Ashok Namdeorao Shelke And Anor vs Special Land Acquisition Officer ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 956 Bom

    206-J-FA-17-2007                                                                             1/6


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                         
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO.17 OF 2007




                                                                 
    1.  Ashok s/o Namdeorao Shelke
         aged about 42 years. 




                                                                
    2.  Anil Namdeorao Shelke
         aged about 33 years, 
         both agriculturist, resident of 
         Shahpur, P.O. Surji Anjangaon, 




                                                   
         Tah. Anjangaon, Dist. Amravati.                            ... Appellants. 

    -vs- 
                                      
    1.  Special Land Acquisition Officer
                                     
         (Upper Wardha Project) No.3, 
          Amvavati. 

    2.   State of Maharashtra,
          through Collector, Amravati. 
              


    3.  The Secretary Law and Judiciary,
           



          Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, 
          Mumbai 400 032. 

    4.   The Executive Engineer
          P.W.D. Department, Anjangaon, 





          Daryapur Dist. Amravati.                                  ... Respondents. 


    Shri Vishwas Bapat, Advocate for appellants.  
    Ms N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 





                                                  CORAM  : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. 

DATE : MARCH 29, 2016

Oral Judgment :

This appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) by the original claimants who

206-J-FA-17-2007 2/6

are aggrieved by judgment dated 09/08/2006 passed by the Reference Court

rejecting the prayer for enhancement of compensation.

The appellants are the owners of field survey No.10/103 of village

Shahapur, Taluka Anjangaon, Dist. Amravati. Land to the extent of 0.43 R

came to be acquired pursuant to Notification dated 18/05/1989 issued under

Section 4 of the said Act. The award came to be passed on 26/09/1991. The

Land Acquisition Officer awarded total compensation of Rs.20,253/- for the

acquired land. Being aggrieved, the claimants filed reference under Section

18 of the said Act. By the impugned judgment the reference proceedings

have been dismissed holding that there was no case made out for

enhancement in the amount of compensation.

2. Shri V. Bapat, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted

that the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim for

enhancement. It was submitted that before the Land Acquisition Officer sale

instances of adjoining lands were relied upon but the same were not taken

into consideration while determining the amount of compensation. It was

submitted that one sale instance pertained to field survey No.9 which was

adjoining the acquired land. As per sale deed dated 12/09/1985 0.81 R land

was sold for Rs.2,00,000/- Another sale instance was from the same survey

number as the acquired land. Therein 0.30 R land was sold on 12/09/1985

for Rs.90,000/-. It was submitted that the Reference Court ignored these

206-J-FA-17-2007 3/6

sale transactions only on the basis that the said transactions were between

the near relatives. According to the learned counsel, there was no evidence

on record to indicate that said sale transactions were not genuine. It was

also submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had clearly admitted that the

acquired land was within municipal limits of village Shahapur and that the

relevant sale instances had been produced before the Land Acquisition

Officer. According to the learned counsel, the land was acquired for

constructing a court building and this fact itself indicated the non-

agricultural potential of the same. It was therefore submitted that the

Reference Court ought to have enhanced the amount of compensation to the

extent of Rs.8,00,000/- per hectare as claimed in the reference proceedings.

3. Ms Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondents supported the impugned order. It was submitted that in absence

of any cogent evidence being led by the appellants, there was no case for

enhancing the amount of compensation. It was submitted that the Reference

Court rightly ignored the sale transaction in respect of Survey Nos.9 and

10/1 as the acquired land was agricultural land and there was no evidence

with regard to the nature of crops being grown by the appellants. It was

therefore submitted that there was no case for enhancement in the amount of

compensation.

206-J-FA-17-2007 4/6

4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone

through the records of the case and I have given due consideration to their

respective submissions. The point that arises for consideration is as follows :

" Whether the appellants have made out any case for

enhancement in the amount of compensation ? "

5. The appellant No.1 examined himself below Exhibit-67. He stated

that he had produced five sale instances before the Land Acquisition Officer.

Sale instances from Survey Nos.9 and 10/1 were in respect of adjoining

lands. In his cross examination, it was admitted that there was no well in

the acquired land. He has stated that he was taking crops from the said

land.

On behalf of the respondent, the Special Land Acquisition Officer

was examined below Exhibit-70. In his cross examination, this witness

admitted that the acquired land was touching the Gaothan area and it was

within municipal limits of village Shahapur. He also admitted that the

appellants had produced the sale instances before the Land Acquisition

Officer.

6. The aforesaid evidence indicates that it is not in dispute that the

appellants had produced five sale instances before the Land Acquisition

Officer. Two sale deeds were pertaining to field Survey Nos.9 and 10/1.

206-J-FA-17-2007 5/6

Both the sale deeds are dated 12/09/1985. The other sale deeds are post

Section 4 notification. From Survey No.9, 0.81 R land was sold at the rate

of Rs.2,40,000/- per hectare. From Survey No.10/1 which is the same

Survey number of the acquired land, 0.30 R land was sold at the rate of

Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare. Considering these two sale deeds which were

available on record, there was no reason for the Land Acquisition Officer to

have ignored the same without any justifiable cause. By considering these

two sale deeds, an average price of Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare can be

considered as the price prevailing for the said land in September 1985.

7. The location of the land is undisputedly within municipal limits.

The purpose of acquisition is for constructing the court building which itself

indicates the high potential of the land. Considering the fact that the

notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 18/05/1989 and

by granting enhancement at the rate of 10% per year for a period of four

years, the enhancement per year would be Rs.25,000/-. Thus in the year

1989, the value of the land can be taken at Rs.3,50,000/- per hectare.

8. It is further to be noted that some deduction would be necessary

on account of development charges. The normal trend is to deduct 1/3rd

amount for said purposes. Thus, deducting 1/3rd amount for development

charges, the valuation of the land would come to Rs.2,34,000/- per hectare.

206-J-FA-17-2007 6/6

Thus in my view, the fair compensation for 0.43 R land that was acquired

pursuant to notification dated 18/05/1989 would be at the rate of

Rs.2,34,000/- per hectare. The point as framed is answered accordingly and

it is held that the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the amount of

compensation.

9. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed :

i)

The judgment of the Reference Court dated 09/08/2006 is

quashed and set aside.

ii) It is held that the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the

amount of compensation @ Rs.2,34,000/- per hectare. Said

amount shall be paid with all statutory benefits.

iii) The first appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

JUDGE

Asmita