fa650.02.J + .odt 1/42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.650 OF 2002
FIRST APPEAL NO.404 OF 2005
FIRST APPEAL NO.307 OF 2003
FIRST APPEAL NO.20 OF 2005
FIRST APPEAL NO.25 OF 2005
FIRST APPEAL NO.26 OF 2005
FIRST APPEAL NO.41 OF 2005
FIRST APPEAL NO.53 OF 2005
FIRST APPEAL NO.63 OF 2005
FIRST APPEAL NO.568 OF 2005
FIRST APPEAL NO.635 OF 2005
ig FIRST APPEAL NO.85 OF 2006
FIRST APPEAL NO.370 OF 2006
FIRST APPEAL NO.392 OF 2006
FIRST APPEAL NO.443 OF 2006
FIRST APPEAL NO.614 OF 2006
FIRST APPEAL NO.206 OF 2007
FIRST APPEAL NO.130 OF 2008
FIRST APPEAL NO.257 OF 2008
FIRST APPEAL NO.1336 OF 2008
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.7 OF 2010
FIRST APPEAL NO.650 OF 2002
1] Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, Bombay.
2] Having its Regional Office,
at Amravati Industrial Estate by
Pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1] Shri Pradip Jogeshwar Babhulkar,
Aged about 41 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Bhari,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:39 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 2/42
2] State of Maharashtra, thr.
its Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yeotmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri S.G. Loney, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.404 OF 2005
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, having its office at Marol Industrial
Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and Regional Office
at By-pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Ambadas s/o Champat Donadkar
Aged about 58 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra, thr.
its Collector, Yavatmal.
3] The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri L.H. Kothari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.307 OF 2003
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:39 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 3/42
Officer, having its head office at Mumbai,
and it's Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate By-pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Shri Sharad s/o Narayanrao Himane
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Bhari,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra, thr.
its Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yeotmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.20 OF 2005
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate By-pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Ramaji s/o Istari Shende,
Aged about 67 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Madkona,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra, thr.
Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:39 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 4/42
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.25 OF 2005
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief
Executive Officer, having it's Regional
Office at Amravati Industrial Estate
By-Pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
ig ...V E R S U S...
1] Shankar s/o Nathuji Bulley,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Madkona,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yeotmal.
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.26 OF 2005
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate By-pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:39 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 5/42
1] Shivaji Laxman Bhute (dead)
through legal representative
Rajaram s/o Jairam Bhute,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Madkona,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra, thr.
Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.41 OF 2005
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief
Executive Officer, having it's Regional
Office at Amravati Industrial Estate
By-Pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
Pundlik s/o Raghuji Maid (dead)
through legal representatives
1] Smt. Shantabai wd/o Pundlikrao Maid
Aged about 65 years, Agriculturist.
2] Bhimrao s/o Pundlikrao Maid,
Aged about 65 years, Agriculturist.
3] Shamrao s/o Pundlikrao Maid,
Aged about 65 years, Agriculturist.
4] Sau. Chandrakala w/o Mahadeorao
Donadkar, Aged about 38 years,
Household work.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:39 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 6/42
5] Ramrao s/o Pundlikrao Maid
Aged about 34 years, Agriculturist.
6] Sau. Nirmala w/o Vitthalrao Raut
Aged about 32 years.
7] Bhaurao s/o Pundlikrao Maid
Aged about 30 years, Agriculturist.
8] Mahadeo s/o Pundlikrao Maid
Aged about 25 years, Agriculturist.
All 1 to 8 are Resident of Madkona,
Tehsil and District Yavatmal.
9]
State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yeotmal.
10] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri D.G. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 8
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.9 & 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.53 OF 2005
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate By-pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Tukaram s/o Bakaram Pillare
Aged about 65 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Yavatmal,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
Appeal is 2] Maroti s/o Kisan Pillare
abated against Aged about 57 years,
R.No.2.
Occ: Agriculturist.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:39 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 7/42
3] Smt. Vithabai w/o Sitaram Raut (Dead)
through her legal heirs.
3(a) Kishor Sitaram Raut,
Aged 51 years,
R/o Vanjari Fail, Yavatmal.
3(b) Dnyaneshwar Sitaram Raut,
Aged about 45 years,
R/o Vanjari Fail, Yavatmal.
4] State of Maharashtra, thr.
Collector, Yavatmal.
Appeal is dismissed 5] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
against R.No.5 vide Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad. ....... RESPONDENTS
Registrar's dt.10-9-13.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1, 3(a) & 3(b).
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent No.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.63 OF 2005
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief
Executive Officer, having it's Regional
Office at Amravati Industrial Estate
By-Pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Smt. Kawadabai w/o Babusingh Shiwankar,
Aged about 45 years, R/o Madkona,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yeotmal.
