,000/- per Hect are for 4.23 Hectares of cultivable land and Rs.1,500/- per Hectare for 0.68 hectare of uncultivable land. Rs.24,400/- was awarded for the well . At the instance of the claimants, a reference was made to the Reference Court, which was numbered as L.A.C. No. 213/1999. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,75,000/- per hectare. The acquiring body – MIDC preferred the appeal before the High Court, be ing First Appeal No. 133/2007. Relying upon and considering the sale deed produced at Ex. 41 dated 18.09.1992 with respect to the land bearing Survey No. 20/2 in village Bhoyar itself and considering the potentiality of the acquired land and considering the time gap between t he said notification dated 18.09.1992 and the present notification dated 9.3.1995 and considering the time gap of approximately three years, adding 10% towards the price rise/escalation and adding further 15% towards the RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.] potentiality and the location of the acquired land, the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has determined the compensation a t Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. Hence, the original claimant has preferre d the present appeal. Civil Appeal Nos. 2746-2747/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.6309- 6310/2022 @ D.No. 8900/2021 Land admeasuring 2.43 Hectares in Survey No. 33/2 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award and determined the compensation at Rs.1,500/- per hectare. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/ - per hectare. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has determined the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. Hence , the original claimants have preferred the present appeals. Civil Appeal No. 2745/2022 @ SLP(C) No. 6308/2022 @ D.No.36320/2019 Land admeasuring 1.62 hectares in Survey No. 32/1 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The Referenc e Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.3,75,000/- per hectare, relying upon the sale deed of the adjacent village Lohara . The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has reduced the amount of compensation and determined and awarded the compens ation at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare, relying upon the sale deed at Ex. 41 dat ed 18.09.1992 with respect to the land situated in village Bhoyar and t he claimant has preferred the present appeal. Civil Appeal No. 2744/2022 @ SLP(Civil) No. 1793/2019 Land admeasuring 4.47 hectares in Survey No. 33/4 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award and determined the compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The Reference Court determined and awarded the compensation at Rs.17/- per sq. ft., relying upon the sale deed produced at Ex. 31 dated 28.11.1994 of village Lohara. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court in First Appeal No. 56/2006 filed by the acquiring body has determined and awarded the amount of compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. Hence, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 155 Civil Appeal Nos. 2733-2734/2022 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.24890-24891/2018 Land admeasuring 7.75 hectares in Survey No. 17 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determine d and awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for 7.24 hectares of cultivable land and Rs. 1500/- per hectare for 0.51 hectare of uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. By the impugned judgment and order, the H igh Court has determined and awarded the compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- for cultivable land and Rs.75,000/- for uncultivable land. Hence, the original claimants have preferred the present appeals. Civil Appeal Nos.2737-2738 of 2022 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.26245-26246/2018 Land admeasuring 4.05 hectares in Survey No. 4/3 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded the compensation at Rs.55,000/- per hectare for cultivable land of 3.75 hectares and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.30 hec tare of uncultivable land. The reference Court enhanced the compensati on to Rs. 2,40,000/- per hectare for the entire land. Both, the land owners as well as the acquiring body preferred the first appeals b efore the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and conse quently dismissed the appeal preferred by the land owners determini ng the awarding of compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. Hence , the original claimants have preferred the present appeals. Civil Appeal Nos.2740-2741/2022 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.27140- 27141/2018 Land admeasuring 3.40 hectares in Survey No. 2/1 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired by the same notification . The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 62,529/- per hectare for 2.75 hectares of cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0. 65 hectare of uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare for cultiv able land and Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Both, the land owners as well as the acquiring body preferred appeals before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.] allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and conse quently dismissed the appeal preferred by the land owners determi ning and awarding the compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Hence, the original claimants have preferred the present appeals. Civil Appeal No. 2739/2022 @ SLP(Civil) No. 26249/2018 Land admeasuring 8.46 hectares in Survey No. 10/3 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired by the same notification . The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hecta re for 7.29 hectares of cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 1.17 hectares of uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. The original claima nts preferred appeal before the High Court for enhancem ent of compensation. