Bombay High Court
Chandrakala Dugduba Armal vs State Of Mah. Thru. Special Land ... on 25 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
fa858.08+.J.odt 1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.858 OF 2008
Chandrakala Dagduba Armal,
Aged 50 years, Occ: Agri.
R/o Shivani Armal, Tq. Deulgaon
Raja, District Buldhana. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through - the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Collector
Office, Buldhana.
2] Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division Chikhli,
Tq. Chikhli, District Buldhana. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.854 OF 2008
Bhaskar Walhu Rathod,
Aged about 70 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Shivni Armal,
Tah. Deolgaon Raja,
Dist. Buldhana. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through - the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Collector
Office, Buldhana.
2] Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division Chikhli,
Tq. Chikhli, District Buldhana. ....... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 30/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2017 00:29:14 :::
fa858.08+.J.odt 2/12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.861 OF 2008
Bhaskar Walhu Rathod,
Aged about 70 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Shivni Armal,
Tah. Deolgaon Raja,
Dist. Buldhana. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through - the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Collector
Office, Buldhana.
2] Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division Chikhli,
Tq. Chikhli, District Buldhana. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE: 25 th
MAY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Advocate Deshmukh has argued the matter at length
for all the appellants. Respective learned Assistant Government
Pleaders, Ms. N.P. Mehta and Shamsi Haider have opposed all his
contentions.
fa858.08+.J.odt 3/12
2] Effort of Advocate Deshmukh is to demonstrate that
when several sale-deeds are available for comparison and for
determination of market price, one which is of highest
consideration needs to be accepted and acted upon. He has drawn
support from judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot & Ors. vs. State of
Punjab & Ors. reported at A.I.R. 2012 (SC) 2721, particularly
paragraph 10, paragraph 15 and paragraph 17.
3] Inviting attention to award, he submits that forgetting
that acquired lands are from same Mouza and situated adjacent to
each other, the classifications are groups have been drawn looking
to land revenue. He relies upon judgment in the case of State of
West Bengal vs. Shyamapada reported at A.I.R. 1975 (SC) 1723 to
urge that this method is not proper because in a given case, land
with less revenue may fetch much more value in open market.
4] Lastly, he points out that all lands acquired are small
in area and the appellants are not required to show the condition
of area and acquisition for securing the appropriate market price.
5] During arguments, he has placed reliance upon
fa858.08+.J.odt 4/12
evidence of P.W.2 Pundlik to show that he has purchased land
admeasuring 20 R for consideration of Rs.20,000/- on
26.09.1989. He points out that certified copy of Index-II Register
is placed on respective records and is duly exhibited. As per that
document, rate for 1 hectare of land works out to Rs.1,00,000/-.
He points out that this transaction is about 2½ years before date
of Section 4 notification in present matter and hence after giving
proportionate escalation at 10% every year, the market rate
payable to respective appellant on 26.12.1991 may be in excess of
Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. He comments upon the observations of
Reference Court while distinguishing this sale to urge that when
transaction is not shown to be entered into with any malice and
bona fide, it could not have been ignored. He further states that no
question of deduction arises in present matter because land was
being used for agriculture purpose and the larger area therefore, is
more convenient and beneficial.
6] To substantiate his contention, he has also taken the
Court through copy of award to show the amount of
compensation paid towards well in respective field. He contends
that looking to the crops found grown in his land, the land ought
to have been treated as irrigated one and compensation should
fa858.08+.J.odt 5/12
have been paid accordingly.
7] Respective learned A.G.Ps on the other hand state
that in award at Exh.29, Land Acquisition Officer has carefully
collated data in relation to various sale-deeds and on the basis of
those sale-deeds, average price has been worked out.
The sale-deed obtained by P.W. 2 shows exceptionally exorbitant
price and, therefore, has been rightly distinguished and discarded
by Reference Court. They placed reliance upon consideration of
this aspect by the Reference Court and pray for dismissal of the
appeals.
8] In this situation, the question to be answered in the
present matter is - Whether the Reference Court was justified in
refusing to act upon the evidence of P.W.2-Pundlik Shingne, and
in discarding the sale instance dated 26.09.1989?
9] Observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph
No.4 of its judgment in case of State of West Bengal vs.
Shyamapada (supra), show that classification of lands for revenue
purposes may have its rationale, but, then it is not uncommon to
find that land which has lower classification for revenue purposes
fa858.08+.J.odt 6/12
fetches higher price in the market. There is no debate in this
respect before me. In award at Exh.29, after mentioning the
details of the land, Land Acquisition Officer has proceeded to
undertake valuation of agricultural land in paragraph No.[I].
There he has grouped lands into two groups. In first group, he has
included lands which are assessed to land revenue upto Rs.2.50.
Lands fetching revenue to State Government in excess of Rs.2.51
are placed in group two. Thereafter, he has looked into the sale
instances in respective groups and for group one, he has
determined market value of Rs.20,000/- per hectare. For group
two, he has determined market value of Rs.24,000/- per hectare.
Then he has proceeded with valuation of fruit bearing trees,
valuation of Well etc. It is not in dispute before me that in lands of
appellant Bhaskar Rathod (First Appeal Nos.854 of 2008 and 861
of 2008), compensation has been paid for Well. There is no Well
in field of appellant Chandrakala in First Appeal No.858 of 2008.
