Bombay High Court
Jammanbi W/O Sk. Bahira (Dead0 ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Collector, ... on 19 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
fa483.10.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.483/2010
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.534/2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.483/2010
APPELLANTS : 1) Sk. Mohammad Sk. Bahira,
(Ori. Petitioners) Aged about 52 years, Occu: Agriculturist.
On R.A.
2) Sk. Salim s/o Sk. Bahira,
Occu : Agriculturist - Dead by L.R's
i) Smt. Bibibai w/o Sk. Salim,
Aged about 46 years, Occu :
Household work.
ii) Sk. Mehaboob Sk. Salim,
Aged about 26 years, Occu : Nil.
iii) Sk. Javed Sk. Salim,
Aged about 24 years, Occu. : Education.
iv) Sk. Akbar Sk. Salim,
Aged about 22 years, Occu : Education.
v) Sk. Ansar Sk. Salim,
Aged about 19 years, Occu : Education.
3) Sk. Anis Sk. Bahira,
Aged about 50 years, Occu : Agriculturist.
All r/o Gawalipura, Akot Road, Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : (1) The State of Maharashtra,
On R.A. Through Collector, Akola, Distt. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:11:52 :::
fa483.10.odt
2
(2) The Collector, Akola, Distt. Akola.
(3) Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition
Officer, Akola, Distt. Akola.
(4) Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Mumbai, The Regional
Office, MIDC, Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.M. Ghare, Counsel for appellants
Mrs. Mrunal Naik, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Counsel for respondent no.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.534/2010
APPELLANTS : 1) Jammanbai w/o Sk. Bahira,
(Ori. Petitioners) aged about 75 years, Occ : Agriculturist-
..........R.A Dead, Through legal heirs
Appellant Nos.2, 5, 6, 8 & 9.
2) Sk. Lalu Sk. Bahira, aged about 67 years,
Occu. : Agriculture, r/o Gawalipura,
Akot Road, Akola, Tq. Akola, Distt. Akola.
3) Sk. Bismilla Sk. Bahira
aged 42 years, Occu. : Agriculture
Dead - through legal heirs -
i) Smt. Nazmabee wd/o Sk. Bismilla, aged about
50 years, Occu. : Household work.
ii) Smt. Jaynabee wd/o Sk. Yunus, aged about 30
years, Occ.: Household Work, R/o Ambejogai,
Dist. Parbhani.
iii) Sk. Ibrahim s/o Sk. Bismilla, aged about 28
years, Occu : Labour.
iv) Sk. Shobbhir s/o Sk. Bismilla, aged about 26
years, Occu. Labour.
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:11:52 :::
fa483.10.odt
3
v) Sk. Firoz s/o Sk. Bismilla, aged about 24 years,
Occu : Labour.
vi) Sk. Shakil s/o Sk. Bismilla, aged about 23
years, Occu : Labour.
vii) Sk. Afroz s/o Sk. Bismilla, aged about 21
years, Occu : Labour.
viii) Sk.Ishan s/o Sk. Bismilla, aged about 17 years,
Occ : Labour. (Minor), through Guardian
mother i.e. Smt. Nazmabee wd/o
Sk. Bismilla -3-i).
Nos.(i), (ii) to (viii) all are R/o Gavalipura,
Akot Road, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola.
4) Sk. Salim Sk. Bahira
Aged about 45 years, Occ : Agriculture -
Dead Through legal heirs -
i) Smt. Bibibai wd/o Sk. Salim, aged about 45
years, Occ. : Household work.
ii) Sk. Mehboob s/o Sk. Salim, aged about Adult,
Occ. : Labour.
iii) Sk. Javed s/o Sk. Salim, aged about 23 years,
Occ. : Education.
iv) Sk. Akbar s/o Sk. Salim, aged about 19 years,
(now became major), Occu : Education.
v) Sk. Ansa s/o Sk. Salim, aged about 19 years,
(Now became Major), Occ : Education.
