Acquisition of land in Akola District, Maharashtra, under the MRTP Act. The core issues revolve around the classification of land as 'Blue Zone' and the appropriate compensation for acquired land. Key findings include the absence of official documentation marking the land as 'Blue Zone,' the potential for non-agricultural use, and the determination of fair market value for compensation.

1. Background and MRTP Act Requirements

Flood Lines Marking and Development Plan Incorporation:

• The Irrigation Department is responsible for marking flood lines, which should be included in the Development Plan by the Town Planning Department.

2. Regional and Development Plans

Sanctioned Regional and Development Plans:

• The Regional Plan for Akola District was sanctioned on 15.05.1976, and the Development Plan for Akola City was sanctioned on 16.12.1986.
• Neither plan included a 'Blue Zone' demarcation for river Morna.
• The Town Planning Department did not have maps depicting the 'Blue Zone' and had not received instructions to mark it.

3. Respondent's Claims and Legal Implications

Legality and Reliability of 'Blue Zone' Classification:

• Maps marking the 'Blue Zone' were not part of official plans and were used internally by the Irrigation Department.
• The Assistant Director of Town Planning's affidavit raises doubts about the 'Blue Zone' classification used to argue against higher compensation.

4. Appellant's Evidence and Claims

Potential for Non-Agricultural Use:

• The appellant provided substantial evidence showing development potential and surrounding land use conversions.
• Sale exemplars indicating higher land values support the appellant's claims.

5. Market Value Determination

Land Valuation:

• Considering the potential for development, the fair market value was determined to be Rs. 100 per sq. ft.
• Compensation should include all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

6. High Court and Supreme Court Findings

Judgment and Compensation Adjustment:

• The High Court's decision was partly set aside, and the Reference Court's judgment was restored.
• The Supreme Court awarded compensation at Rs. 100 per sq. ft. for specific land areas, considering surrounding developments and potential.

7. Specific Case Details and Exemplars

Case Analysis and Compensation Awards:

• Different cases were reviewed, discussing compensation rates based on land location and potential.
• The Supreme Court emphasized fair compensation balancing developmental needs and individual rights.

8. Conclusion and Judicial Role

Ensuring Fair and Just Compensation:

• Judgments reflect the judiciary's role in ensuring fair compensation for land acquisition.
• The process balances state development needs with individual rights.