Sharadchandra S/O Narayanrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 873 Bom

JUDGMENT

A.P. Lavande, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2-5-1990 passed by Additional District Judge. Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 2/1984.

2. The appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were co-owners of property bearing Survey No. 134 admeasuring 114345 sq. ft. situated within the municipal limits of Digras, District Yavatmal. State of Maharashtra published Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 2-7-1981 for acquisition of the said land for construction of Tahsil Office, Digras. The Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23-7-1982. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant claimed compensation @ Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per sq, ft. The possession of the land was taken by the Government on 29-10-1982. On 29-8-1983 the Land Acquisition Officer passed award granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.54 sq. ft. per square, Being aggrieved, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 2/1984, the appellant produced four sale deeds (Ex.50 to 53) and maps (Ex. 54 and 55). The appellant examined Vendor in the sale deed (Ex. 50) dated 27-5-1980, the vendor of the sale deed (Ex.51) dated 10-7-1981 and sale deeds (Ex. 52 and 53) dated 5-6-1982 and 13-5-1982. The Reference Court deducted 25% of the area and for an area of 85758 sq. ft, granted compensation @ Rs. 6/- per sq. ft.

3. Mr. Agnihotri, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court has erred in fixing compensation @ Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. after reducing total area acquired by 25%. He further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have awarded compensation @ Rs. 12.50 per sq. ft. in respect of the entire area acquired. Mr. Agnihotri urged that the Reference Court has erred in making double deduction in respect of area as well as sale price. He further urged that since the State of Maharashtra had not utilised entire acquired land for construction purpose, the Reference Court could not have deducted 25% area towards development. In support of his submissions, Mr. Agnihotri relied upon the following judgments:

1. , Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr. 2. , Administrator Genl. of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi; 3. , Printers House Pvt. Ltd., v. Mst. Saiyadan (Deceased) by L.Rs., and Ors.; 4. , K.S. Shivadevanuna and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. 5. , Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and Anr.; 6. , Lila Ghose (Smt.) (Dead) through LR. Tapas Chandra Roy v. State of W.B.; 7. , Om Prakash (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. 8. (2005) 9 SCC 594, Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ramanjulu and Ors.; and 9. : , Rishi Pal Singh and Ors. v. Meerul Development Authority and Anr.

4. Per contra, Mr. Loney and Mr. Kale, learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the compensation granted by the Reference Court is on the higher side but since the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra has been dismissed for non-prosecution, the respondents cannot press for reduction in compensation. Mr. Loney submitted that the acquired area was more than one lakh sq.ft. and as the sale deeds relied upon by the appellant in respect of small pieces of land, they cannot form the basis for fixation of compensation in respect of the acquired land. He further submitted that in any event even if the sale deed (Ex.51) dated 10-7-1981 is considered being proximate in time and place, deduction for development charges and towards conversion charges have to be made, He further submitted that further deduction has to be made since area acquired land is vast as compared to the land in sale deed dated 10-7-1981. He, therefore, urged that considering all these relevant factors, no case has been made by the appellant for enhancing the compensation granted by the Reference Court. In support of his submissions, Mr. Loney relied upon the following judgments :

1. , Ranvir Singh and Anr. v. Union of India; 2. , Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Gujarat;

5. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records as well as the judgments relied upon by the respective counsel.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions and findings given by the Reference Court, the following point arises for determination in the present appeal:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is fair and adequate? If not, to what extent, the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation?

7. Before analysing the judgment passed by the Reference Court and re-appreciating the evidence led by the appellant-claimant we would like to deal with the authorities cited by both parties.

8. In the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) the Apex Court has held that when a large block of land is acquired, for fixing the market rate, appropriate deduction has to be made for setting aside land for carving out roads, leaving open spaces, and plotting out smaller plots suitable for construction of buildings depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, The Apex Court has further held that some guesswork is permissible in determining the value of the market land. The Apex Court has further held that when undeveloped land situated in interior is acquired estimated time required for development to reach the land in question has also to be considered while determining the market value of the land. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has laid down plus and minus factors which have to be taken into consideration in determining the market rate of acquired land.

In the case of Administrator Genl. of West Bengal (supra) the Apex Court has held that prices fetched for small plots cannot be safe basis for valuation of large tracts of lands and appropriate deduction for roads and other development expenses have to be made which can, together, come up to 53%.

In the case of M.A. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court has held that while determining the market-value of the acquired land factors, such as, location, shape, size potentiality or tenure of each plot has to be considered. The Apex Court further held that when reliance is placed upon several comparable sales or awards, the Court has to consider each of the sale deed and award but while fixing the market-rate of an acquired land, the Court has to choose the price reflected in the sale deed and award pertaining to the land which is closely or nearly compares with the plot of land the market value of which it has to determine and thereafter the market-value of the acquired land has to be determined.

In the case of Om Prakash (supra) the Apex Court refused to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court giving appreciation @ 12% for every year since the acquired land was agricultural land and not commercial land.

