311012FA54.90.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.54 OF 1990
APELLANT:
1] The Collector, Yavatmal
2] The Sub Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Oficer,
Darwha, District : Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Haji Daudbhai s/o Haji Suleman, aged about 60 years, occ :
cultivator -Lrs of respondent no.1
1-A] Khatijabai Daudbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni Ward No.1 District :
Yavatmal [appeal against R-1-A abated by order 19.7.2011]
1-B] Gani Daudbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni Ward no.4, District :
Yavatmal
1-C] A.Sattar Daudbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni Ward No.1, Dist.
Yavatmal
1-D] Nurmahamand Daudbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni Ward No.1, Dist.
Yavatmal
1-E] Rahuf Daudbhai Fajlani, r/o Near Gosiya Masjid, Dist.
Yavatmal
1-F] Ajis Daudbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni, Ward No.1, Dist. Yavatmal
1-G] Mustafa Daudbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni Ward No.1, Dist.
Yavatmal
1-H] Raheman Daudbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni, ward No.1, Dist.
Yavatmal
1-I] Rafique Daudbhai Fajlani, r/o Gunj Tq. Mahagaon, Dist.
Yavatmal
1-J] Jabbar Daudbhai Fajlani, r/o War No.1, Dist.
1-K] Jubedabai J.M. Shafi Machchiwala, in front of Li. Building
Imarat No.12, Haj House, Mumbai
1-L] Kulsambai J.A. Gafur, r/o Arni Ward No.5, Dist. Yavatmal
1-M] Hamidabai Mohmad Harun, r/o Bhandgaon, Tq. Darwha,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:51 :::
311012FA54.90.odt
2
dist. Yavatmal
1-N] Samimbai M. Yunusbhai Nidani, r/o Kairy Bajar, Near High
Tower, Surendranagar, Gujrath.
2] Haji Adubhai s/o Haji Suleman, aged about 55 years, occ :
cultivator
3] Usmanbhai s/o Haji Suleman, aged about 50 years, occ :
cultivator
Lrs of Respondent No.3 are as under:
3-A] Khatijabai Usmanbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni, Ward No.5,
District : Yavatmal
3-B] Rajjaq Usmanbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni, Ward No.5, District :
Yavatmal
3-C] Ahmadbhai Usmanbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni, Ward No.3,
District : Yavatmal
3-D] A. Karim Usmanbhai Fajlani, r/o Gandhi Chowk, Adilabad
(Andhrapradesh)
3-E] Aminabai Ha. A. Kadar, r/o Arni, Shastrinagar, District ;
Yavatmal
3-F] M. Harun Usmanbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni, Gandhinagar,
District : Yavatmal
3-G] M. Siddhiq Usmanbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni, Ward No.5.
3-H] M. Idris Usmanbhai Fajlani, r/o Arni, Ward No.5, District :
Yavatmal.
No.1 to 3 all residents of Arni, Taluq Digras, district :
Yavatmal
4] The General Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Wahatuk Bhawan, Bombay
5] The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T. Corporation Yavatmal
6] The Chairman, Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Wahatuk Bhawan, Bombay
===============================================
Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for appellants
None for the respondents
===============================================
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:51 :::
311012FA54.90.odt
3
CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.
DATE: 31/10/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.11.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No.58/1983 . 2] The land bearing survey no.4/2, area 1.9 H.R. out of the total area of 4.64 H.R. situated at town Arni, was compulsorily acquired at the instance of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation for constructing bus-stand. The residential structure and godown standing on the said land were also subject matter of the acquisition. For the land and the structure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.37,968.50. Against this award the reference was sought. The land owner relied upon various sale instances and also brought on record that the land is in close proximity to the town Arni. Considering the evidence brought on record, the learned Reference Court did not allow any enhancement for the structure -residential and godown, however, enhanced the market value of the land to @ Rs.2.00 per sq.ft. Aggrieved by this judgment and award, this appeal has been preferred. 3] Mr. Yengal, learned A.G.P. contended that the evidence placed on record is wholly insufficient to claim ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:51 ::: 311012FA54.90.odt 4 compensation @ Rs.2.00 per sq.ft. According to him onus which lay upon the claimants to prove the market value of the land has not been discharged.
4] None appeared for the respondent.