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 8/42
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.568 OF 2005
Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation thr. its Branch Office at
Yeotmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1]
Sau. Vijayadevi wd/o Ramanandsingh Thakur (Dead)
through her legal heirs.
1a] Shri Pramod @ Dhanraj Fattebahadur Singh
(Thakur) Sinha, Aged about major,
Occ: Not known, R/o Chamanwadi, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri V.P. Panpaliya, Advocate for Respondent No.1a.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.635 OF 2005
Executive Engineer
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation Amravati through its
Regional Officer through its Branch Office
at Yeotmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 9/42
1] Sau. Kausabai w/o Madhukar Kasar
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Vivekanand Society, Yavatmal,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri A.V. Bhide, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.85 OF 2006
Sau. Kausabai Madhukar Kasar
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Vivekananda Society,
Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra, thr.
Collector, Yavatmal.
2] The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil Office,
Yavatmal.
3] The Executive Engineer,
M.I.D.C. Mumbai through Branch Office
at Lohara, Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.V. Bhide, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 10/42
FIRST APPEAL NO.370 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, having its office at Marol Industrial
Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and Regional
Office at By-pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Rahulkumar s/o Vijay Kokle
Aged about 21 years,
R/o Weekly Market,
Yeotmal.
2] State of Maharashtra, thr.
it's Collector, Yeotmal.
3] The Sub Divisional Officer
And Land Acquisition Officer,
District Yeotmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri M.R. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.392 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate By-pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Shriram s/o Raghunath Raut (Dead)
through his legal heirs.
1-a] Rajubai wd/o Shriram Raut,
Aged about 90 years, Occ: Nil.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 11/42
1-b] Nanaji s/o Shriram Raut,
Aged about 65 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
1-c] Shankar s/o Shriram Raut,
Aged about 60 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
Both R/o Bharti,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra, thr.
Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and Special
Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.1-a to 1-c.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.443 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Head Office at
Mahakali Caves, Andheri West and
Regional office at Amravati Industrial
Estate By-Pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Ambadas s/o Champat Donadkar,
Aged about 58 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
Deleted name of 2] Smt. Laxmibai wd/o Champatrao Donadkar,
R-2 as per Court's Aged about 59 years.
order dated
2.4.2016
Both R/o Madkona,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 12/42
3] The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
4] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri L.H. Kothari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.614 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, having its office at Marol Industrial
Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and Regional
Office at By-Pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Nilesh Subhash Pradhan
Aged about 19 years,
Occ: Student
R/o Madkona,
Dist. Yeotmal.
2] Sheshrao Bahrain Pradhan
Aged about 78 years,
Occ: Cultivation
R/o Madkona,
Dist. Yeotmal.
3] State of Maharashtra,
through it's Collector, Yeotmal.
4] The Sub Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer,
District Yeotmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 13/42
FIRST APPEAL NO.206 OF 2007
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer having its office at
Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai and Regional Office at By-pass
Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
Ukanda s/o Tukaram Bagmare
(Since dead through his Lrs.)
1]
Smt. Durga w/o Pundlik Bagmare
Aged about 47 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
2] Sandeep Pundlik Bagmare,
Aged about 24, Occ: Student,
Both 1 and 2 resident of Madkona,
District Yeotmal.
3] State of Maharashtra, thr.
its Collector, Yeotmal.
4] The Sub-Divisional Officer And
Land Acquisition Officer, Yeotmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.130 OF 2008
Ambadas s/o Champat Donadkar,
Aged about 51 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Madkona, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 14/42
1] The State of Maharashtra,
represented by the Collector,
Yavatmal.
2] The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
3] The Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Mumbai, through Branch
Office at M.I.D.C. Area (Lohara),
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri L.H. Kothari, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.257 OF 2008
1] Ambadas s/o Champat Donadkar,
Aged about 60 years.
Deleted name of 2] Smt. Laxmibai wd/o Champatrao Donadkar,
App.No.2 as per Aged about 59 years.
Court's order
dated 2.4.2016
Both R/o Madkona,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra,
represented by Collector, Yavatmal.
2] The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
3] The Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Mumbai through Branch Office
at M.I.D.C., Lohara Area, Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri L.H. Kothari, Advocate for Appellant.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 15/42
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1336 OF 2008
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer having its office at Marol Industrial
Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and Regional
Office at By-Pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
ig ...V E R S U S...
1] Shyamrao s/o Baliram Pradhan
Aged about 62 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Madkona,
Dist. Yeotmal.
1-a Smt. Sitabai wd/o Shamrao Pradhan,
Aged about 60 years.
1-b Devidas s/o Shamrao Pradhan,
Aged - Major.