In the case of K.S. Shivadevamma (supra) the Apex Court has held that Circular issued by the Government under Section 47-A of Stamp Act for fixation of stamp duty and registration fee cannot be basis for determining the market value unless there is evidence of prevailing market value of the lands in the locality possessed of similar advantageous features.

In the case of Kiran Tandon (supra) the Apex Court has held that since the acquired land was situated in developed area and there was approach-road to the land and also power lines were available, deduction of 20% from the market value of the land was proper.

In the case of Lila Ghosh (supra) the Apex Court has decided the compensation having regard to the settled principles of fixation of acquired lands in land acquisition cases.

In the ease of Ramanjulu (supra) the Apex Court has held that while determining the market value of the land escalation @ 12% has to be added for determining the market value of the lands acquired after two years for the same purpose and further that while making deduction towards development charges ordinarily l/3rd deduction would be allowed but having regard to the fact that the lands were acquired for expansion of industrial estate, that too, in the third phase and were levelled 15% deduction towards development charges was justified.

In the case of Rishi Pal (supra) the Apex Court has held that the sale deeds in respect of small tract of land can be relied upon for determining the market rate of large tracks of land specially when other relevant or material evidence was not available, by giving adequate discount in that behalf.

In the case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (supra) relied upon by learned AGP, the Apex Court has held that in case of acquisition of a large area for a specific purpose by deductions can be made by way of development charges and deductions can also be made for largeness of the land.

In the case of Ranvir Singh (supra) the Apex Court has, inter alia, held that when market value of the acquired land is sought to be proved on the basis of comparable sale instances the burden to proof that the land acquired by sale transaction bear similar or same potentialities or advantageous features, lies on the claimant. The Apex Court has further held that award or judgment determining the amount of compensation is not conclusive but merely a piece of evidence.

9. There is no dispute that the area of acquired land is 114345 sq. ft. The Reference Court took into consideration four sale deeds dated 27-5-80, 10-7-81. 5-6-82 and 13-5-82 vide Exh. 50, 51, 52 and 53 respectively in which plots were sold @ Rs. 6.76, 9.18, 12.50 and 11.50 respectively and thereafter deducted 25% of the area and fixed compensation @ Rs. 6 per sq. ft. However, for the purpose of awarding compensation the Reference Court deducted 25% of the area since the acquired land is large type of land as compared to the lands involved in the sale deeds relied upon by the appellant. Thus, the Reference Court granted compensation in respect of an area of 85758 sq. ft. and held that the enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 5,14,558/-. The approach of the Reference Court cannot be sustained firstly having regard to the law laid down in M/s Printer's case that the Reference Court ought to have selected the sale deed which closely or nearly compares with the acquired land and thereafter the Reference Court ought to have made appropriate deductions having regard to the fact that the acquired land was big chunk of land as compared to the land involved in the sale deed which is taken as the basis for the purpose of fixing price of the acquired land.

10. In the present case, the applicant has relied upon four sale deeds which are of the year 1980 to 1982 in respect of small plots and price ranges from 6.76 sq. ft. to 12.50 per sq. ft. In our opinion, having regard to the dale on which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and having regard to the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis the plots involved in the four sale deeds, the sale deed which can be relied upon for the purpose of fixing the price of the acquired land would be sale deed (Ex.51) dated 10-7-1981. In terms of the said sale deed an area of 1059 sq, ft. was sold for Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the price of the land works out to Rs. 9.80 per sq. ft. The applicant himself relied upon Circular (Ex.32) dated 24-2-1983 issued by Town Planning and Valuation Department in which it is mentioned that the maximum deduction permissible for internal open spaces is 25%. In our opinion, since the area of acquired plot is over one lac square feet as compared to the area of the property in the sale deed (Ex. 51) it would he just and proper to deduct 25%. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Agnihotri that 25% deduction made by the Reference Court for internal roads, open spaces, etc. is on higher side since the Government has constructed the building on a small portion of the acquired land. In addition, as has been held in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor's case further deduction has to be made for largeness of the acquired land inasmuch as it would have taken some time for the applicant to sale all plots in case the acquired lands have divided into plots. On this count, in our opinion, appropriate deduction would be 15%. Therefore, in our opinion, 40% deduction would be appropriate deduction from sale price of sale deed (Ex.51). Thus, market price of the acquired land as per Notification under Section 4 of the Act comes to Rs. 5.88 which is rounded upto Rs. 6/-. The appellant will be entitled to rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. in respect of the entire land acquired i.e. 114345 sq.ft. since we have already made deduction of 40% for the purpose of development and open spaces as well as largeness of land. Thus, total compensation (excluding statutory benefits) comes to Rs. 6,86,070/-. The appellant and the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are entitled to 1/5th share each.

11. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The market rate of the acquired land i.e. 114345 sq. ft. is fixed @ Rs. 6/- per sq.ft. and the appellant is, therefore, entitled to total compensation of Rs. 6,86.070/-. Needless to mention that the compensation already granted by the Land Acquisition Officer has to be adjusted against total compensation. The appellant and respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are entitled to statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.

12. The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.