Keshav S/O Laxman Andraskar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7809 Bom

        J-fa80.94.odt                                                                                                        1/8 


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                        FIRST APPEAL No.80 OF 1994


        Keshav s/o. Laxman Andruskar, 
        Aged about 55 years, 
        Occupation : Bank Service, 
        R/o. Ganeshpeth, Nagpur-18.                                                   :      APPELLANT

                           ...VERSUS...

        The State of Maharashtra, 
        through Collector, Chandrapur.                                                :      RESPONDENT


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for the Appellant.
        Shri A.D. Sonak, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondent.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                       CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 5 OCTOBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal which questions the legality and correctness

of the judgment and order dated 19 th October, 1993 passed by the Court

of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, in Land Acquisition Case

No.20/1990.

2. Two portions of land belonging to the appellant from out of

Survey No.194/1 and Survey No.192, together admeasuring 1.20

J-fa80.94.odt 2/8

hectares, situated at mauza Khanji (now a part of Warora town) were

acquired compulsorily for the purposes of railway electrification and

construction of railway quarters. Section 4 Land Acquisition Act (in

short, "LA Act") notification was published in Government Gazette on

6.2.1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award passed

under Section 11 determined the market value of both the acquired

portions of the land to be at Rs.84,000/- per hectare. The appellant

thought that when the acquired portions of land were already converted

to non-agricultural use by sanction given by the Collector in the year

1966, they had the potential of fetching higher prices and, therefore, in

order to claim enhancement in compensation, he preferred an application

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The averments in the

reference application were not specifically denied by the respondents in

their written statement vide Exh.-11. This written statement consisted of

just 3 to 4 lines and was to the effect that the State adopted whatever

was stated in the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. While

the appellant adduced evidence by examining eight witnesses, the State

chose to examine none.

3. On merits of the case, the Reference Court found that the

evidence of the sale instances adduced by the appellant was not sufficient

to find that there was similarity between the acquired lands and those

involved in the sale instances. Thus, it rejected the sale instances and

J-fa80.94.odt 3/8

found that not more than 10% of the rate determined by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer was due and payable as additional

compensation to the appellant, by the impugned judgment and order.

Not being satisfied with the same, the appellant is now before this Court

in the present appeal.

4. I have heard Shri C.V. Jagdale, learned counsel for the

appellant and Shri A.D. Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

the respondent-State. I have gone through the record of the case

including the impugned judgment and order.

5. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is :

Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and proper ?

6. In the present case, the important evidence adduced by the

appellant in order to show his entitlement to receive higher

compensation centers around the sale instances vide Exhs.-109 and 112

and also the sale instance in respect of which an index vide Exh.-60 was

produced on record. These sale instances and the index were brought on

record by the appellant through the evidence of PW 5 Bapurao, PW 7

Rajlal Jaiswal and PW 8 Manohar Ghorpade. The evidence of these

witnesses does show that rates of the land situated in such areas as

Ambadevi ward and Dattamandir ward and also near District Central

Co-operative Bank, Warora were much higher than the rate determined

J-fa80.94.odt 4/8

for the acquired lands. The rates of the lands involved in the sale

instances in the year 1983-84 ranged between Rs.15/- to Rs.25/- per sq.

ft. and whereas, the rate of the acquired lands determined by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer, when converted into per square feet area, came

to 90 ps. per sq. ft. It is also true that the acquired lands were diverted to

non-agricultural use way back in the year 1966. But, the question that

arises is whether the lands involved in these sale instances vide Exhs.-

109, 112 and 60 could be said to be comparable with the acquired lands

or otherwise and I am of the view that the answer would be in the

negative.

7. Shri C.V. Jagdale, learned counsel for the appellant in order

to prove the point that the lands involved in the sale instances are

comparable lands, has taken me through the map vide Exh.-58. He

submits that the acquired lands were situated just adjacent to State

Highway, near to National Highway and also adjacent to a railway line.