10] While determining valuation of lands in respective
groups, he has looked into sale instances and then discarded
certain sales after observing that lands there were sold at
exorbitant rates. He has also observed that it may be due to
additional benefit of trees. However, on what basis this
fa858.08+.J.odt 7/12
observation has come is not clear. Perusal of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust vs. State of
Punjab (supra), shows that there in paragraph Nos. 15 and 17, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that highest of the sale
instances, if it is a bonafide transaction, must be relied upon and
accepted for the purposes of deciding the market value. The Land
Acquisition Officer has not found the sale instances discarded by
him as exorbitant, to be malafide in nature.
11] Perusal of evidence of P.W.2 Pundlik reveals that his
land has also been acquired in very same land acquisition
proceedings. He is therefore interested in seeing that everybody,
including he himself gets maximum compensation for the land
acquired. However, sale instances i.e. transaction of sale in which
he has purchased 20 R of land is dated 26.09.1989, while
notification under Section 4 has been published on 26.12.1991.
This therefore may rule out any oblique motive or lack of
bonafides on his part. The Reference Court has found that when
Land Acquisition Officer collected data from Sub-Registrar of
various sale instances, this sale instance was not provided to him.
Reference Court does not find this transaction to be malafide.
fa858.08+.J.odt 8/12
12] In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
mentioned supra, and this position, effort was made to find out
whether other sale instance can be be treated as comparable one
and looked into as such by this Court. Only document available on
record is copy of Index-II Register. The said copy reveals that out
of total 4.54 hectare of Gat No.438, where land revenue was
Rs.15, Pundlik Shingne purchased 0.20 R of land on 26.09.1989
for Rs.20,000/-. Thus Index-II shows rate of Rs.1 lakh per hectare.
But, then this document mentions that there are two Wells in it
and in one Well purchaser got 1/16th share. Question is -
Whether this price of Rs. 20,000/- for 20 R portion is because of
existence of 2 Wells in the area purchased by Pundlik?
13] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel has submitted that 2
Wells are located in a portion which ad-measures 4.54 hectares
and only in one 1/16th share has been given to Pundlik.
However, there is no such evidence. The said document reveals
that in portion sold, there were two Wells. Pundlik, however
deposes that there is only one Well in portion purchased by him.
In absence of entire sale document on record, nothing can be said
with certainty in this respect.
fa858.08+.J.odt 9/12
14] Sale instance looked into by the Land Acquisition
Officer in April, 1989 and June 1989 show rate of Rs.12,500/- to
Rs.15,000/- per hectare. When compared with this sale instance,
purchase by Pundlik appears to be at exorbitant price. In group
two there is a mention of sale dated 21.02.1989 where rate
stipulated is Rs. 32,075/- per hectare.
15] Perusal of award Exh.29 in paragraph (N) shows
observation that there is no irrigated land in land acquisition
proceedings. As already noted supra, compensation for fruit
bearing trees has been awarded to certain owners and
compensation for Well also has been awarded in some matters
including First Appeal Nos. 854 and 860 of 2008. Reference in this
respect can be made to Section 2[5] of the Maharashtra
Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 which defines
class of land. The lands have been divided into various categories.
Category [a] has assured supply of water for irrigation and
capable of yielding at least two crops in a year. Category [b] land
has assured perennial supply of water for irrigation, but has an
assured supply of water for only one crop in a year. Category [c]
land is irrigated seasonally by flow irrigation. Category [d] and [e]
are dry crop land. Evidence about crops grown in subject lands
fa858.08+.J.odt 10/12
therefore needed appreciation in this background. That exercise
also appears to be lacking in present matter. In paragraph (O) in
award of Land Acquisition Officer, compensation has been paid in
some matters for pipe line also. In this situation, above
clarification and classification or class of land ought to have been
looked into by the Reference Court while determining the
valuation.
16] Though P.W.2 Pundlik has entered witness box, he
has not been cross-examination to bring on record any malafides.
Leaned A.G.P. had urged that on the face of copy of only Index-II
on record, such a cross-examination may not have been felt
necessary.
17] As already recorded supra, question is - Whether said
purchase by Pundlik can be looked into as a comparable sale?
In present matter that exercise is not possible without looking into
complete document.
18] The appellants before this Court are struggling for
receiving just compensation for their acquired lands since long.
Material produced by them demonstrates that they are entitled to
fa858.08+.J.odt 11/12
some increase. Reference Court has accordingly granted it to
them. However, whether that increase is just or not, cannot be
looked into at this stage for want of completed document of sale
deed i.e. sale obtained by P.W.2 Pundlik. I am therefore, inclined
to give an opportunity to appellants to produce that document on
record. If the said document comes on record, recitals therein can
definitely help the Reference Court in finding out why rate of
Rs.1000/- per R. or Rs.1 lakh per hectare was paid by Pundlik.
19] Hence, without observing anything more and keeping
all other rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the
appellants open, I quash and set aside the impugned common
judgment dated 27.10.2005 delivered by the Reference Court in
Land Acquisition Case Nos. 66/1994, 44/1994 and 112/1994.
These Land Acquisition Cases are restored back to the file of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana for giving appellants an
opportunity to produce the complete document i.e. sale deed of
20 R of land obtained by P.W.2 Pundlik on 29.06.1989.
20] After perusal of that document and after giving
appellants and respondents further opportunity to lead evidence
in that respect, the Reference Court shall deliver fresh judgment in
fa858.08+.J.odt 12/12
these matters. This exercise shall be completed as early as possible
and in any case within a period of 9 months from the date of
communication of this order to it.
21] First Appeals are thus partly allowed and disposed of.
No costs.
JUDGE
Rgd/Nsn
