The Nanded Municipal Council vs The State Of Mah. & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3158 Bom

                                        1                   FA No.472/2002

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        FIRST APPEAL NO.472 OF 2002

  The Nanded Municipal Council,
  Nanded, per its Chief Officer,
  Municipal Council Campus,
  Nanded                                          ..APPELLANT
                                              (Orig. Resp.No.3)
                               VERSUS

  1. The State of Maharashtra
     per District Collector,
     Nanded                         ..Orig.Resp No.1

  2. The Special Land Acquisition
     Officer, UPP No.1, 
     Collectorate,Nanded                                    
                                               ..Orig.Resp No.2

  3. M/s Nanded Development 
     Syndicate, Nanded, 
     a registered partnership 
     firm for its present partners
     and persons interested.        ..Orig. Claimant

  (i) Ramkunwar Devi w/o 
      Dwarkadas Shukla,
      Age:52 years, Occu.Business,
      R/o. Nanded,

  (ii) Sitaram Maganlal Shukla,
      Age:60 years, Occu.Business,
      R/o. Nanded,

           (R.3(ii) abated as per R's 
            court order dated 7/7/2009.)

  (iii) Kishorkumar s/o Sumeshchandra 
        Varma
        Age:36 years, Occu. Business,
        R/o. Nanded, Sumesh Colony, 




::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:10:22 :::
                                    2                     FA No.472/2002

            Vazirabad, Nanded,

  (iv)  Ritan Devi w/o Bhagirath Shukla
        Age:38 years, Occu.:Business,
        R/o. Nanded,

  (v) Jamuna Devi W/o. Bhagwandas Shukla,
      Age:45 years, Occu.:Business,
      R/o. Nanded,

  (vi) Smt. Kanta Ben w/o. Kantilal Lotia,
       Age:26 years, Occu. Business,
       R/o. Nanded,

  (vii) Rajesh s/o. Kantilal Lotia,
        Age:26 years, Occu.:Business,
        R/o. Nanded,

  (viii) Smt. Bharti w/o Kantilal Parekh,
         Age:29 years, Occu.:Business,
         R/o. Nanded,

  (ix) Kum.Rekha d/o Kantilal Lotia,
       Age:27 years, Occu. Business,
       R/o. Nanded,

  (x) Atul S/o Kantilal Lotia,
      Age:25 years, Occu.Business,
      R/o. Vajirabad, Nanded,

  (xi) Swati d/o Kantilal Lotia,
       Age:18 years, Occu. Business,
       R/o. Vajirabad, Nanded
                                       ..RESPONDENTS
                                      No.3(i) to (xi)
                                     Orig. Claimants

                                  ***
           Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Advocate for Appellant;
           Shri S.M. Ganachari, AGP for State.
           Shri   S.S.   Bora,   Advocate   for   Resp.   No.3  
           (i,iii to v, vii, viii)
                                   ***




::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:10:22 :::
                                          3                       FA No.472/2002



                               CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

14 th

June,2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard the learned Counsel for the

respective parties. The present appeal is filed

taking exception to the Judgment and Award passed

by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded on 24 th

April, 1996 in LAR No.62/1988.

2) The land belonging to Respondent No.1-

partnership firm was acquired by the Nanded

Municipal Council, as it then was, for the

purpose of a primary school. Total 99 Are land

was acquired. Section 6 notification in that

regard was published on 6th June, 1985. The

record does not reflect the date on which final

award was passed. However, from the record, it

can be gathered that notice under Section 12(2)

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the

Act) was issued on 16.11.1987. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer had offered the compensation

@ Rs.1.10 ps per sq.ft. Respondent No.1, being

dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so

offered, filed the Reference application under

Section 18 of the Act.

3) Before the Reference Court, the original

claimants had claimed compensation @ Rs.75/- per

sq.ft. In order to substantiate the claim so

preferred, the original claimants had relied upon

few earlier judgments in the LARs, more

particularly LAR Nos.180/1992 and 135/1988,

wherein the Reference Court had awarded the

compensation @ Rs.10/- per sq.ft. The claimants

had also placed on record few sale-deeds at

Exhibits-46,47,48 and 50. No evidence was

adduced by the acquiring body. The learned

Reference Court, after having assessed the

evidence, oral as well as documentary, brought

before it, determined the market value of the

acquired lands @ Rs.10/- per sq.ft and enhanced

the amount of compensation accordingly.