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has maintained the amount of compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs. 90,000/- p er hectare for uncultivable land, as awarded by the Reference Court. Hence, the present appeal by the land owners. Civil Appeal Nos. 2735-2736/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.24909- 24910/2018 Land admeasuring 2.20 hectares in Survey No. 2/2 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer awar ded the compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The Refe rence Court enhanced the amount of compensation at Rs. 2,40,000/- per hectare . Both, the original claimants as well as the acquiring body preferred appeals before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and has dismissed the appeal preferred by the original cl aimants determining and awarding compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectar e. Hence, the present appeals by the original claimants. Civil Appeal Nos.2742-2743/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.27888- 27889/2018 Land admeasuring 2.02 hectares in Survey No. 17 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determine d and awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for 1.92 hectares of cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.10 hectares of uncultivable 157 land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Both, the acquiring body and the original claimants preferred appeals before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and consequently has dismissed t he appeal preferred by the original claimants by determining and awar ding the amount of compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.75,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Hence, the p resent appeals at the instance of the original claimants. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants – original claimants have made the following submissions in support of their case to enhance the amount of compensation: i) that the present acquisition is under a Special Act, i.e ., the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961, whose object and purpose is to establish an Industrial Development Corporation. It is therefore submitted that the land acquired is to be used for commercial purpose; ii) that the contiguous land of three adjoining villages, vis-à- vis, Bhoyar, Pangri and Lohara were acquired by a common notification dated 9.3.1995 for extension of industrial area of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, which is a purely commercial/industrial purpose. The aforesaid purpose of acquisition goes to the root of the matter and should have been a guiding/deciding factor in determining compensation under the beneficial legislation such as Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that the said overwhelming factor has been completely overlooked by the High Court; iii) that the land in question is acquired for comme rcial/ industrial purpose bears sufficient testimony to its non- agricultural potentiality and commercial value. It is submitted that the entire land in question is going to be soldas commercial plots to the prospective industries at a commercial rate, is a factor which is completely igno red by the High Court. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 (para 5) ; RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.] iv) that the High Court has committed an error in me rely relying upon the sale deed at Ex. 41 in determining the market value. It is submitted that the sale deed at Ex. 41 solely could not have been relied upon by the High Court for the following reasons: (a) That the sale deed at Ex. 41 is in respect of purely agricultural land whereas the acquisition in the instant case is purely for commercial/industrial purpose; (b) That judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds are always undervalued to save the stamp duty and registration charges; (c) That the sale deed at Ex. 41 is almost three years prior to the present acquisition and does not reflect the commercial/industrial market value of the land and is certainly not the sale consideration for which a willing seller would part his property which is a commercial/industrial value. v) that the land owners of village Lohara were awarde d compensation at Rs. 3,75,000/- per hectare. As by way of common notification, the contiguous land of three villages without any boundaries, i.e., Bhoyar, Pangri and Lohara were acquired for a common purpose, i.e., for extension of industrial area, the High Court has committed a grave error in determining and awarding a meagre compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare. It is submitted that the approach of the High Court in classifying the land into different categories is clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) By Lrs. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595 (para 22); vi) that the landowners in question whose land is acquired for common purpose by common notification should be uniformly compensated at the same rate and should not be discriminated. Reliance is placed on the decision of thi s Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma (D) By Lrs., (1998) 2 SCC 385 (para 7) . 159 vii) that the land in question is having a non-agricu ltural potentiality which can be judged considering the fact that it was at a distance of 6-7 kilometers from the district plac e of Yavatmal; it is adjacent to the wall of the MIDC area ; rate at the relevant point of time for non-agricultural land was around Rs. 20-25/- per sq. ft.; and it is perennially irrigated land. viii) it is further submitted by the learned counsel appear ing on behalf of the original claimants that in case of some of the claimants, the lands were situated just adjacent to village Lohara. It is therefore submitted that the original claimants shall be entitled to the compensation for the land acquired at par with the landowners of village Lohara and/or considering the sale deeds produced on record with respect to the lands situated in village Lohara. 5. Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals. 6. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MIDC as well as the State, by submitting as under: i) that the High Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment after considering the facts of each case and considering the principles of law laid down by this Court relating to computation of compensation for land acquisition. It is submitted that the claimants have not demonstrated any wrong application of a legal principle or overlooking of some important point/evidence affecting valuation by the High Court; ii) that the High Court has given cogent reasons for int erfering with the orders passed by the Reference Court granting exorbitant compensation to the landowners/original claimants. It is submitted that the High Court has noted the reasons given by the Reference Court and thereafter has given cogent reasons for reducing the amount of compensation in each case; iii) that the High Court has rightly relied upon the sale deed at Ex. 41 dated 18.09.1992 by which one of the original RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.] claimants – Satish Nimodiya had purchased the acquired