Nos. (i) to (v) all are R/o Near Akot Stand,
Akola, Tq. Akola, Distt. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:11:52 :::
fa483.10.odt
4
5. Sk. Anis Sk. Bahira, aged about 50 years,
Occu : Agriculture, R/o Gawalipura, Akot
Road, Akola, Tq. Akola, Distt. Akola.
6. Sk. Mohammad s/o Sk. Bahira, aged about 52
years, Occu : Agriculture, r/o Gawalipura,
Akot Road, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola.
7. Sk.Ramzan Sk. Bahira,
aged about 52 years, Occ. : Agriculture,
Dead through legal heirs.
i) Smt. Chhotibai wd/o Sk. Ramzan, aged about
50 years, Occu : Household work, Akola,
Tq. Akola, Distt. Akola.
ii) Sk.Salman s/o Sk. Ramzan, aged about 27
years, Occ : Labour, Akola, Tq. Akola,
Distt. Akola.
iii) Sk. Ismail s/o Sk. Ramzan, aged about 28
years, Occu : Labour, Akola, Tq. Akola,
Distt. Akola.
iv) Smt. Jubedabee Sk. Subhan, aged about 26
years, Occu : Household work, r/o Chikhali,
District Buldhana.
v) Sk. Husain s/o Sk. Ramzan, aged about 23
years, Occu. : Labour, Akola, Tq. Akola,
Distt. Akola.
vi) Smt. Saddobee w/o Sk. Chand, aged about 23
years, Occu : Household work, r/o Shirpur, Tq.
Malegaon, Dist. Washim.
8. Smt. Maidbee w/o Sk. Biram, aged about 62
years, Occu : Household Work, r/o
Gawalipura, Akot Road, Akola, Tq. Akola,
Distt. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:11:52 :::
fa483.10.odt
5
9. Smt. Chandbi w/o Sk. Chand, aged about 61
years, Occu : Household work,
r/o Gawalipura, Akot Road, Akola, Tq. Akola,
Distt. Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
.......On R.A. through Collector, Akola, Distt. Akola.
2. The Collector, Akola, Distt. Akola.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Akola,
Distt. Akola.
4. Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Mumbai, The Regional
Office, MIDC, Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.M. Ghare, Counsel for appellants
Mrs. Mrunal Naik, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Counsel for respondent no.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 19/07/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By these first appeals, the appellants - claimants challenge
the award of the reference Court, insofar as it rejects the prayer of the
appellants for grant of compensation for the acquired lands
@ Rs.53,45,000/- per hectare.
fa483.10.odt
Few facts giving rise to these first appeals are stated thus :-
The appellants were the owners and possessors of
agricultural land at Yeota. The State Government decided to acquire the
land of the appellants along with the land of several others vide
notification issued under Section 31 (2) of the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Act on 13/08/1992. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the
award on 30/3/1997 and granted compensation to the claimants
@ Rs.24,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved by the grant of meagre
compensation, the appellants filed reference application under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act. The land acquisition cases were registered
and in the said cases, the appellants claimed that the market value of
their land at the time of issuance of the notification was Rs.50/- per sq. ft.
and therefore, they were entitled to compensation @ Rs.53,45,000/- per
hectare. The reference applications were decided by the District Judge-II,
Akola by the judgment and award dated 9/9/2009. It was held by the
reference Court that the grant of compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per hectare
was on the lower side and the market value of the land was Rs.1,000/-
per Are. The reference Court therefore directed the respondents to grant
compensation to the appellants @ Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. By the
award, the respondents were directed to pay interest and also other
statutory benefits from the date of issuance of the notification till the date
fa483.10.odt
of passing of the award. The Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation (M.I.D.C.) as well as the claimants filed separate first
appeals. The appeals filed by the M.I.D.C. have been dismissed after
holding that the compensation granted to the appellants-claimants
@ Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare cannot be said to be on the higher side. The
appellants have claimed enhanced compensation as per their prayer in the
reference applications. Hence, these first appeals.
