Bombay High Court
Smt. Lalita W/O Panchamsingh ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its ... on 24 April, 2018
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 FA56-06& ors.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.56 OF 2006
...
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through it's Chief Executive
Officer, having its Regional Office at
Amravati Industrial Estate By-pass road,
Amravati, through its E.E. MIDC,
District-Yeotmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Kailashchandra s/o Ratanlal Choudhary,
Aged about 53 years,
Occupation-Business, resident of
Singhaniya Nagar, Yeotmal Tah. & Dist. Yeotmal.
Since deceased through Legal heirs
1-A Shaila Kailashchandra Chaudhari,
Aged about 57 years.
1-B Ku. Deepa d/o Kailashchandra Chaudhari,
Aged about 29 years.
1-C Sau. Leela w/o Rohit Tipriwala,
All residents of Plot No. 51,
Charnamrut Housing Society,
Kolhe Layout, Darwha Road, Yavatmal,
Tah. & District Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yeotmal.
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub-Division Officer Yeotmal.
.. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:27 :::
2 FA56-06& ors.odt
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. J.M. Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.208 OF 2006
Satish s/o Chotmal Nimodiya,
Aged about 43 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Balaji Chowk, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, a corporate body, Head Office
at Mumbai, through Executive Engineer,
MIDC, Lohara, Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal..
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
4] The Collector, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. Rohan K. Joshi, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent No. 2 to 4..
with
FIRST APPEAL NO.116 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer,
having it's Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate by-pass road, Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Satish s/o Chotmal Nimodiya
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:27 :::
3 FA56-06& ors.odt
Aged about 39 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Balaji Chowk Yeotmal,
District-Yeotmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yeotmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yeotmal.
4] The Collector, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Rohan K. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent No. 2 to 4..
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.489 OF 2017
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai
and having its Regional Office at
By Pass Road, Amravati, through its
Chief Executive Officer.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Sau. Sindhubai w/o Bharatlal Prajapati,
Aged about 52 years, Occupation-
Household Work, Resident of Lohara,
Tq. And Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra.
Represented by the Collector, Yavatmal.
Tq. Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
Tq. Distt. Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:27 :::
4 FA56-06& ors.odt
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.124 OF 2007
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through it's Chief Executive
Officer, having its office of Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai
and having its Regional Office at By-pass Road,
Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Leelabai wd/o Ram Langote, [Dead]
Aged about 58 years,
Occupation-Agriculturist,
R/o Wadgaon Road, Yeotmal.
Legal Heirs
Amendment 1.a] Sanjay Ram Langote,
carried out as per Aged about 50 years, Occu: Service.
Courts order
dated 6.2.2018 1.b] Vijay Ram Langote,
Aged-Major, Occu: Service,
Both the respondent are
r/o Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal.
1.c] Sau. Sadhana Shivling Gayali,
Aged about 46 years, Occu: Housewife,
R/o plot No. 3, Swagat Nagar,
Hudkeshwar Road, Behind Nasare
Sabhagruha, Near Gajanan Mandir, Nagpur.
1.d] Deepak Ram Langote,
Ageda bout 44 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
Wadgaon Road, Tq. and Dist-Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
through it's Collector, Yeotmal.
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:27 :::
5 FA56-06& ors.odt
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yeotmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Singhvi, Advocate h/f A.S. Kilor, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
with
FIRST APPEAL NO.591 OF 2006
Smt. Leelabai wd/o Ram Langote [dead]
Aged about 58 years, Occupation: Agriculturist,
R/o Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal.
Legal Heirs
1] Sanjay Ram Langote (Son)
Aged about 50 years, Occu:Service,
2] Vijay Ram Langote (Son)
Aged about __ years, Occu: Service,
Both are r/o Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal.
3] Sau. Sadhana Shivling Gayali (Daughter)
Aged about 46 years, Occu: Housewife,
R/o Hudkeshwar Road, behind Nasare Sabhagruha,
near Gajanan Mandir, Plot No.3,
Swagat Nagar, Nagpur.
4] Deepak Ram Longote (Son)
Aged about 44 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANTS
.. Versus ..
1] The State of Maharashtra,
[Through the Collector, Yavatmal]
2] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:27 :::
6 FA56-06& ors.odt
3] Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Mumbai.
[A corporate body, Head office at Mumbai
through Executive Engineer, M.I.D.C.,
Lohara Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Ms. Nidhi Singhvi, Advocate h/f Mr. A.S. Kilor, Advocate for
Appellants.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.683 OF 2016
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation having its office at Marol,
Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and
having its Regional Office at Bypass road,
Amravati through its Chief Executive Officer
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Pradipkumar s/o Gurudasmal Lakhani,
Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o Bhoyar,
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra.
Represented by the Collector,
Yavatmal Tq. And District-Yavatmal.
3] The Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal, Tq. and Dist-Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. Bharat Vora, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION NO.30 OF 2017
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:27 :::
7 FA56-06& ors.odt
IN FIRST APPEAL 683 OF 2016
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
having its office at Marol Industrial Estate,
Andheri East, Mumbai and having its Regional
Office at By-pass Road, Amravati through its
Chief Executive Officer.