Both R/o Madkona,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra, thr.
its Collector, Yeotmal.
3] The Sub Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer,
District Yeotmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1-a & 1-b.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 16/42
FIRST APPEAL NO.7 OF 2010
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation having its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate By-pass Road, Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Shri Vijay s/o Parmanand Jaiswal
Aged about 42 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Yavatmal,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2]
State of Maharashtra, thr.
Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Yeotmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri A.B. Nakshane, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
nd APRIL, 2016.
DATE: 2
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1] In all these appeals the lands from the villages Madkona and
Bhari in District Yavatmal were acquired by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ("M.I.D.C." for short) by issuing notification on 28.10.1993 under Section 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 [for short "the M.I.D.C. Act"], which is equivalent to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 17/42 Act, 1894, for establishment of Airstrip and Aerodrome. On 06.01.1997, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award granting compensation at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per hectare for the lands from village Madkona and Rs.16,000/- and Rs.26,500/- per hectare for the lands located at village Bhari.
2] The claimants whose lands were acquired filed reference cases under Section 32 of the M.I.D.C. Act which is equivalent to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within a period of limitation, seeking enhancement of compensation. In the references, the compensation has been enhanced at the rate ranging from Rs.56,250/-
per hectare to Rs.6,45,000/- per hectare. The judgment and order passed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation in different matters are the subject matter of challenge in the appeals filed by the MIDC, the acquiring body. Some of the claimants have filed cross objections/cross appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation. Hence, all these matters along with cross objections/cross appeals are heard together finally.
3] The claimant Pradip Babhulkar in First Appeal No.650 of 2002 has been awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.6,45,000/-
per hectare in Land Acquisition Case No.30 of 1997 and he has filed cross-objection bearing Stamp No.3122 of 2003 which was admitted by ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 18/42 this Court on 12.08.2003. In the cross-objection the claim for enhancement is at the rate of Rs.17 lacs per acre which is equivalent to Rs.42,50,000/- per hectare and it comes to Rs.40 per sq.ft. In some other matters also the cross objections/cross appeals have been preferred by the claimants seeking further enhancement of compensation by placing reliance upon the decision of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.30 of 1997 (Pradip Babhulkar v. State of Maharashtra and others) and the documents relied upon in the said decision by the Reference Court. Such documents have also been separately filed in all the reference cases by the claimants not only to justify the rate awarded by the Court for acquisition of land, but also to seek enhancement of compensation. Hence, all these cross objections/cross appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation are also heard on merits.
4] The maximum compensation is awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.6,45,000/- per hectare in Land Acquisition Case No.30 of 1997 (Pradip Babhulkar v. State of Maharashtra and others) in respect of land Survey/Gat No.93 admeasuring 7 H and 15 R of mouza Madkona, District Yavatmal. The Reference Court has placed reliance upon the maps produced at Exhibit 53 in respect of village Bhari, Exhibit 54 in respect of village Madkona and Exhibit 55 in respect of District Yavatmal. The sale instance relied upon is at Exhibit 65, a ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 19/42 certified copy of the sale index and Exhibit 66, a certified copy of sale deed; both in respect of sale of 2100 sq.ft. of land on 15.04.1993 from Survey No.65/1 located at Yavatmal (Kasbe) for total consideration of Rs.18,000/-, which reflects the rate of Rs.8.57 per sq.ft.
approximately. The sale-deed at Exhibit 66 is executed by one Mangal in favour of Vijay Nandurkar. The another sale-deed at Exhibit 71 relied upon is dated 05.12.1998 in respect of sale of 2 H and 96 R of land out of Gat No.4/2 of village Dolamba (Dorli) at the rate of Rs.5,45,000/- per hectare. In the sale-deed at Exhibit 71, Chandrashekhar Brijmohan Mor and Pandurang Anandro Khandve are the purchasers of the land from Vasantrao Sheshrao Dhole and others. The Court has also relied upon the resolution passed by Bhari Gram Panchayat at Exhibit 56 demanding the sale of land at the rate of Rs.3 lacs per acre. The letter sent by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhari is produced on record at Exhibit 57 and the reply given to it is produced at Exhibit 58.
5] The Reference Court records the finding in paragraph 29, that villages Dolambi, Parva and Yavatmal (Kasbe) are in the radius or distance of 3 to 4 kilometers. In paragraph 40 it records the finding that Yavatmal (Kasbe), Bhari, Bhase, Madkona, Dolambi and Dorli are within the distance of 5 kilometers from the City of Yavatmal. In paragraph 45, the Reference Court records a finding that the acquired land of the claimant is having non-agricultural potential value and therefore, it will ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 20/42 not be proper to consider and determine the price of the claimant's land on the basis of income capitalization method. In paragraph 46 the Court determined and fixed the price of the land owned by the claimant admeasuring 7 H and 15 R at the rate of Rs.6,45,000/- per hectare or deducting ¼th area towards development charges as considering the developed land ¾th i.e. 5 H and 362 R at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.ft. for the area of 53625 sq.mtr. (i.e. 5,77,005 sq.ft.) including the price of the land determined and paid by the Land Acquisition Officer.