Shri Ghare, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted
that the reference Court was not justified in directing the respondents to
pay compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. It is submitted that the
lands of the appellant had great non-agricultural potential and there was
great development in village Yeota where the lands of the appellants were
situated. It is stated that the M.I.D.C. has acquired the land of the
appellants for industrial purposes and this proves that the land of the
appellants has great potential for industrial use. It is submitted that while
dismissing the first appeals filed by the M.I.D.C., this Court has held that
the market value of the land of the appellants could have been much
more. It is submitted that the reference Court ought to have granted
compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq. ft. on the basis of the two sale-deeds
executed on 8/5/1984 (Exh.33/2) and 11/2/1991 (Exh.33/3). The
learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
fa483.10.odt
reported in AIR 2013 SC 3532 to substantiate his submission.
Mrs. Naik, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the State Government opposed the prayer made by the
appellants. It is submitted that the compensation is enhanced by the
reference Court to a great extent and the same cannot be enhanced any
further.
Shri Agnihotri, the learned Counsel for the M.I.D.C.
submitted by taking this Court through the award of the Land Acquisition
Officer, that is marked as Exhibit - 26, to point out that the Land
Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration the sale instances that
had taken place just a couple of years before the issuance of the
Section 31 (2) notification and the sale instances referred in the award,
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer clearly show that the market value
of the land of the appellants was not much. It is submitted that it is
apparent from a bare perusal of the award of the Special Land Acquisition
Officer that there was a great development in Shivni, i.e. the adjoining
village but not at Yeota village where the lands of the appellants are
situated. It is submitted that while deciding First Appeal No.1183/2010
filed by the M.I.D.C. against the award passed by the reference Court,
unfortunately, the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
was not pointed out and hence, the Court was not able to take into
fa483.10.odt
consideration the other sale instances that were considered by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer while determining the compensation at
Rs.24,000/- per hectare. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case,
the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the original record and proceedings, it appears that the
following points arise for determination in these appeals.
(1) Whether the reference Court has rightly
awarded compensation to the appellants @ Rs.1,00,000/-
per hectare ?
(2) Whether the compensation is liable to
be enhanced ?
(3) What order ?
To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would
be necessary to peruse the record and proceedings and the evidence
tendered by the parties. The appellants-claimants had tendered oral as
well as documentary evidence. The appellants had examined Sheikh
Mohammad, who was the power of attorney holder for the claimants in
First Appeal No.534/2010. Sheikh Mohammad was the claimant himself
in First Appeal No.483/2010 and therefore he tendered the evidence in
support of his claim for enhancement of compensation. Sheikh
Mohammad stated in his evidence that the compensation awarded by the
fa483.10.odt
Special Land Acquisition Officer was very meagre and the acquired land
had great non-agricultural potential. It was stated by Sheikh Mohammad
that the land was situated near the Akola Municipal Corporation limits.
Sheikh Mohammad had stated that the claimants used to take dry crops
as well as irrigated crops from the land. It was stated that there were
wells in the land and there was enough water in the wells for cultivation.
A reference was made to two sale transactions in the evidence of Sheikh
Mohammad, i.e., the sale-deeds were at Exh.33/2 and 33/3. It was
pointed out by Sheikh Mohammad that by the sale-deed dated 8/5/1984
three acres of land from village Shivni was purchased by Haji Lal for a
sum of Rs.4,65,000/-. The said sale-deed was placed on record and was
marked as Exh.33/2. By the other sale transaction dated 11/2/1991, five
Ares of land in village Shivni was sold for a consideration of Rs.50,000/-.
