Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Ku. Madhuri D/O Sukhdeorao ... on 10 April, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
fa704.12.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.704/2012
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.705/2012
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.933/2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.704/2012
APPELLANT: Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through its Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Ku. Rekha d/o Sukhdeorao Chaware,
aged about 29 years, Occupation : agriculture,
r/o Mahadeo Pura, Wardha, Wardha,
Tq. and District : Wardha.
2. The State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Wardha, Tq. and District Wardha.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor
Irrigation Works, Wardha, Tq. and District
Wardha.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for appellant
Ms A.S. Athalye, Advocate for respondent no.1
Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.705/2012
APPELLANT: Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through its Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Wardha.
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 22:46:03 :::
fa704.12.odt
2
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Ku. Madhuri d/o Sukhdeorao Chaware,
aged about 31 years, Occupation : agriculture
r/o Mahadeo Pura, Wardha, Tq. and District
Wardha.
2. The State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Wardha, Tq. and District Wardha.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor
Irrigation Works, Wardha, Tq. and District
Wardha.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for appellant
Ms A.S. Athalye, Advocate for respondent no.1
Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.933/2013
APPELLANT: Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through its Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Sarang Sukhdeorao Chaware
aged about 29 years, Occupation :
agriculturist, r/o Wardha, Tq. and
District Wardha.
2. The State of Maharashtra through the Collector,
Wardha.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor
Irrigation Works, Wardha Division,
Wardha.
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 22:46:03 :::
fa704.12.odt
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for appellant
Ms A.S. Athalye, Advocate for respondent no.1
Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 10.04.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Since the facts and the issues involved in these first appeals
are common and since they arise from similar judgments and awards
passed by the reference Court on the applications made by the
respondents - claimants, enhancing the compensation towards the
acquisition of the land, they are heard together and are decided by this
common judgment.
The State of Maharashtra decided to acquire the land of the
respondents and certain other adjoining lands for Madan Talav - Tank
Project by issuance of the Section 4 Notification on 12.10.1998. The
Section 6 Notification was issued on 23.3.2001. The Land Acquisition
Officer passed the award on 18.8.2002 granting compensation for the
acquired lands @ Rs.47,500/- per hectare. Separate compensation was
granted to the respondents-claimants for the trees standing on the land.
Being dissatisfied by the grant of meagre compensation, the respondents-
claimants filed separate applications under Section 18 of the Land
fa704.12.odt
Acquisition Act for making a reference of the matter to the civil Court.
Separate land acquisition cases were registered and on an appreciation of
the evidence on record, the reference Court directed the State
Government and the appellant - Acquiring Body to grant compensation
for the acquired lands @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. The State
Government and the appellant were further directed to pay the enhanced
compensation for the trees at 20% of the compensation that was awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer towards trees. The Acquiring Body -
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (V.I.D.C.) is aggrieved by
the enhancement of compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare and also
due to the grant of 20% of the amount for the trees on the acquired land.
Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the appellant - V.I.D.C.
submitted that the reference Court was not justified in granting enhanced
compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It is
stated that while granting the said compensation, the reference Court has
relied on a sale-deed executed by Ramaji Chaware in favour of Sheikh
Rahim and others on 25.7.1996, whereby Shri Chaware had sold the land
admeasuring .81 HR to Sheikh Rahim and others. It is stated that the
State Government had decided to acquire the land some time in the
month of September, 1996 and the sale-deed is executed just before the
State Government had desired to acquire the land. It is submitted that the
fa704.12.odt
reference Court should not have relied on the said sale-deed to enhance
the compensation manifold and grant it @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It is
submitted that the reference Court was not justified in directing the
appellant to pay 20% of the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer
for the trees on the acquired land as an additional compensation for the
trees. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever in granting
additional amount for the trees standing on the land. It is submitted that
since the possession of the land of the respondents was secured by the
Government before the issuance of the Section 4 Notification, interest
under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act was liable to be paid from
the date of passing of the award and the respondents - claimants were
not entitled to the interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date on
which the possession was secured. The learned Counsel relied on the
judgment, reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457 to substantiate his
submission.
Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the State Government supported the award of the
Land Acquisition Officer and advanced similar submissions as are
advanced on behalf of the appellant - V.I.D.C. It is submitted that the
enhancement of the compensation is on the higher side and it is not
supported by any cogent evidence.
