Bombay High Court
State Of Mah. Thr. Collector, ... vs Jaisingrao Digambar Ghuge on 1 November, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
FA 628/06 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL N
O
. 62
8 /20
06
State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Washim, Dist. Washim. APP
ELL
ANT
.....VERSUS.....
Jaisingrao S/o Digambar Ghuge,
Aged Major, Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Malegaon, Tah. Malegaon,
Dist. Washim. RESPONDE
NT
Shri Mangesh Kadu, A.G.P. for the appellant.
Shri R.L. Khapre, Counsel for the respondent.
CORAM : S.
B. SHUKRE, J
.
DATE : 1 NOVEMBER , 2017 .
ST
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal, filed by the State, takes an exception to the
higher determination of compensation made by the reference court in
respect of the compulsory acquisition of land bearing Gt No.414, situated
at Malegaon, District Washim, which land was acquired for the purpose of
Malegaon Irrigation Project.
FA 628/06 2 Judgment
2. The cross-objection filed by the land owner, Jaising Digambar
Ghuge, whose land has been compulsorily acquired, also similarly objects
to the determination of the compensation made by the reference court
with the difference in the fact that the land owner is desirous to get more
compensation.
3. Parties to both the proceedings i.e. State and the land owner,
shall now be referred to as the State and the land owner, respectively for
the sake of convenience.
4. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
(L.A. Act, for short) was published in Government Gazette on 25.05.2000,
while the award under Section 11 was passed by the special land
acquisition officer on 24.05.2001. The special land acquisition officer
determined the market value of the acquired land to be of Rs.42,500/-
per hectare, which was enhanced to Rs.55,200 per hectare by the
reference court, which decided the reference application under Section 18
of the L.A. Act, on its own merits by the judgment and order dated
28.04.2005 rendered in Land Acquisition Case No.104/2004.
5. The land owner, in his evidence before the reference court,
heavily relied upon the sale instances which were the sale-deeds of the
FA 628/06 3 Judgment
lands situated on Seloo Bazar to Malegaon Road. They were at Exh.42
and 43 and bear the dates 30.09.1997 and 14.01.2000, respectively.
They were, however, rejected by the reference court. The reference court
considered the two of the sale transactions, which had figured in the
award of the special land acquisition officer at Sr. No.7 and 9 and by
drawing a mean value of these two transactions and considering the
acquired land to be a dry crop land, fixed the market value of the dry crop
land at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare for the sake of payment of
compensation to the land owner. This approach of the reference court
was not to the pleasure of both the rival parties, the State and the land
owner and that is why both of them are before this court in the present
appeal and the cross-objection.
6. I have heard Shri Mangesh Kadu, learned counsel for the
State and Shri R.L. Khapre learned counsel for the land owner. I have
gone through the record of the case. Now, the only point which arises for
my determination, is;
"Whether the compensation awarded by the reference
court is just and proper ?"
7. According to Shri Khapre, the reference court ought to have
taken into account the sale-deeds vide Exh.42 and 43 as there is sufficient
FA 628/06 4 Judgment
evidence available on record proving their relevance in the present case.
Alternatively, he submits that even if the sale transactions at Exh.42 and
43 are considered to be not so relevant, still the market value of the
acquired land would be not less than Rs.2,35,000/- per hectare when the
average of the value shown in the transactions at Sr. No.7 and 9 is arrived
at.
8. Shri Kadu, learned counsel for the State submits that the area
of the sale transactions at Sr. No.7 and 9 is very small and therefore,
these transactions could not be considered as relevant. Therefore, he
submits that the generalization made by the special land acquisition
officer is more correct and the same may be accepted by this court for the
purpose of determination of just and fair compensation.
9. So far as the argument relating to relevance of the sale-deeds
vide Exh.42 and 43 is concerned, I am of the view that it cannot be
accepted. The reference court has found that the situation of the lands
involved in the sale-deeds vide Exh.42 and 43 has not been sufficiently
explained in the evidence by the land owner and therefore, comparison
between these lands and the acquired land cannot be usefully made. The
reference court has also found that no map has been placed on record by
the land owner. I think, no error in these findings could be seen. When
FA 628/06 5 Judgment
there is no evidence explaining the situation of the lands involved in these
sale-deeds and there is also no map adduced in the evidence, it would not
be possible for any court to record a finding regarding similarity or
otherwise of the lands involved in the sale-deeds and the acquired land.
Therefore, the reference court has rightly kept the sale-deeds vide Exh.42
and 43 out of its consideration. These sale-deeds cannot be relied upon.
10. As regards the alternate argument of learned counsel for the
land owner, I must say that it does carry substantial weight in it. There is
a clear-cut finding recorded by the reference court that the acquired land
is irrigated. There is also a crop statement vide Exh.20 and there are also
other documents in the nature of agreements with the irrigation
department vide Exh.39 and 40, all of which showing that the acquired
land was irrigated round the year. The crop statement sufficiently
establishes the fact that at least two crops were being taken annually from
the acquired land. So, the finding recorded by the reference court that
the acquired land was perennially irrigated land deserves confirmation
from this court, which I do make.
11. Now, the question would be about fixation of true market
value of the acquired land and I think, the issue can be resolved by
considering the sale transactions at Sr. No.7 and 9 of the award of special
FA 628/06 6 Judgment
land acquisition officer, which have been found by the reference court to
be irrigated lands. These sale transactions were of the year 1998 and
1995, respectively and they disclose per hectare price of the lands at Rs.
3,00,000/- and 1,70,760/-, respectively. Mean price of these two lands
would approximately come to Rs.2,35,000/- per hectare, as found by the
reference court and rightly so. These lands being irrigated lands, same
price should be considered for fixation of the true market value of the
acquired land in the present case, as well. The reference court, however,
halved this price so as to reduce it to Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare by
considering the acquired land to be a dry crop land, which was manifestly
erroneous. Such reduction could not have been made by the reference
court after having found that the acquired land was the perennially
irrigated land. So, a correction in this regard would be required, which I
do make. Accordingly, I find that the true market value of the acquired
land would be of Rs.2,35,000/- per hectare and I further found that the
land owner is entitled to receive the compensation for the acquired land
at the rate of Rs.2,35,000/- per hectare. The point is, therefore, answered
accordingly.
12. The reference court has also granted statutory benefits, which
benefits would have to be granted at the same rate as given by the
reference court on the enhanced compensation, however, with a slight
FA 628/06 7 Judgment
modification in respect of the interest to be granted under Section 28 of
the L.A. Act at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of one year. This interest is
recoverable only for a period of one year to be counted from the date of
the award and not from the date of the possession and correction to this
extent would have to be made in the final award being made by this
court. To this extent, the appeal filed by the State would have to be
allowed.
The appeal is partly allowed.
The cross-objection stands partly allowed.
It is directed that the land owner be paid compensation for
his acquired land at the rate of 2,35,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Five
Thousand only) per hectare together with all statutory benefits to be
given at the same rate as granted by the reference court with slight
modification as follows;
The balance outstanding amount of the compensation payable
to the land owner shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. under Section
28 of the L.A. Act from the date of the award, which is 24.05.2001, for a
period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. till realization of
the entire amount.
Liberty is granted to the land owner to initiate appropriate
proceedings for recovery of rental compensation, in accordance with law.
Additional court fees be paid, if not paid.
FA 628/06 8 Judgment
The impugned award stands modified in the above terms.
Parties to bear their own costs.
The appeal as well as cross-objection stand disposed of.
JUDGE
SHRIPAD