The appellants-claimants had based their claim for enhanced
compensation on the two sale-deeds. The reference Court discarded the
sale-deed that was executed on 8/5/1984 by holding that it was a very
old transaction. The reference Court considered only the sale-deed
executed on 11/2/1991 to hold that the market value of the land of the
appellants could be Rs.1,000/- per Are. In our view, the reference Court
ought to have considered both the sale-deeds and should not have
discarded the sale-deed dated 8/5/1984 by holding that it was an old
fa483.10.odt
transaction. The transaction of the year 1984 pertained to a larger piece
of land as compared to the sale transaction of the year 1991 by which
only five Ares of land was sold. When the first appeal of the M.I.D.C.
bearing First Appeal No.1183/2010 was argued, it was not pointed out
that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was marked as
Exhibit -26. We have perused the award and the transactions considered
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while determining the
compensation. Normally, the Courts cannot consider the award of the
Land Acquisition Officer though it may be placed on record. However, in
this case, the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer is marked as
Exhibit - 26 and the same was produced on record only to point out the
sale transactions that took place in village Yeota and village Shivni in the
year 1987 and onwards, till the issuance of Section 31 (2) notification
under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act. We have perused the
transactions that were considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
In one of the transactions, the land in Survey No.135 admeasuring
3.10 hectares was sold for a consideration of Rs.7,742/- on 18/1/1988.
Similarly, 1.62 acres of land in Survey No.135, which is the adjourning
land, as the survey numbers in which the land of the appellants was
situated were survey Nos.137 and 138, was sold for a consideration of
Rs.14,815/- on 22/2/1989. Since these transactions fetched very less
fa483.10.odt
consideration, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had discarded them as
the lands were undervalued. We would also not like to consider the said
transactions for the purpose of determining the compensation in these
cases. However, three acres of land from Survey No.135 was sold on
16/3/1989 for a consideration of Rs.13,334/-. So also, 4.33 acres of land
in Survey No.13 was sold for the consideration of Rs.25,642/- on
26/3/1992. We have considered these transactions as the lands of the
appellants were situated in Survey Nos.11 and 12 which are adjoining
survey numbers. The highest consideration fetching transaction was from
Yeota where .63 acres of land from Survey No.4 was sold for a
consideration of Rs.42,857/- on 29/6/1987. Hence, it could be noticed
that several sale transactions were effected in village Shivni and village
Yeota in the year 1987, till the issuance of 31 (2) notification. The
appellants had produced two sale-deeds before the reference Court. The
land that was sold by the sale-deed executed on 8/5/1984 is located in
village Shivni. Though village Shivni is the adjoining village, there is
evidence on record to show that there was better development in Shivni
than in Yeota where the lands of the appellants were located. The sale
transaction dated 11/2/1991, pertained to a very small piece of land
admeasuring five Ares and therefore the same cannot be considered while
determining the compensation in the case of the appellants. The
fa483.10.odt
transactions referred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer have fetched
the consideration @ Rs.24,000/- per hectare, whereas the sale transaction
of village Shivni dated 8/5/1984 has fetched much higher consideration.
In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to take a mean of
the consideration fetched by the transactions that were considered by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer and the sale transactions on which the
appellants have relied on, while seeking higher compensation. In the
circumstances of the case, in our view, the appellants would be entitled to
compensation @ Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare. While holding so, we are not
inclined to give much weightage to the observations made by us in the
judgment in First Appeal No.1183/2010 as they are based solely on the
sale-deed dated 8/5/1984. When the said appeal was argued the
transactions considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the
award at Exhibit - 26 were not brought to our notice. In the
circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to partly allow the
appeals and direct the respondents to pay compensation for the acquired
land to the appellants @ Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare with statutory
benefits.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the first appeals are partly
allowed. The judgments and awards of the reference Court are hereby
modified. The respondents are directed to pay compensation to the
fa483.10.odt
appellants @ Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Five Thousand) per
hectare along with the statutory benefits, within four months. If the
appellants have not withdrawn the part of the amount that was deposited
by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation in this Court, the
appellants are permitted to withdraw the same.
Order accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
