Jurisdiction and Compensation Assessment in Land Acquisition Cases: Key Takeaways from S. N. Desai Hospitalities & Developers LLP v. Deputy Collector

Case Header

• Case / Party Name: S. N. Desai Hospitalities & Developers LLP, Mumbai v. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) No.7, Mumbai and another
• Court Name: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
• Case Number(s): First Appeal No. 268 of 2021 & First Appeal No. 541 of 2021
• Citation: Not available
• Coram / Judges: Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ
• Judgment Authored By: Manish Pitale, J.
• Date of Decision: 15 October 2026
• Nature of Proceedings: Civil Appeal
• Counsel Appearances: Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, a/w. team for MCGM; Mr. C. M. Korde, Senior Advocate, a/w. team for claimant; Mr. Dinesh J. Haldankar, AGP for the State.
• Outcome: Appeals partly allowed; impugned award modified.
• Headnote

Key Proposition: The LARR Authority has jurisdiction to decide compensation references under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, superseding prior procedures established under the LA Act.

Catchwords:

• Land Acquisition – Jurisdiction – Question of maintainability of reference – Held, maintainable. (Para 70)
• Compensation – Assessment methods – Application of Section 26(1)(a) (Ready Reckoner Method) vs. Section 26(1)(b) (Sale Instances Method) – Determined. (Para 85) 
• Deductions – Eligibility for TDR and fungible FSI – Evaluated. (Para 95)

Headnote: The case involved disputes over the jurisdiction of the LARR Authority and the method for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court upheld the LARR Authority's jurisdiction and ruled on the appropriate compensation methods, modifying the award to reflect these decisions accurately (Paras 70, 85).

Background / Synopsis

• The appeals arise from a compensation award for land acquired under the MRTP Act.
• The original award was challenged by both the claimant and MCGM.
• The impugned award enhanced compensation based on the LARR Authority's assessment.
• Key disputes included the applicability of Section 64 of the Act of 2013 and the method for determining market value.

Issues For Consideration

• Is the impugned award passed by the LARR Authority a nullity due to jurisdiction issues?
• Was the reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 maintainable?
• How should the market value of the subject land be assessed under the Act of 2013?
• Was the application of the residual land value technique appropriate?
• Was the enhancement of the quantum of compensation justified?
• Should the impugned award be interfered with?
• What is the quantum of compensation payable as per law?

Submissions Of Parties

Petitioner / Appellant:
Contended the LARR Authority had jurisdiction and the use of alternative assessment methods was valid.
Argued for substantial enhancements based on ready reckoner and sale instances.
Respondent / State:
Asserted the impugned award was without jurisdiction.
Challenged the validity of the compensation methods used

Court's Observations & Analysis
Re: Issue (i) – Jurisdiction of LARR Authority
Established that the LARR Authority had jurisdiction under the Act of 2013. No prejudice was caused by the change of forum.
Held: The award was valid (Para 70).

Re: Issue (ii) – Maintainability of reference
Affirmed the maintainability of the reference under Section 64 due to procedural changes post-2013.
Held: The reference was maintainable (Para 70).

Re: Issue (iii) – Assessment of market value
Determined compensation should be based on the ready reckoner method under Section 26(1)(a), not solely on sale instances, particularly due to the lack of sufficient data.
Held: The use of ready reckoner was justified (Para 85).

Re: Issue (iv) – Residual land value technique
Found the method improperly applied without adequate comparative land sale instances.
Held: Residual land value technique not applicable (Para 85).
Notable Observations: "The substance of the right to a remedy like a reference in such cases is the vested right, but the party seeking such a remedy does not have a vested right of choice of forum." (Para 57)

Decision & Directions

• Final compensation for the claimant set at ₹ 1,061,92,48,897.23 after adjustments for amounts already paid and interest.
• MCGM required to complete payment within 12 weeks.
• The original award by the Collector modified based on findings in this judgment.

Legal Provisions Discussed

• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Sections 24, 26, 30 and 69
• Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 126

Precedents Cited

• Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Rajeev L. Sangtani and others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1492 – Followed
• Girnar Traders (3) Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 3 SCC 1 – Followed