6] The points for determination are as under :
(i) Whether the Reference Court was right in awarding
compensation at the rate of Rs.6,45,000/- in Land Acquisition Case No.30 of 1997?,
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to further enhancement of compensation?, and
(iii) What should be the compensation to which the claimants shall be entitled to for acquisition of their lands?
7] The undisputed factual position can be taken note of while deciding all these appeals and cross-objections. By notification dated 28.10.1993 issued under Section 32(2) of the M.I.D.C. Act, the lands ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 21/42 acquired from village Bhari were Gat Nos.209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 224, 225, 264, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261 and part of Gat Nos.214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 262 and 263. The lands acquired from village Madkona were Gat Nos.67, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 84, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and part of Gat Nos.61, 62, 63, 64 and 68. All the aforesaid lands were acquired for the purposes of establishing Airstrip and the Aerodrome and the map at Exhibit 100 reflects the lands acquired. Hence, the said map is also reproduced below to know the actual area and topography of these lands under the acquisition for the public purpose reflected in the notification.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 22/42
8] In all the matters the claimants have entered the witness box
and examined themselves. The claimant Pradip has deposed that he is the resident of village Bhari, to the eastern side of it, is the village Madkona and the Shiv (boundary) of village Bhari and village Madkona is common. In paragraph 4 he states that the certified copy of the map of village Bhari is placed on record at Exhibit 53 (wrongly shown as Exhibit 50 in the deposition). He further states that the certified copy of the map of village Madkona has been filed at Exhibit 54 and the certified copy of Yavatmal taluka is placed on record at Exhibit 55. He states that village Madkona is located on Yavatmal-Nagpur State Highway at the distance of 4 to 5 kilometers from Yavatmal City and the village Bhari is situated about 4 kilometers away from Yavatmal. He further states that the land under acquisition is located in the interior at a distance of half kilometer from Yavatmal-Nagpur State Highway and there is approach road to it.
In paragraph 12 of his examination-in-chief he states that there is village Parva on Yavatmal to Chandrapur Road in between village Bhari and Yavatmal. He further states that on Yavatmal to Nagpur Road there is village (Dorli) Dolamba in between Yavatmal and village Bhari and thereafter village Madkona. He states that the road passes to Yavatmal (Kasbe) from village Bhari and the distance between Parva and Bhari is about 1 kilometer.
9] In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that the
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 23/42
distance between the Tahsil Office Yavatmal and village Bhari is about 8 kilometers. In paragraph 38 he denied the suggestion that the distance between the Tahsil Office, Yavatmal and Parva is about 5 kilometers.
In paragraph 45 of his cross-examination he also denied the suggestion that the distance between village Madkona and Yavatmal is about 14 kilometers and that there are three lands between Madkona gaothan and the land acquired. He also denied the suggestion that the distance between village Bhari and the acquired land is about 5 kilometers.
10] Land Acquisition Case No.29 of 1997 was clubbed along with Land Acquisition Case No.28 of 1997 and both these cases were decided by the common judgment and order dated 15.06.2005 by the Reference Court. The claimants are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. Smt. Vijayadevi, the claimant in Land Acquisition Case No.29 of 1997, was the owner of Gat No.211, admeasuring 3.76 HR of Village Bhari, whereas Smt. Kausabai, the claimant in Land Acquisition Case No.28 of 1997, was the owner of Gat No.224, admeasuring 2.64 HR of Village Bhari. Both these claimants filed their affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief, and the claimant Smt. Vijayadevi has been cross-examined at length, whereas the same cross-examination is adopted in respect of cross-examination of Smt. Kausabai by filing a pursis. The claimant Smt. Vijayadevi has placed on record the map of the Village Bhari at Exhibit 65. The certified copy ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 24/42 of the sale-deed dated 15.04.1996 in respect of plot from Survey No.65/1 of Yavatmal in favour of Vijay Nandurkar is placed on record and marked as Exhibit 87. It is the same sale-deed, which at Exhibit 66 in Land Acquisition Case No.30 of 1997 (Pradip Bhabhulkar v. State of Maharashtra).
