FA 628/06 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL N
O
. 62
8 /20
06
State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Washim, Dist. Washim. APP
ELL
ANT
.....VERSUS.....
Jaisingrao S/o Digambar Ghuge,
Aged Major, Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Malegaon, Tah. Malegaon,
Dist. Washim. RESPONDE
NT
Shri Mangesh Kadu, A.G.P. for the appellant.
Shri R.L. Khapre, Counsel for the respondent.
CORAM : S.
B. SHUKRE, J
.
DATE : 1 NOVEMBER , 2017 .
ST
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal, filed by the State, takes an exception to the higher determination of compensation made by the reference court in respect of the compulsory acquisition of land bearing Gt No.414, situated at Malegaon, District Washim, which land was acquired for the purpose of Malegaon Irrigation Project.
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:57:38 :::
FA 628/06 2 Judgment
2. The cross-objection filed by the land owner, Jaising Digambar Ghuge, whose land has been compulsorily acquired, also similarly objects to the determination of the compensation made by the reference court with the difference in the fact that the land owner is desirous to get more compensation.
3. Parties to both the proceedings i.e. State and the land owner, shall now be referred to as the State and the land owner, respectively for the sake of convenience.
4. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (L.A. Act, for short) was published in Government Gazette on 25.05.2000, while the award under Section 11 was passed by the special land acquisition officer on 24.05.2001. The special land acquisition officer determined the market value of the acquired land to be of Rs.42,500/- per hectare, which was enhanced to Rs.55,200 per hectare by the reference court, which decided the reference application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, on its own merits by the judgment and order dated 28.04.2005 rendered in Land Acquisition Case No.104/2004.
5. The land owner, in his evidence before the reference court, heavily relied upon the sale instances which were the sale-deeds of the ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:57:38 ::: FA 628/06 3 Judgment lands situated on Seloo Bazar to Malegaon Road. They were at Exh.42 and 43 and bear the dates 30.09.1997 and 14.01.2000, respectively. They were, however, rejected by the reference court. The reference court considered the two of the sale transactions, which had figured in the award of the special land acquisition officer at Sr. No.7 and 9 and by drawing a mean value of these two transactions and considering the acquired land to be a dry crop land, fixed the market value of the dry crop land at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare for the sake of payment of compensation to the land owner. This approach of the reference court was not to the pleasure of both the rival parties, the State and the land owner and that is why both of them are before this court in the present appeal and the cross-objection.
6. I have heard Shri Mangesh Kadu, learned counsel for the State and Shri R.L. Khapre learned counsel for the land owner. I have gone through the record of the case. Now, the only point which arises for my determination, is;
"Whether the compensation awarded by the reference court is just and proper ?"
7. According to Shri Khapre, the reference court ought to have taken into account the sale-deeds vide Exh.42 and 43 as there is sufficient ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:57:38 ::: FA 628/06 4 Judgment evidence available on record proving their relevance in the present case. Alternatively, he submits that even if the sale transactions at Exh.42 and 43 are considered to be not so relevant, still the market value of the acquired land would be not less than Rs.2,35,000/- per hectare when the average of the value shown in the transactions at Sr. No.7 and 9 is arrived at.
8. Shri Kadu, learned counsel for the State submits that the area of the sale transactions at Sr. No.7 and 9 is very small and therefore, these transactions could not be considered as relevant. Therefore, he submits that the generalization made by the special land acquisition officer is more correct and the same may be accepted by this court for the purpose of determination of just and fair compensation.
9. So far as the argument relating to relevance of the sale-deeds vide Exh.42 and 43 is concerned, I am of the view that it cannot be accepted. The reference court has found that the situation of the lands involved in the sale-deeds vide Exh.42 and 43 has not been sufficiently explained in the evidence by the land owner and therefore, comparison between these lands and the acquired land cannot be usefully made. The reference court has also found that no map has been placed on record by the land owner. I think, no error in these findings could be seen. When ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:57:38 ::: FA 628/06 5 Judgment there is no evidence explaining the situation of the lands involved in these sale-deeds and there is also no map adduced in the evidence, it would not be possible for any court to record a finding regarding similarity or otherwise of the lands involved in the sale-deeds and the acquired land. Therefore, the reference court has rightly kept the sale-deeds vide Exh.42 and 43 out of its consideration. These sale-deeds cannot be relied upon.
10. As regards the alternate argument of learned counsel for the land owner, I must say that it does carry substantial weight in it. There is a clear-cut finding recorded by the reference court that the acquired land is irrigated. There is also a crop statement vide Exh.20 and there are also other documents in the nature of agreements with the irrigation department vide Exh.39 and 40, all of which showing that the acquired land was irrigated round the year. The crop statement sufficiently establishes the fact that at least two crops were being taken annually from the acquired land. So, the finding recorded by the reference court that the acquired land was perennially irrigated land deserves confirmation from this court, which I do make.
11. Now, the question would be about fixation of true market value of the acquired land and I think, the issue can be resolved by considering the sale transactions at Sr. No.7 and 9 of the award of special ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:57:38 ::: FA 628/06 6 Judgment land acquisition officer, which have been found by the reference court to be irrigated lands. These sale transactions were of the year 1998 and 1995, respectively and they disclose per hectare price of the lands at Rs. 3,00,000/- and 1,70,760/-, respectively. Mean price of these two lands would approximately come to Rs.2,35,000/- per hectare, as found by the reference court and rightly so. These lands being irrigated lands, same price should be considered for fixation of the true market value of the acquired land in the present case, as well. The reference court, however, halved this price so as to reduce it to Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare by considering the acquired land to be a dry crop land, which was manifestly erroneous. Such reduction could not have been made by the reference court after having found that the acquired land was the perennially irrigated land. So, a correction in this regard would be required, which I do make. Accordingly, I find that the true market value of the acquired land would be of Rs.2,35,000/- per hectare and I further found that the land owner is entitled to receive the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,35,000/- per hectare. The point is, therefore, answered accordingly.
12. The reference court has also granted statutory benefits, which benefits would have to be granted at the same rate as given by the reference court on the enhanced compensation, however, with a slight ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:57:38 ::: FA 628/06 7 Judgment modification in respect of the interest to be granted under Section 28 of the L.A. Act at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of one year. This interest is recoverable only for a period of one year to be counted from the date of the award and not from the date of the possession and correction to this extent would have to be made in the final award being made by this court. To this extent, the appeal filed by the State would have to be allowed.
The appeal is partly allowed.
The cross-objection stands partly allowed.
It is directed that the land owner be paid compensation for his acquired land at the rate of 2,35,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Five Thousand only) per hectare together with all statutory benefits to be given at the same rate as granted by the reference court with slight modification as follows;
The balance outstanding amount of the compensation payable to the land owner shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. under Section 28 of the L.A. Act from the date of the award, which is 24.05.2001, for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. till realization of the entire amount.
Liberty is granted to the land owner to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of rental compensation, in accordance with law.
Additional court fees be paid, if not paid.
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:57:38 :::
FA 628/06 8 Judgment The impugned award stands modified in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs.
The appeal as well as cross-objection stand disposed of.
JUDGE SHRIPAD ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:57:38 :::