1 Jud.FA 833.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 833/2006
APPELLANTS/Ori. Non-applicants (On R.A.):-
1. State of Maharashtra through the
Collector, Yavatmal.
2. The Special Land Road Project,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division, Yavatmal,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
VERSUS
Respondent/Ori. Applicant(On R.A.):-
Chandrashekhar S/o Purushottam
Rathi, aged about 50 yrs, Occ.
Business & Agriculturist, R/o.
Dhamangaon (Rly.), Tq.
Dhamangaon, Dist. Amravati.
Shri H. D. Dubey, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants.
Shri C. S. Kaptan, Sr. Advocate for respondent-sole.
___________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 07.12.2017.
Oral Judgment :
This appeal questions the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 27.04.2005 insofar as the grant of enhanced compensation for the acquired piece of land admeasuring 0.62 R, out of the Plot No. 7 to 12, Nazul Sheet No. 44 forming part of land in Survey ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:23:24 ::: 2 Jud.FA 833.06.odt No. 7, situated at Mouza Yavatmal, District Yavatmal, is concerned.
2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2005, the Reference Court which decided the application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in LAC No. 208 of 2002 found that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was quite less, it was at the rate Rs. 6,00,000/-per hectare, and so felt the need to enhance it. The Reference Court then considered the evidence available on record and found that the acquired land had great development potential and the rates of ready reckoner of the surrounding pieces of lands were also very high and therefore, the Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq.ft. The appellant, however, was not satisfied and therefore, the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal.
3. I have heard Shri H. D. Dubey, Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Shri Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the case including impugned judgment and order. The only point that arises for my determination is:-
"Whether, the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper?"
4. Shri H. D. Dubey, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State has tried his level best to convince this Court that the determination of the compensation for the acquired land in the present ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:23:24 ::: 3 Jud.FA 833.06.odt case was on the very higher side. But, on going through the evidence available on record with the assistance of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader, I find that there is no force in the argument of learned Assistant Government Pleader.
5. Disagreeing with the learned Assistant Government Pleader, I would say that the determination of the market value of the acquired land done by the Reference Court is just and proper. It is seen that the Reference Court has not only given its due consideration to the sale instance vide Exhibit-33, but also took into account the valuation done by the Land Acquisition Officer. It appears, he also referred to all the relevant sale instances of the preceding five years to the Notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 1 st January, 1998. The Reference Court also considered an admission given by the Land Acquisition Officer that according to his own assessment, the value of the acquired land was of Rs. 25,00,000/- per hectare which was reduced by him to Rs. 6,00,000/- per hectare as advised by the Town Planner. The Reference Court also considered other admission given by the Land Acquisition Officer which related to the acquired land having more potential value and also a house standing on it. These admissions of the sole witness of the State - Arfan Tadvi would certainly show that the acquired land deserved a much higher valuation than it was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is also ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:23:24 ::: 4 Jud.FA 833.06.odt admitted that in the acquired land, there was Ginning Factory in the past and that city of Yavatmal was developing quite fast towards the side of Dhamangaon Road where acquired land was situated and that ready reckoner of all these lands disclosed much higher value. The sole witness of the State also admitted that there was a Government Resolution in operation (Exhibit-29) which laid down that while assessing the value of the land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the rates of the ready reckoner as well as market price of the acquired land must be considered and that value which is higher be taken as the base for determining the market value of the acquired land. With such evidence available on record, the conclusion drawn by the Reference Court that the true market value of the acquired land could not have been less than Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. cannot be faulted with in any manner.
6. A perusal of the Government Resolution vide Exhibit-29 and the prices shown in the Ready Reckoner sheets vide Exhibits - 45 and 46 together with evidence of claimant's third witness - Santosh Peshwe, Junior Clerk at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yavatmal would support fully the determination of the market value carried out by the Reference Court. Santosh Peshwe, in his evidence, has clearly stated that in the ready reckoner, the value of the acquired land was of Rs. 2740/- per square meter which came to Rs. 274/- per sq. ft. There is no cross- examination of this witness taken on this assertion. There is no other ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:23:24 ::: 5 Jud.FA 833.06.odt evidence available on record to reject such assertion made by this witness. Even the sole witness of the State - Arfan Tadvi, in his cross- examination taken by the claimant has admitted that the rates shown in the ready reckoner (Exhibit-45) are correct and that at the time of issuance of Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act Notification, the Government rate of the acquired land was of Rs. 2370/- per square meter.
7. The ready reckoner rates, in the eye of the Government have their own importance. The Government Resolution at Exhibit-29 underlines this fact and it states the reason for it. The reason is that the rates shown in the ready reckoner are scientifically determined. This Government Resolution lays down that in determination of the market value of the acquired land, the ready reckoner rates as well as market prices of the acquired land should be considered and whatever is higher, should be accepted for the purpose of giving of compensation. In the case of Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 relied upon by the learned senior counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that estimation of the market value on the basis of the guidelines of the market rates could be considered to be proper in a case where there is no evidence available on record that as per guidelines the rates were fixed without adopting any scientific method. It is also held that it will be however, upto either of the parties to place evidence to dislodge the presumption flowing from such ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:23:24 ::: 6 Jud.FA 833.06.odt guidelines of market value. In the present case, there is no evidence brought on record by the State to dislodge the presumption arising from the ready reckoner rates that these rates represented market value of the acquired land. This would be an additional reason for me to say that no error in the approach adopted by the Reference Court in determination of the true market value of the acquired land could be found.
8. Thus, I find that the compensation granted to the respondent No.1 by the Reference Court is just and proper. There is no need to make any interference with the same and the point is answered accordingly.
In the result, I am of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE Gohane ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:23:24 :::