11] In para 4 of the cross-examination, Smt. Vijayadevi states that the sale-deed at Exhibit 87 is regarding a small plot, whereas the land owned by her and acquired by the Government is of a large size and the facilities, which are available at Yavatmal, are not available to the lands situated at Bhari. She states that the distance between the plot in Exhibit 87 and her land is about 6 kilometers. She states that she had no knowledge whether there were transactions of sale prior to 1993 in the Villages Bhari and Madkona. She further states in para 4 as under :
"4. ... It is true prior to notification there was discussion in the village that Govt. is going to acquire land from Bhari village for the construction aerodrum and from that time, the lands situated at village Bhari started to rist at higher price. Some people had converted their lands into non-agricultural purposes for effecting the rise. Shri Narendra Bade, Kanhayalal, and Abida Begum have got permission for conversion of their land into non-agricultural purpose. They have prepared lay-outs but till today no plot have been sold from their lay-outs. There are no facilities of drainage, water, streets, electricity, in the above mentioned lay-out. It is not correct to say that above mentioned persons are cultivating their lands which were converted into N.A. use."::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 25/42 In para 6 of the deposition, Smt. Vidyadevi states as under :
"6. Distance between village Dolamba and Bhari is about 3 k.m. The lands of Exh.62, 63 and 83 are not similar to suit lands. It is not correct to say that village Dolamba and Bhari are at a distance of about 6 to 7 k.m. from each other. It is true that Bank, hospital, Tahsil, M.S.E.B. office are situated within the circumference of 6 k.m. from my field. It is not correct to say that Ganga Fertilizer factory is situated about 5 k.m. from my field. Witness volunteers above factory is situated at about 1 k.m. from her field."
12] The witness Hariram Nasare examined by the acquiring body has produced blue print of the map prepared for the Aerodrome, Yavatmal at Exhibit 100. He states that he has seen the land of the claimant which is about half kilometer away from the Yavatmal-Nagpur Highway and there are two lands acquired on Yavatmal-Nagpur Highway. He further states that village Madkona is about 16 kilometers from Yavatmal City and village Bhari is about 13 and half kilometers away from Yavatmal. He states that the distance between village Madkona and the claimant's land is about one and half kilometers and the distance between village Bhari and the petitioner's land is about 5 kilometers. He further states that the distance between Yavatmal City and the claimant's land is about 16 kilometers. In paragraph 5, he states that he has no report about the distance stated and it was mentioned approximately. He states that the black spotted line in Exhibit 100 is the boundary (Shiv) of village Bhari and village Madkona.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 26/42
13] The lands acquired are located at villages Bhari and
Madkona. Perusal of Exhibits 53, 54 and 55 and Exhibit 100 indicating topography shows the location of villages Dorli/Dolamba, Bhari and Madkona are in sequence on the eastern side of Yavatmal town and the sale instances relied upon are from the Yavatmal (Kasbe) and Dorli/Dolambi. There is no reference in the oral evidence of the claimant-Pradeep about the distance between Yavatmal (Kasbe) to Dorli/Dolambi and between Dorli/Dolambi and Bhari. The evidence of the claimant-Pradeep ignores this vital aspect of the intervening village Dorli/Dolambi, between Yavatmal (Kasbe) and village Bhari, though he claims that boundaries of village Bhari and Madkona is common.
The claimants have not filed distance map. Consequently, the sole testimony of the claimant-Pradeep in respect of the distance between the location of the lands covered by the sale instances relied upon and the land under acquisition, falls not only short to establish the distance and proximity, but it is unbelievable.
14] On the aspect of location of the land in question acquired from the village Madkona and the sale instances at Exhibit 65 and 66 from Yavatmal (Kasbe) and Exhibit 71 from Dolambi/Dorli, the evidence on record consists of maps at Exhibit 53 of village Bhari, Exhibit 54 in respect of village Madkona and Exhibit 55 in respect of District Yavatmal produced by the claimant. Exhibit 100 is the map produced by the ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 27/42 witness examined by the acquiring body, demarcating all the lands acquired under the notification. On the aspect of distance between the land acquired at Madkona and the sale instances relied upon, there is oral evidence of the claimants and the witness Hariram Nasare, examined by the acquiring body. Except this evidence, there is no evidence oral or documentary placed on record on the aspect of location and the distance of the lands in question.
15] The evidence of the claimant Smt. Vijayadevi shows the distance between the plot mentioned in Exhibits 65, 66 and 87 from Yavatmal (Kasbe) and the land Gat No.211 of village Bhari is about 6 kilometers. The distance between the village Dorli/Dolamba and village Bhari is about 3 kilometers. This witness also admits in cross-examination that Dorli is situated at 3 kilometers away from Yavatmal and the distance between Bhari and Madkona is about 3 kilometers. If the evidence of this witness is accepted, then village Madkona is at the distance of 10 kilometers away from Yavatmal.