fa704.12.odt
Ms Athalye, the learned Counsel for the respondents -
claimants has supported the awards passed by the reference Court. It is
submitted that the reference Court was justified in relying on the
sale-deed executed by Ramaji Chaware in favour of Sheikh Rahim and
others on 25.7.1996, i.e., much before the issuance of the Section 4
Notification on 12.10.1998. It is stated that the land was transferred by
Ramaji Chaware in favour of Sheikh Rahim and others two years before
the issuance of the Section 4 Notification and the land transferred by the
said transaction is located in the same survey number in which the lands
of the respondents are located. It is submitted that the reference Court has
rightly relied on the sale-deed dated 25.7.1996 to enhance the
compensation in respect of the land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It is
submitted that in respect of the trees also, the respondents - claimants
were entitled to much more compensation but on an appreciation of the
material on record, the reference Court has granted meagre compensation
for the trees. It is submitted that since there were few discrepancies in the
evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents -
claimants, the reference Court has granted additional amount, i.e., 20%
above the compensation that was already granted for the trees. It is
submitted that additional amount of 20%, in the case of each of the
claimants is very trifle and the additional compensation is only
fa704.12.odt
Rs.12,815/-. The learned Counsel however fairly admitted that in view of
the judgment of the Full Bench, the respondents - claimants would not be
entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date on which the
possession was secured by the State Government and they would be
entitled to seek interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of
passing of the award. It is stated that the respondents would avail the
remedy for seeking the rental compensation from the State Government
and the V.I.D.C. in appropriate proceedings.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that the following points arise for determination in these appeals :-
(i) Whether the reference Court was
justified in granting compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare for the acquired land ?
(ii) Whether the respondents - claimants
were entitled to grant 20% of the amount that was
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees, as
enhanced compensation for the trees ?
(iii) Whether the reference Court was
justified in granting interest under Section 34 of the Act
from the date of securing the possession ?
(iv) What order ?
To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would
be necessary to consider the oral and the documentary evidence tendered
by the parties. The land of the respondents was acquired by the State
fa704.12.odt
Government for the Madan Tank Project. The land of the respondents was
adjoining the National Highway and was very near to Wardha. The land
was situated within a radius of 10 kilometers from the sugar factory.
There was a good transport facility from the land of the claimants to the
market place and agricultural produce was easily carried by the claimants
from their respective lands to the market area. The land of the
respondents was irrigated land and several trees including teak trees were
standing on the same when the land was acquired. The land had a great
potential value as the adjoining lands were used for non-agricultural
purposes. The Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation
@ Rs.47,500/- per hectare. For claiming enhanced compensation, the
claimants had relied on the sale-deed executed by Ramaji Chaware in
favour of Sheikh Rahim and others on 25.7.1996. The Section 4
Notification is issued in this case on 12.10.1998. The sale-deed executed
by Ramaji Chaware pertains to the land situated in the same survey
number, in which the lands of the respondents are situated. By the said
transaction, Ramaji Chaware had sold .81 HR of land to Sheikh Rahim for
an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. If two acres of land was sold for a sum of
Rs.1,75,000/- two years before the issuance of Section 4 Notification, it is
necessary to hold that the market value of the land of the respondents -
claimants was surely Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare on the date of issuance of
fa704.12.odt
the Section 4 Notification on 12.10.1998. We do not find any force in the
submission made on behalf of the appellant - V.I.D.C. that because the
persons living in the locality became aware that the lands were being
acquired by the State Government, the sale-deed showed a higher
consideration. The Section 4 Notification is issued on 10.12.1998,
whereas the sale-deed was executed on 25.7.1996. On 25.7.1996, the
State Government had not even thought of acquiring the lands. The
reference Court has rightly relied on the sale-deed executed by Ramaji
Chaware in favour of Sheikh Rahim and others to grant the compensation
@ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare for the acquired land, specially when the
land is situated near the Highway and had a great potential value.
We also do not find any error in the judgment of the
reference Court in enhancing the compensation for the trees at 20% of the
amount of compensation paid for the trees to the claimants as per the
award of the Land Acquisition Officer. In respect of the claim for the
enhanced compensation for the trees, the respondents had examined
themselves and their witnesses. The valuation of the trees, as made by the
Government approved valuer was much more than the amount, that is,
actually granted by the reference Court. The reference Court has not
relied solely on the report of the valuer to enhance the compensation and
had enhanced the compensation for the trees, only at 20% of the amount
fa704.12.odt
that was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees. The
reference Court has considered the evidence of the parties in the right
perspective to hold that the respondents - claimants were entitled to at
least 20% of the amount that was determined by the Land Acquisition
Officer for the trees, as additional compensation for the trees. We find
that the enhanced compensation for the trees is very meagre and the
amount of enhanced compensation for the trees is determined between
Rs.11,000/- to Rs.13,000/- in respect of each of the claimants. We do not
find any error in the order of the reference Court in granting
compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare and 20%
of the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the
trees, as enhanced compensation for the trees.
Though we do not find any error in the judgment of the
reference Court, determining enhanced compensation for the land and the
trees as aforesaid, we find that the reference Court was not justified in
directing the appellant to pay interest to the claimants on the enhanced
compensation under Section 34 of the Act from the date on which the
possession of the land of the respondents was secured. The respondents
were entitled to compensation under Section 34 of the Act from the date
of passing of the award as per the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in
2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
fa704.12.odt
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the First Appeals are partly
allowed. The judgments and awards passed by the reference Court are
modified. We uphold the judgment of the reference Court, as far as it
enhances the compensation for the acquired land and the trees. The
respondents would however be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the
Act from the date of passing of the award.
Order accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
