Bombay High Court
The Divn. Controller, Msrtc vs Madhukar Ramlu Chintawar And 2 Ors on 14 December, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-fa437.06 & fa785.06.odt 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.437 OF 2006 WITH CROSS OBJECTION
No.25 OF 2006
AND
FIRST APPEAL No.785 OF 2006
=======
FIRST APPEAL No.437 OF 2006
Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T.C. Chandrapur. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. Madhukar s/o. Ramlu Chintawar,
Aged 70 years,
Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Macchinala, Chandrapur.
Distt. Chandrapur.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector,
Gadchiroli.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer and
S.D.O. Gadchiroli,
At & Po. & Tah & Distt. Gadchiroli. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION No.25 OF 2006
IN
FIRST APPEAL No.437 OF 2006
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:04:12 :::
J-fa437.06 & fa785.06.odt 2/10
The Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T.C. Chandrapur. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. Madhukar s/o. Ramlu Chintawar,
Aged about 70 years,
Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Macchinala, Chandrapur.
Distt. Chandrapur.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector,
Gadchiroli.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer and
S.D.O. Gadchiroli,
At & P.O. and Tah. Gadchiroli,
Distt. Gadchiroli. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the Respondent No.1/Cross Objector.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
AND
FIRST APPEAL No.785 OF 2006
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector,
Gadchiroli.
(Ori. Non-applicant No.1)
2. The Land Acquisition Officer and
S.D.O. Gadchiroli,
Tah. And Distt. Gadchiroli.
(Ori. Non-applicant No.2) : APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:04:12 :::
J-fa437.06 & fa785.06.odt 3/10
1. Madhukar s/o. Ramlu Chintawar,
Aged about 65 years,
Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Macchinala, Chandrapur.
At & Post & Tah. and Distt. Chandrapur.
(Ori. Applicant)
2. Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T.C. Chandrapur.
(Ori. Non-applicant No.3) : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for the Appellants.
Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 8
DECEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Both the appeals and the cross-objection challenge the
legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 25 th April,
2005, rendered by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadchiroli, in Land
Acquisition Reference No.1/1999.
2. The challenge made by the parties is on the quantum of
compensation determined by the Reference Court. First Appeal
No.437/2006 has been filed by the beneficiary i.e. Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T.C., Chandrapur, District Chandrapur for whose purposes, the
land bearing survey No.205-B, admeasuring 1.30 hectare, situated at
mouza Ashti, District Gadchiroli was acquired, it was acquired to enable
J-fa437.06 & fa785.06.odt 4/10
this appellant to construct the Bus-stand and staff quarter. The cross-
objection filed in this appeal is of the land owner or the claimant. First
Appeal No.785/2006 is filed by the State which acquired compulsorily
the land of the claimant for public purpose. For the sake of convenience,
the parties to all these proceedings shall now be referred to as the
acquiring body, the claimant and the State.
3. I have heard Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the
acquiring body, Shri M.A. Kadu, learned A.G.P. for the State and Shri S.S.
Ghate, learned counsel for the claimant. I have also gone through the
record of the case including the impugned judgment and order.
4. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is :
Whether the compensation granted by the Reference
Court is just and proper ?
5. Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the acquiring body
submits that the compensation so granted by the Reference Court is
unjust and improper. According to him, the Reference Court considered
the sale instances of the developed land and which were of smaller pieces
of lands and whereas the acquired land was a larger piece of land and an
agricultural land, never converted into non-agricultural use. He submits
that these sale instances could not have served as the reference point for
making comparison between the acquired land and the land involved in
those sale instances. According to him, there was no evidence available
on record to show that the acquired land possessed any commercial
J-fa437.06 & fa785.06.odt 5/10
value.
6. Shri M.A. Kadu, learned A.G.P. for the State submits that
even though a portion of the acquired land was earlier acquired for
development of a marketing complex, the assessment of the market value
of the acquired land carried out by the Reference Court is much on the
higher side. He submits that the Reference Court ought to have made
further deductions while making the final assessment of the market
value.
7. Shri S.S. Ghate, learned counsel for the claimant submits that
there is sufficient evidence available on record showing that the acquired
land did possess commercial value and this has also been admitted by the
Land Acquisition Officer. He further submits that there was a draft
award prepared by the predecessor of the present Land Acquisition
Officer, wherein the assessment of the market value of the acquired land
was made to be at Rs.5,00,000/- per hectare and the present Land
Acquisition Officer arbitrarily reduced it to Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare. He
submits that the Reference Court considered all these facts present on
record and reached a proper conclusion that the acquired land possessed
commercial value and therefore, it was required to be assessed by
treating it to be so, inspite of the fact that at the time of its acquisition, its
status was that of an agricultural land. He, however, submits that there
is one error committed by the Reference Court and it is in regard to
making of deductions from the market value of the land determined by
J-fa437.06 & fa785.06.odt 6/10
the Reference Court. According to him, once it was found by the
Reference Court and rightly so that market value of the acquired land
could be more or less equal to the average of the market value of the sale
instances relied upon by the claimant which was of Rs.15,26,600/- per
hectare, the Reference Court was not justified in reducing it to almost
half of it. He submits that the deduction of about 35% made by the
Reference Court was consistent with the settled principles of law, but the
further deductions made by it was not. According to him, the market
value of the acquired land should have been of at least Rs.9,00,000/- per
hectare.