16] The sale instance at Exhibits 65, 66 and 87 is from Yavatmal (Kasbe), and perusal of the sale-deed dated 15.04.1993 shows that it is from the lay-out of Siddeshwar Housing Co-operative Society at the distance of 2 kilometers away from the municipal boundary of Yavatmal.
The distance between this sale instance and the land of Smt. Vijayadevi ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 28/42 located at village Bhari is about 6 kilometers. The facilities, which are available at Yavatmal, are not available to the lands located at Bhari.
As per the version of the claimant Smt. Vijayadevi, the distance between the land owned by her and the bank, hospital, Tahsil, M.S.E.B. office, etc., is of 6 kilometers. Neither the purchaser nor the seller in the sale-deed at Exhibits 65, 66 and 87 has been examined. There is nothing on record to show that the area surrounding the lands acquired either from the village Bhari or from the village Madkona is developed and there is no such map placed on record showing the development.
The Reference Court has, therefore, committed an error in holding that the lands acquired bear non-agricultural potentiality in the absence of there being any order of conversion of such lands for non-agricultural purpose. There are no instances of conversion of lands from non-agricultural purpose from the village Bhari or Madkona.
17] So far as the another sale instance at Exhibit 71 is concerned relied upon by the Reference Court it is from the village Dorli Dolambi, which is next to the boundary of the Municipal limits of Yavatmal town, and the price reflected by the sale-deed dated 04.12.1988 is at the rate of Rs.5,40,000/- per hectare. The parties to this sale-deed are not examined. This Gat No.4 admeasuring 2.96 HR is divided by Yavamtal-Wani Road at village Dorli/Dolambi. In para 12 of the deposition, the claimant-Pradeep states that Dorli/Dolambi is between ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 29/42 Yavatmal and Bhari on the Yavatmal-Nagpur Road. The claimant Smt. Vijayadevi gives the distance between Dorli/Dolambi and Bhari, as 3 kilometers. This sale instance at Exhibit 71 is hardly of any relevance for determining the price of the land located at village Madkona, more particularly, when there is an intervening village Bhari between Dorli/Dolambi and Madkona. The Reference Court has therefore, committed an error in relying upon the sale instance at Exhibit 71 as a comparable sale instance to be taken into consideration to determine the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.6,45,000/- per hectare.
18] Shri Agnihotri, the learned counsel appearing for the acquiring body has invited my attention to the sale-deeds placed on record and marked as Article A and B, which are dated 18.08.2000.
The certified copies of two sale-deed dated 18.08.2000 in respect of the portion of the same land which is acquired, executed by the claimant Pradip Babhulkar in favour of Kanhiyalal Mishra and Sau. Siya Rampal Shukla, the land admeasuring 1.59 HR each for total consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- each. These certified copies of sale-deeds are marked as Article A and B by the trial court.
19] In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Purya and others reported in AIR (2004) 8 ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 30/42 SCC 4830, it has been held that the certified copies of the sale transaction produced by the land owners can be relied upon in view of Section 51-A of the said Act. The Reference Court has therefore, committed an error in ignoring the sale instances at Articles A and B in respect of the said land. In the decision of the Apex Court in Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of India reported in (2005) 12 SCC 59, it has been held that the sale-deeds pertaining to the portion of the land which is subject to the acquisition would be the most relevant to the piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired land. It has been held that the burden of proof that the acquired land and the land covered by sale transaction bear similar or same potentialities or advantageous features lies on the claimant. It is further held that the market value of the fully developed land although they may be examined at a little distance. The said decision is also on the aspect of photo-state copy produced by the parties as sale instances for the purpose of determining the market value of the land acquired, and the same can be admitted in evidence under Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
20] In view of the provision of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, certified copy of document registered under the Registration Act, 1908, including a copy given under Section 57 of that Act can be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. Both these documents at Article "A" and "B" were therefore, ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 31/42 required to be admitted in evidence and should have been marked as exhibit. The sale is of the agricultural land. These sale-deeds are dated 18.08.2000. There was no scope to discard these two documents, which are the sale-deeds in respect of the portion of the land acquired under the notification dated 28.10.1993. These two sale-deeds totally demolish the claim in the reference for the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.ft., based on non-agricultural potentiality and there cannot be any better evidence than this to be considered to determine the market value of the land acquired. The Reference Court ought to have therefore, taken into consideration these two sale instances at Article "A" and "B" while determining the question of market value of the land acquired. There is no other basis to claim the enhancement of compensation placed on record by the claimant, and hence, the cross-objection filed for seeking further enhancement at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.ft. is, therefore, rejected.