5] Point that arises for my consideration is :
A] Whether the award fixing the market value @ Rs.2.00
per sq.ft. calls for any interference in this appeal? 6] A good deal of evidence has been led to show that the acquired land has great non-agricultural potential mainly because of its close proximity to town Arni and also for the reason that it was surrounded by thickly populated residential localities. In paragraph 27 and 38 the learned Reference Court observed thus:
"27- It is important to note that admittedly Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation had acquired this piece of land for setting up a bus station depot and construction of staff quarters at Arni. A bus station is actually constructed by M.S.R.T.C. on this site, it is functioning at present. This purpose of the acquisition of the land in question clearly shows that the land was having non- agricultural potential as building site.
38- It will not be out of the place to note here that the acquired land was adjacent to Yavatmal to Arni road. It was having a large frontage facing to this road. Another Government road passes ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:51 ::: 311012FA54.90.odt 5 adjacent to the south side of the acquired land. Thus the acquired piece of 1H. 9 R. 39 M. of land was located in the corner of two government roads.
Yavatmal to Arni is a State Highway. It is most convenient for M.S.R.T.C. to make a stand for their buses on a place adjacent to the state high-way. They could have not does so if the place was in the thickly populated locality of Arni. Thus the acquiring body was having a special advantage in acquiring this particular site. Admittedly the acquired land was having a regular shaps. It was having a plan regular level. There were no depressed portion to be filled up before starting a construction on it. Thus the acquired land was having almost all the plus factors except one minus factor which was its largeness (referred Chimanlal Hargovinddas ..vs.. Spl. L.A.O., Poona - A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1652). Sumptuous compensation will have to be paid considering the plus factors of the acquired land."
7] Number of sale instances have been relied upon by the claimants. The learned Reference Court rightly assessed this piece of evidence which, finds place in paragraph 33 of the impugned ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:51 ::: 311012FA54.90.odt 6 judgment and reads thus :
"The sale transaction in ext. no.32 is dated 18.4.66. One open plot admeasuring 33 x 33 ft. i.e. 1089 sq.ft. was sold for consideration of Rs.1500/-. The rate of the land comes to Rs.13,774/-. The rate of the land comes to Rs.13,774/- per sq.ft. Another sale instances evidenced by ext. No.33 is dt. 2.2.71. In this sale again 33 x 33 ft i.e. 1089 sq.ft. of open plot was purchased by Motiram Banginwar for a consideration of Rs.2,500/-. The rate of land comes to Rs.2.2956ps. per sq.ft."
8] Even if the sale instances dated 24.11.1971 and 11.1.1972 are ignored, they being post notification instances, sale instance at exhibit 33 which is dated 2.2.1971 shows that plot area 33 x 33 was sold for consideration of Rs.2500/-. According to learned reference court price comes Rs.2.2 per sq.ft. Taking stock of all the evid ence, learned reference court observed in paragraph 40 thus:
"It will not be out of the place to note here that the sale instances filed by the petitioners - though all of them are not accepted as comparable sales
-show that there is a tremendous rise in the prices of the plots at Arni. In the year 1966, the rate was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:51 ::: 311012FA54.90.odt 7 around Rs.1.37 ps. per sq.ft. which had risen to Rs.12.69 ps. per sq.ft. in the year 1983. The sale instances definitely show a rising trend of the prices of open plots at Arni"
9] The learned Reference Court has rightly so considered necessity of deduction of 1/4th area which is required for the development as per building law. While awarding the total amount of compensation the Reference Court in paragraph 45 observed thus:
"The area of the acquired land is 1 H.9R.39 M.which works out to 1,17,746 sq.ft. 25 per cent of this area will come to 29,436.5 sq.ft. This 25 per cent area or 1/4th area of the total area will have to be deducted from the total area of 1,17,746 Sq.ft.
The effective area we get is of 88,309 sq.ft. If the market value of this land is worked out at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft., it comes to Rs.1,76,619.00 ps. Thus the petitioners are to be given an amount of Rs.1,76,619/- as enhanced compensation for their acquired land. Issue no.1 accordingly found. "
10] Thus having considered the totality of the evidence brought on record, the learned Reference Court has rightly enhanced the amount of compensation. I therefore, find no scope ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:51 ::: 311012FA54.90.odt 8 for interference with the judgment and award impugned.
11] The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12] The amount of compensation, if any deposited and yet to be disbursed to the claimant, shall be disbursed forthwith by the Registry if it is lying with them or by the Reference Court, if the amount is lying there in terms of the award.
ig JUDGE
SMP.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:51 :::