He also points out that the acquired lands were already diverted for non-

agricultural use and given their situation, had a great potential of

fetching higher market value in near future and therefore, at any rate,

the market value of these lands could not have been lesser than Rs.15/-

per sq. ft. Learned A.G.P., however, disagrees. He points out from the

impugned judgment and order and also the map vide Exh-58 that the

acquired lands were situated quite far away from the lands involved in

J-fa80.94.odt 5/8

the sale instances and that these lands were locked in between a railway

track on the one hand and railway quarters on the other thereby

reducing their potential to develop into a public utility and residential

area. He also submits that for about 20 years after conversion of the

acquired lands into non-agricultural use, not a single portion or plot from

out of these lands was sold to or purchased by anybody thereby showing

that there were no takers for the acquired lands.

8. The argument of learned A.G.P., on carefully perusing the

impugned judgment and order, appears to be already accepted by the

Reference Court thereby rejecting the submissions of learned counsel for

the appellant. To my mind such acceptance and rejection both do not

seem to be illogical in the facts and circumstances of the case. The map

vide Exh.-58 shows that the lands involved in the sale instances vide

Exhs.-109, 112 and 60 were in the township of Warora and quite far

away from the acquired lands. It also shows that though the acquired

lands were adjacent to State Highway and railway line, were in fact

locked between a railway line on the one hand and railway quarters on

the other. It further shows that in the vicinity of the acquired lands, no

developmental activities in the nature of layout of the plots or

construction of buildings appear to have taken place and that vast tracts

of lands are lying without any development, at the relevant time. So, one

has to say that the lands involved in the said sale instances could not be

J-fa80.94.odt 6/8

said to be comparable with the acquired lands and, therefore, the prices

of those lands could not be taken as reasonable indicators of the market

value of the acquired lands on the date of Section 4 LA Act notification.

9. In addition to what is stated above, another factor that is

required to be considered is of the acquired lands or any portion of them

not having been sold for about 20 years after their diversion to non-

agricultural use. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when

the case of the appellant has not been specifically denied, when no

evidence has been adduced by the State in rebuttal of the case of the

appellant and when there is no suggestion given to any of the witnesses

of the appellant that there were no takers for the acquired lands for a

period of about 20 years after their diversion, the Reference Court could

not have suo motu found that this is a relevant circumstance showing

lower market price of the acquired lands. It is true that no suggestion in

this regard has been given to any of the witnesses of the appellant and it

is also true that the case of the appellant has not been specifically denied

by the State. Yet, considering the burden of proof in a case like the

present nature involving a claim for enhancement in compensation lying

upon the appellant, I would say, it was absolutely essential for the

appellant to have given some reason or explanation as to why the

acquired lands were not sold for a period of about 20 years after their

diversion to non-agricultural use. The non selling of the acquired lands

J-fa80.94.odt 7/8

for such a huge period of time is a circumstance borne out from the

record itself and therefore, it is not necessary for the rival party to have

pointed out that either by specifically denying the case of the appellant or

giving some suggestion in that regard to the witnesses of the appellant.

So, for a circumstance which is manifest on record and which apparently

goes against the case of the appellant, one would reasonably expect that

the adversity being created by such a circumstance is adequately met by

the appellant by giving a reasonable explanation. That has not been

done by the appellant in the present case and, therefore, I do not see that

the reference Court has committed any perversity or illegality in making

its observations about failure of the appellant to give explanation in this

regard and drawing of inference logically arising from such failure.

10. The discussion made thus far would show that the lands

involved in the sale instances were distinctively different from the

acquired lands and, therefore, it was necessary for the appellant to have

adduced some other evidence to prove his entitlement to receive

enhanced compensation. That the appellant has not done in the present

case and therefore, I do not see any illegality or perversity in the

approach adopted by the reference Court in partly allowing the reference

application. While dosing so, the Reference Court has granted additional

compensation of Rs.14,414.40 which is inclusive of 30% solatium and

12% additional component, by taking into consideration 10% rise in the

J-fa80.94.odt 8/8

rate of 84,000/- per hectare due to passage of time of one and half years

after the date of sale transactions considered as relevant by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer and rightly so.

11. Thus, I find that the compensation awarded by the Reference

Court is just and proper and calls for no interference from this Court.

The point is answered accordingly.

12. The appeal stands dismissed.

13. The parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE okMksns