21] A specific question was put to Shri Loney, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant in First Appeal No.650 of 2002 as to whether he proposes to point out any other sale instance on the basis of which the market value of the land in question can be fixed. His reply is that none of the other sale instances placed on record are relevant for determining the market value of the land. If this statement is accepted and relied upon, then the reference under Section 18 of the said Act ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 32/42 needs to be dismissed, maintaining compensation of Rs.13,500/- per hectare and the claimant shall not be entitled to any enhancement in compensation.
22] Shri Loney, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Bal Ram and another reported in (2010) 5 SCC 747, which was a case of acquisition of the land for the plan development area around Palam Airport in the vicinity of Delhi. It is a short order passed by the Apex Court in respect of the land acquired by the same notification from 13 villages. The High Court found that the nature/quality of the lands is by and large similar to the lands which were to be considered in the reported decision of the Apex Court in Satpal v. Union of India reported in (1997) 11 SCC 423. The High Court found that it would be unfair to discriminate between the landowners to pay more to some or less to others when the purpose of acquisition is the same and the lands are identical and similar, though lying in different villages. The Supreme Court found that the judgment of the High Court was fair and reasonable, and therefore, did not interfere in it. The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision cannot be disputed. There has to be finding about the nature and quality of the land covered by the comparable sale instance, and the land under acquisition. In the present case, I have already held that the sale instances cited to claim enhancement of ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 33/42 compensation are not comparable with the lands under acquisition.
23] The another judgment relied upon of the Apex Court is in the case of Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa and another reported in (2010) 13 SCC 710. Shri Loney, the learned counsel has invited my attention to paragraph 20 and 23 of the said decision, wherein the legal position explained is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. It further holds that where there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition that the highest exemplar has to be taken into consideration. There is no such situation in the present case. The sale instances cited are not comparable. The said decision is of, therefore, no consequence.
24] The third decision cited by Shri Loney is in the case of Digamber and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 406. Shri Loney has invited my attention to paragraph 20 and 21 of the said decision. In paragraph 20 it is held that the acquisition of land is for commercial purpose should be the relevant criteria for determining the market value by both the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court. Placing reliance upon the sale instance even in ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 34/42 relation to small plots of lands, though it is shown from the records that the acquired land on the date of notification is an agricultural land, it further holds that the land acquired has got non-agricultural potentiality as the said land was proposed by the District Collector after identifying the land for acquisition and that it is suitable for the purpose of industrial development. In paragraph 21 it is held that the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration.
In paragraph 21 the reference is also made to several factors namely, the existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about the acquired land, town is developing or has prospect of development in future, has to be taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Collector and the courts for determination of the market value of the land. In the facts of the case, the Court found that such evidence was abundantly available in respect of the acquired land, which was found to be in the proximity of New Venkateshnagar Layout, wherein residential sites were formed having School and College near the Highway. The another decision relied upon by Shri Loney is in the case of Sangunthala (dead) through LRs. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 661, wherein the Apex Court has held in paragraph 38 that the very purpose that the land was acquired is also the relevant factor.
25] In the decision of the Apex Court in Digamber's case cited
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 35/42
supra, the Apex Court has held some earlier decision rendered by the decision in paragraph 16.3 the relevant portion, which is reproduced below:
16.3 Also paras 16 and 17 from Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla are quoted hereunder: (SCC p. 603) "16. We have considered the respective arguments and carefully perused the record. It is settled law that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors:
(i) Existing geographical situation of the land.
(ii) Existing use of the land.
(iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area.
(iv) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.
17. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat this Court laid down the following principles for determination of market value of the acquired land: (SCC pp. 796-97, paras 17-19)
17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation;
the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4.
18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which is a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 36/42 Keeping the aforesaid principle law laid down by the Apex Court, the facts of the present case are required to be noted on the aspect of distance between the sale instances relied upon by the Reference Court for granting enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.6,45,000/- per hectare, and the lands under acquisition from the village Madkona. The evidence of the claimant has already been discarded. At any rate, even if the evidence of the claimant is accepted, the distance between the exemplars and the land under acquisition from village Madkona cannot be less than 5 kilometers. The exemplar at Exhibit 66 is in respect of the land which is converted for non-agricultural purpose, and it is from the layout of the housing society.
It is a small piece of land, whereas the land in question is purely an agricultural land without there being any conversion for non-agricultural purpose, and part of it is sold in the year 2000 as an agricultural land subsequent to the notification in question. The lands under acquisition are of large tracts. There is no evidence on record as to the availability of the advantageous in respect of the land under acquisition. On the contrary, the evidence on record is that the land under acquisition is located in the interior area from the National/State Highway. There is no evidence about development surrounding the land under acquisition.