8. On going through the impugned judgment and order and the
evidence available on record I find no substance in the argument of
learned counsel for the acquiring body as well as learned A.G.P. But, I
find some merit in the argument of learned counsel for the claimant.
9. There are admissions given by the Land Acquisition Officer
himself, the cumulative effect of which is that the acquired land did
possess commercial value at the time of its acquisition or at the time of
publication of section 4 notification. The date of its publication was
16.11.1995. A part of the acquired land, had been acquired in the past
and Section 4 notification in that regard was issued on 18.3.1993. It was
acquired for development of marketing complex. Then, the Land
Acquisition Officer also admitted that the acquired land was adjacent to a
square in the town and situated on Chandrapur-Ashti-Aheri State
J-fa437.06 & fa785.06.odt 7/10
Highway. He also admitted that previously, in the draft prepared by its
predecessor, the acquired land was shown to be having value of
Rs.5,00,000/- per hectare. There is also an admission to the effect that
the acquired land did have a commercial value. Such being the facts
established on record, I find that the Tribunal has rightly held that the
status of the acquired land as an agricultural land is not so important as
its present potential for being used for commercial purposes. The
Reference Court has followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Saraswati Devi vs. Uttar Pradesh Government,
reported in 1992 BCJ 865, wherein it has been held that if part of the
land was sold for building purpose much prior to the date of Section 4
notification, then its treatment as agricultural land would be
misconceived. By applying this law to the facts present on record, the
Tribunal proceeded to determine the value of the acquired land by taking
into consideration its commercial potential and rightly so. I do not find
any error in the approach so adopted by the Reference Court.
10. It is further seen from the record that there were several sale
instances adduced in evidence by the claimant. All these sale instances
have been appropriately considered by the Tribunal. The Reference
Court, based upon the evidence available on record, has found that the
land involved in the sale instances could be compared with the acquired
land, because of many similarities existing in between all these lands.
Then, by following the law of averages, the Reference Court also
J-fa437.06 & fa785.06.odt 8/10
determined the average rate of the comparable lands and it was of
Rs.15,26,600/- per hectare and rightly so. Again, I find no error in the
finding so recorded by the Reference Court.
11. Learned counsel for the acquiring body submits that
appropriate deductions ought to have been made by the Reference Court
in determining the market value. Learned counsel for the claimant,
disagreeing with the submission, has invited my attention to the
deductions actually made by the Reference Court. Learned counsel for
the claimant is right. There are deductions which have been actually
made by the Reference Court. These deductions are almost of 45% of the
average value of the lands involved in the comparable sale instances and
accordingly, the Reference Court has found the true market value of the
acquired land to be of Rs.8,42,290/-. The Reference Court, however,
further reduced this value and rounded it off to Rs.8,00,000/- per
hectare. The deduction of about 45% made by the Reference Court is
understandable, for, about an area of 30 to 35% would be lost for
developmental activities and there would also be some waiting period for
selling of the plot. So, deduction of about 45% from the aggregate value
of the land cannot be said to be unreasonable and unjust. Therefore,
determining the market value of the acquired land to be at Rs.8,42,290/-
can also not be faulted with. But, I do not see any justification
whatsoever in further reducing the market value, just on the ground of
necessity of rounding it off, to Rs.8,00,000/- per hectare. If the rounding
J-fa437.06 & fa785.06.odt 9/10
off was to be done, it could have been done to the nearest figure and the
nearest figure was of Rs.8,43,000/- and not to the remotest figure of
Rs.8,00,000/- per hectare. This is where, as rightly submitted by the
learned counsel for the claimant, the Reference Court has slightly gone
wrong which error now is required to be corrected by this Court and I do
correct it by this order.
12. In the result, I find that the true market value of the acquired
land in the present case is of Rs.8,43,000/- per hectare and I also find
that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation at this rate only, this
extent, I am of the opinion that cross-objection deserves to be allowed.
The point is answered accordingly.
13. Thus, I find no merit in both the appeals on substantial
grounds. However, some correction in the operative order of the
impugned award is required to be made, for, the interest granted at the
rate of 9% p.a. for one year under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act
would have to be granted not from the date of 22.5.1995, the date of
possession, but from the date of award which is of 20 th November, 1998
and in order to make such a correction and only to this extent, both the
appeals would also have to be partly allowed.
14. The First Appeal Nos.437/2006 and the Cross-objection
No.25 of 2006 and the First Appeal No.785 of 2006 are partly allowed.
15. It is declared that the claimant is entitled to receive
compensation at the rate of Rs.8,43,000/- per hectare and same shall be
J-fa437.06 & fa785.06.odt 10/10
paid to the claimant with all statutory benefits at the same rate as
already granted by the Reference Court with the modification in the
direction regarding grant of interest under Section 28 and now it is
directed that it shall be granted at the rate of 9% p.a., not from
22.5.1995, but from 20th November, 1998 for a period of one year i.e.
upto 19.11.1999 and thereafter, the interest shall carry the rate of 15%
p.a. till realization of the amount granted under this order.
16. The amount so enhanced under this order shall be paid to the
claimant within three months from the date of order. Additional Court, if
any, be paid by the claimant.
17. The impugned judgment and order stand modified
accordingly.
18. Parties to bear their own costs.
19. If the amount deposited in this Court meets the requirements
of this order in terms of it's sufficiency to satisfy the decree, same be
permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant with accrued interest, if any,
and any excess amount, if any, be refunded with accrued interest, if any,
to the acquiring body.
JUDGE
okMksns