agricultural land admeasuring 1.21 hectares in survey No. 20/2 in village Bhoyar at Rs. 1,21,000/- per hectare and then gave cumulative increase of 10% to arrive at the fair market value of the agricultural lands in 1995, which are the subject matter of acquisition. It is submitted that the High Court has also considered that acquired agricultural lands have non-agricultural potential and after ascertaining the location of the respective lands from the map of village Bhoyar, it has arrived at the fair market value of the lands and their non-agricultural potential in each case; iv) that the High Court has considered the settled l egal principle relating to computation of fair market value. It is submitted that the landowners – original claimants had relied upon the sale exemplars of small plots in village Lohara, where an industrial estate exists and the orders passed by the Reference Court in the present cases. It is urged th at ameticulous exercise has been made by the High Court and considering the same exemplar produced at Ex. 41, which was with respect to very village of Bhoyar has discarded the other evidence and has rightly determined the compensation by relying upon the sale exemplar produced at Ex. 41; v) that the acquired lands are agricultural lands. Considerable area would be used for developmental infrastructure and this would require huge developmental investment/expenses by MIDC. It is submitted that deduction of development charges was required to be done, which has not been done by the High Court; vi) it is submitted that the High Court has granted a c umulative increase of 10% increase per year after noting that the Reference court had granted 50% cumulative increase per year, which was just contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Pehlad Ram v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, (2014) 14 SCC 778 by which it is observed and held that the cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the land may be accepted. It is submitted that if the cumulative increase per 161 year is increased to 12% from 10%, compensation would have to be reduced considering development charges of 33%, which has not been done in the present case. There is also no evidence to show that there was increasing trend in the sale price of agricultural land in village Bhoya r to justify the increase from 10 to 12%. 6.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body as well as the State have relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras, (1975) 2 SCC 730 ; Shakuntalabai v. State of Maharashtrsa, (1996) 2 SC C 152; T.S. Ramachandra Shetty v. Chairman, Karnataka Housing B oard, (2009) 14 SCC 334, on the principle that the sale price of the acquired land is best evidence for determining its fair market value. 6.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body as well as the State have also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 42 4; Hookiyar Singh v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1 996) 3 SCC 766; and Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, on the principle that the purpose of acquisition/future use of acquired land cannot be considered for determination of compensation, and the decision of this Court in the case of Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136, on the principle that the land in adjacent village or e ven the same village may not possess the same quality and therefore cannot command common market price. 6.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body as well as the State have also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of General Manager, ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Pehlad Ram (supra); and Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2018) 13 SCC 96 , on the cumulative increase which would vary from 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the land. 6.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective par ties at length. The High Court by the impugned common judgment and order has awarded different amounts of compensation for diffe rent lands RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.] situated at different locations, but with respect to the same village Bhoyar, the particulars of which are collated in the form of a chart as under: Chart 1. Land acquired is in village Bhoyar, District Yavatmal, Maharashtra. Acquired for extension of Industrial Estate at adjoining village Lohara. 2. Notification u/s 1(3) r/w 31 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 = 30.11.1994 3. Notification u/s 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industr ial Development Act, 1961, initiating L.A. proceedings = 09.03.1995 163 At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the Reference Court and even the High Court, the original claimants relied upon Ex. 41, 42, 43 and 44 and other sale deeds/sale instances with respect to the land of village Lohara. However, the sale deeds with respect to the lands of village Lohara were either of the period subsequent to the land acquired in the present case and/or the same were with respect to s mall areas of land. The High Court has discarded the same with which we agree. 8. It is also required to be noted that in some of the cases, the Reference Court, relying upon the sale deed at Ex. 31, adde d 50% cumulative increase and awarded compensation, which has been modified by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order raising 10% price rise/escalation. 9. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has mainly relied upon Ex. 41, the sale deed with respect to the land bearing Survey No. 20/2 of the very village Bhoyar dated 18.09.1992, by which one of the claimants – Satish Nimodiya purchased the said land at Rs. 91,736/ p per hectare. The High Court has rounded off the same to Rs.1,00,000/ - per hectare. Therefore, the High Court has considered the value of the land in 1992 at Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. Considering three years gap between the sale exemplar dated 18.09.1992 (Ex. 41) an d the land acquired in the present case, the High Court has added 10% inc rease cumulatively for three years and has determined the fair mar ket value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare. T hat thereafter, considering the fact that the lands acquired have non-a gricultural potentiality and are situated nearer to the industrial area, the High Court has further added 15% and has determined and awarde d the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare for cultivable land. In some of the cases, the same is reduced to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare or reduced to Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare (Civil Appeal Nos. 2733- 2734/2022), by considering the location of the lands acquired. 