Aggrieved by, the appellant - acquiring body has

preferred the present appeal.

4) Shri Kurundkar, learned Counsel

appearing for the appellant, assailed the

impugned Award on various grounds. The learned

Counsel submitted that no sufficient opportunity

was granted to the acquiring body to adduce the

evidence before the Reference Court. The learned

counsel submitted that the Reference Court could

not have determined the market value of the

subject lands on the basis of some earlier

decisions in different LARs, since the lands,

which were the subject matter of the said

Reference Applications, cannot be held comparable

to the subject lands.

. The learned counsel further submitted

that, almost all the sale-deeds relied upon by

the original claimants were pertaining to small

pieces of land, and as such, the considerations

received for those small plots could not have

been a base for determining the market value of

the land admeasuring 99 Are. The learned Counsel

submitted that the Special Land Acquisition

Officer, on the contrary, had considered all the

circumstances and has appropriately and correctly

offered the compensation @ Rs.1.10 ps per sq.ft

and no interference could have been done in the

amount of compensation so offered. The learned

Counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the

impugned Award and to confirm the market value as

was determined by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer.

5) Shri Bora, learned Counsel appearing for

the original claimant/s supported the impugned

award. The learned Counsel submitted that, in

fact, the claimants were entitled for some more

compensation than awarded by the Reference Court,

however, for some reasons beyond their control

the claimants did not prefer an appeal seeking

enhancement in the amount of compensation. The

learned Counsel, inviting my attention to the

discussion made by the Reference Court in para 13

onwards of the judgment, submitted that the

Reference Court has adequately discussed the

evidence which was placed on record by the

original claimants. The learned counsel

submitted that the lands, which were the subject

matter of the Reference Applications, the

judgments whereof were relied upon by the

claimants, were adjacent lands, and as such, the

Reference Court has rightly relied upon the

market value determined in the said Reference

Applications. The learned Counsel further

submitted that though the sale instances relied

upon by the claimants were of small pieces of

land, the Reference Court, while determining the

market value of the subject lands, has

proportionately deducted the amount, and though

in all those sale instances the consideration was

ranging in between Rs.30 to Rs.40 per sq.ft., the

Reference Court has awarded only Rs.10/- per

sq.ft. for the subject land. The learned counsel

further pointed out that the subject land was

non-agricultural land and NA permission was

placed on record of the Reference Court and that

was also the consideration that the price was

determined by the Reference Court @ Rs.10/- per

sq.ft. The learned counsel submitted that no

interference is called for in the impugned

judgment and award.

6) I have carefully considered the

submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing

for the respective parties. I have also perused

the impugned Judgment and Award and other

material on record. Apparently, I do not see any

reason for causing any interference in the

Judgment and Award so passed. Perusal of the

judgment passed by the Reference Court reveals

that the evidence which was brought before the

Reference Court has been appropriately analyzed

by it and based on the said evidence, the market

value has been determined of the subject land.

Though it was sought to be canvassed that the

lands, which were the subject matter of LAR Nos.

180/1992 and 135/1988, were dissimilar with the

subject land, the contention so raised cannot be

accepted in view of the discussion made by the

Reference Court. It is revealed that the said

lands were adjacent lands. As such, the Reference

Court did not seem to have committed any error in

determining the market value of the subject land

on the basis of the market value determined in

the said Reference Applications. Further, though

the sale instances relied upon by the claimants

were of the small pieces of lands, as has been

argued by the learned Counsel for the original

claimants, the Reference Court, while

determining the market value of the subject land,

has made proper deductions while determining the

market value of the subject land and though in

all the said sale instances, the consideration

received was ranging in between Rs.30/- to

Rs.40/- per sq ft., the market value of the

subject land has been determined by the Reference

Court @ Rs.10/- per sq.ft.

7) After having considered the entire

material on record, it does not appear to me that

the compensation so awarded by the Reference

Court, is on higher side or excessive. In the

circumstances, there seems no reason for causing

any interference in the impugned judgment and

award.

8) In the result, the first appeal is

dismissed, however, without any order as to

costs. Pending Civil Application, if any, stands

disposed of.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

bdv/