There is no definite material which has been brought on record either in the shape of same or similar land in the neighbourhood at or about the notification.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 37/42
26] This Court is not only concerned with the cross-objection
filed by the claimant Pradeep Babhulkar, but the Court is concerned with the determination of the market value of the several other lands acquired from the village Bhari and Madkona and included in the same notification dated 28.10.1993. Almost all the claimants, barring few, are before this Court either defending the rate awarded by the Reference Court or to claim further enhancement of compensation. This Court is, therefore, required to take into consideration the other sale instances placed on record to determine the real market value of the lands.
In order to remove discrimination in award of compensation ranging from the rate of Rs.56,250 to Rs.6,45,000/- per hectare on the basis of same sale instances for different lands acquired for the same project under the same notification, this Court will have to consider all the cases together.
27] Amongst all other sale instances placed on record, two sale instances appear to be somewhat relevant to be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the land, these are dated 26.10.1990 at Exhibit 62 and dated 01.07.1994 at Exhibit 70; both from the village Parva, which is the village located on the south eastern side of Yavatmal City, and is at the distance of 2 to 3 kilometers away from the Municipal limits of Yavatmal. No doubt, that there is no acquisition from village Parva by notification in question. The sale instance at Exhibit 70 is ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 38/42 subsequent to the date of notification, it will have to be, therefore, ignored. The sale instance at Exhibit 62 is prior to the notification in question and it is in respect of 3 acres and 3 gunthas of land for total consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- which represents the market value of Rs.97,301.67 per hectare. The land is from South-Eastern side of the Yavatmal. In the absence of any other comparable sale instance, this sale instance at Exhibit 62 of the year 1990 can be considered to be the best evidence to determine the market value of the land acquired, keeping in view the purpose for which the land is acquired. Applying some guesswork and taking into consideration 20% rise added in this price, the market rate of Rs. 1,17,000/- per hectare prevailing in respect of the land acquired on the date of issuance of notification can be arrived at.
Hence, I fix the market value in respect of the lands acquired under the notification dated 28.10.1993 to be Rs.1,17,000/- per hectare.
28] Keeping in view all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, all these appeals and cross-objections except one, i.e. Stamp No. 3122 of 2003, are partly allowed and the following order is passed:
[i] The claimants in all these lands which are the subject-matter of the appeals and the cross-objections before this Court shall be entitled to compensation at ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 39/42 the rate of Rs.1,17,000/- per hectare for the land acquired, and the order of the Reference Court passed in all these matters either granting compensation lesser than this rate or higher than this rate, is hereby quashed and set aside.
[ii] The claimant shall be entitled all the statutory igbenefits flowing from grant of the aforesaid market rate for the land acquired to be calculated in accordance with law.
[iii] In view of the fact that all the claimants before this court in cross-appeals or cross-objections are held entitled to compensation at the same rate, this Court can exercise of its power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass an order for payment of compensation at the same rate to the persons/claimants, who have not preferred any cross-objection, in the appeals filed by the acquiring body, claiming enhancement of compensation on the lines of principles incorporated under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 40/42 [iv] All the claimants in the appeals preferred by M.I.D.C., who are similarly situated shall be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,17,000/- per hectare irrespective of the fact that they have not filed cross-appeal or cross-objection. However, this shall be subject to payment of additional Court fee on the amount of the enhanced compensation.
[v] igThe acquiring body and the Land Acquisition Officer shall accordingly workout the exact amount of compensation and other statutory benefits.
The claimants, who have not preferred cross-objection or cross-appeal shall however, not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the judgment of the Reference Court till this date.
[vi] It is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in all the cases the acquiring body has deposited the amount of compensation as per the order passed by the Reference Court. In some of the matters the amount has been withdrawn upon furnishing solvent security/surety.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 41/42 [vii] In view of above, the acquiring body and the Land Acquisition Officer shall calculate the amount payable under this judgment to all the claimants, and if it is found that the amount withdrawn is much more than what the claimants were entitled, then such claimant shall pay such excess amount to the acquiring body within a period of one month from the date of igcommunication from the acquiring body; failing which the acquiring body shall be at liberty to proceed to realize such amount on the basis of the solvent security/surety furnished by such claimant.
[viii] Upon calculation, if it is found that the amount is due and payable to any claimant in addition to already been paid or withdrawn by them then such additional amount shall be paid within a period of four months from the date of such determination.
[ix] The claimants who have not filed cross-appeals or cross-objection, shall be permitted to withdraw the amount with interest accrued lying in this Court in the appeals preferred by the acquiring body only upon payment of requisite court fees.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::
fa650.02.J + .odt 42/42
[x] Rest of the amount, if any, is left in deposit with this
Court shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the
acquiring body i.e. M.I.D.C. along with the entire interest accrued, if any, thereon.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:41:40 :::