10. Looking to the fact that the sale deed produced at Ex. 41 with respect to the land bearing Survey No. 20/2 was with respec t to the very village Bhoyar which was the only sale exemplar of the same village and other sale exemplars/sale deeds were with respect to another village Lohara and also with respect to small pieces of land, we are of the considered view that the High Court has rightly relied upon and considered the sale exemplar at Ex. 41 while determining the compensation in the present cases with respect to the lands of very village Bhoyar. RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.] However, at the same time, bearing in mind the decision of this Court in the case of Pehlad Ram (supra) , by which this Court has observed and held that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the land may be accepted, in th e facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that inste ad of 10% cumulative increase as adopted by the High Court, if 12% cumulative increase would have been adopted, it would have been just and proper and in the fitness of things. 11. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the claimants that the lands in question were acquired for the industrial corp oration and were to be used for the industries/commercial purpose and accordingly the compensation should have been paid is concerned, what is required to be considered is that the lands in question were agricultura l lands. Even for the purpose of industrial use and/or industries, the corporation is required to incur the expenditure towards its development and therefore the development charges would have to be deducted while determining the compensation. However, in the present case, the development charges are not deducted. Even otherwise, the future use of the acquired la nd cannot be the main criteria to determine the compensation for the lands acquired. 12. In the case of Hookiyar Singh (supra) , it is observed and held that while determining the compensation, the future use of the land is not the relevant consideration. 12.1 In the case of Subh Ram (supra) , it is observed and held that the purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor. H owever, the said observation may not apply in all cases and all circumstances as the general rule is that the landowner is being compensated for what he has lost and not with reference to the purpose of acquisition. It is further observed and held that the purpose of acquisition can never be a factor to increase the market value of the acquired land. 13. Now, so far as the compensation determined differently for different lands acquired with respect to the same village Bhoyar, ranging from Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare to Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare is concerned, different market value/compensation can be determined for di fferent lands located differently in the same village or locali ty. In the case of Tarlochan Singh (supra) , it is observed and held that it is common knowledge that all the lands in the same village may not pos sess the same quality and command a common market price. 165 13.1 In the case of Basant Kumar (supra) , it is observed and held that even in the same village, no two lands command same market value. The lands abutting the main road or national highway would command a higher market value and as the location of the land is interior, the market value of such land would be lesser despite the quality of land being similar to the land on the main road or highway. 13.2 In the case of Kanwar Singh (supra) , it is observed and held that generally there would be difference in the potentiality of lands situated in two different villages. 14. In the present case, as such, there is already a sale exempla r at Ex. 41 with respect to very village Bhoyar which as observed hereinabove can be said to be the best exemplar while determining the compensation with respect to the lands acquired of the sam e village Bhoyar. The High Court has rightly relied upon and considered the sale deed at Ex. 41 being land survey no. 20/2 and determined the mar ket value at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare in the year 1992 and has rightly determined the compensation relying upon the sale exemplar produced at Ex. 41. However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove, instead of 10% cumulative increase, the High Court ought to have added 1 2% increase cumulatively for about three years. To that extent, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be modified and the appeals preferred by the original claimants are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Thus, the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 1,40,492/- per hectare and after rounding off, it will become Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. Further adding 50% towards the non-agricultural potentiality, the fair market value for det ermining the compensation would be Rs. 2,25,000/- per hectare in the cases where the High Court has determined and awarded the compensation at R s. 2,00,000/- per hectare. There shall be corresponding reduction in the compensation with respect to other lands as made by the H igh Court looking to the location of the lands. Thus, wherever the High Court has determined the compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare, it will come to Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare and wherever the High Court has determined the compensation at Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare, it will come to Rs. 1,75,000/- per hectare. The appeals preferred by the claimants are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.] 15. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stat ed above, all these appeals are partly allowed. The respective appellants – original claimants are entitled to the compensation as under , with all statutory benefits, which may be available to them under the Act. 167 However, so far as Civil Appeal Nos. 2746-2747/2022 and Civil Appeal No. 2745/2022 are concerned, as there was a delay of 613 and 438 days respectively in preferring the appeals, it is directed that the claimants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced a mount of compensation for the aforesaid delayed period. 16. All these appeals stand partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Devika Gujral and Amarendra Kumar Appeals partly all owed. (Assisted by : Iram Jan, LCRA) RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.]