State Of Mah. Thr. Collector & Ors vs Chandrashekhar S/O Purushottam ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9397 Bom

                                                  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

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

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

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

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

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