APPELLANT
VERSUS
1] Pradipkumar s/o Gurudasmal Lakhani,
Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o Bhoyar,
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra.
Represented by the Collector,
Yavatmal Tq. And District-Yavatmal.
3] The Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal, Tq. and Dist-Yavatmal.
... RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. Bharat Vora, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Cross-Objector
Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.1254 OF 2009
1] Smt. Lalita w/o Panchamsingh Suraswar
Formerly known as Lalita d/o Tukaramsingh
Gautam, Age Major, R/o Pimpalgaon
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] Umashankar s/o Tukaramsingh Gautam,
Age 58 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o Bhoyar Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANTS
.. Versus ..
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:27 :::
8 FA56-06& ors.odt
2] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
3] The Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Executive Officer,
Lohara, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
with
FIRST APPEAL NO.7 OF 2013
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
having its Office at Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri
East, Mumbai and having its Regional Office at
By-pass road, Amravati, through its
Chief Executive Officer
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Lalita w/o Panchamsingh Suraswar
@ Lalita Tukaramsingh Gautam,
Aged Major years, Occupatio-Agriculturist,
R/o Bhoyar Taluka Yavatmal, Dist-Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
...
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:27 :::
9 FA56-06& ors.odt
FIRST APPEAL NO.216 OF 2011
1] Dinesh s/o Mishrilal Bora,
Aged about 50 Years,
R/o Main Road, Yavatmal,
Tah. and District Yavatmal.
2] Vinod s/o Meghji Chheda,
Aged about 45 years, R/o Rajendra
Nagar, Yavatmal, Tah. and Dist. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANTS
.. Versus ..
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
2] The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
3] Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Mumbai through Executive
Engineer, M.I.D.C., Lohara, Dist. Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
with
FIRST APPEAL NO.276 OF 2011
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai
and having its Regional Office at By-pass
Road, Amravati, through its Chief Executive
Officer.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:27 :::
10 FA56-06& ors.odt
1] Dinesh Mishrilal Bora,
Age 70 Years, R/o Main Road,
Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] Vinod Meghji Chheda,
Aged 45 years,
R/o Rajendra Nagar, Yavatmal.
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
3] State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
4] Sub Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
----
First Appeal No.661 of 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer
having its Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate By-pass road, Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Hari Narayan Dande,
Aged about 72 years, Occupation-Agriculturist,
R/o Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra.
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
11 FA56-06& ors.odt
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
-----
FIRST APPEAL NO.1421 OF 2009
Dwarkadas s/o Keshaoram Agrawal,
Aged about 58 years, Occu: Businessman,
and Agriculturist, R/o Near Timber Bhawan
Rajendra Nagar, Tq & Dist. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
2] The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
3] The Collector, Yavatmal.
4] Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through Executive Engineer
MIDC Yavatmal at village Lohara,
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. A.V. Bhide, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
.....
FIRST APPEAL NO.737 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate By-pass Road, Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
12 FA56-06& ors.odt
1] Pradipkumar s/o Gurudasmal Lakhani,
Aged about 30 Years, Occupation-Agriculturist,
R/o Wadgaon Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra.
Represented by Collector,
Yavatmal.
3] The Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. Bharat Vora, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 08/2014
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 737 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate By-pass Road, Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Pradipkumar s/o Gurudasmal Lakhani,
Aged about 30 Years, Occupation-Agriculturist,
R/o Wadgaon Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra.
Represented by Collector,
Yavatmal.
3] The Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
... RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. Bharat Vora, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Cross-Objector
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
13 FA56-06& ors.odt
Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.1037 OF 2009
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and
having its Regional Office at By-pass Road, Amravati through
its Chief Executive Officer.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Sau. Leelabai @ Sulbhabai w/o Anant Ghaisas,
Aged about 79 Years,
R/o Sundra Nagar, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.
2] State of Maharashtra.
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. A.B. Nakshane, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO.8 OF 2016
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1037 OF 2009
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and
having its Regional Office at By-pass Road, Amravati through
its Chief Executive Officer.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Sau. Leelabai @ Sulbhabai w/o Anant Ghaisas,
Aged about 79 Years,
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
14 FA56-06& ors.odt
R/o Sundra Nagar, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.
2] State of Maharashtra.
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. A.B. Nakshane, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Cross-
Objector
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.215/2011
Chandrashekhar Brijmohan Mor,
Aged about 48 years, Occu: Cultivator and
Business, R/o Mahajanwadi Chowk,
Yavatmal, Tq. And Distt. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
2] Sub-Divisional Officer and Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
3] The Collector, Yavatmal.
4] Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation A corporate body
head office at Mumbai, through
Executive Engineer, MIDC, Distt. Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3..
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
with
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
15 FA56-06& ors.odt
FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 OF 2012
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
having its Office at Marol Industrial Estate,
Andheri East, Mumbai and having its Regional
Office at By-pass Road, Amravati, through its Chief
Executive Officer, Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Chandrashekhar Brijmohan Mor
Aged about 40 Years,
Occu: Cultivator and Businessman
R/o Mahajanwadi Chowk, Yavatmal,
Tq. and District-Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
4] The Collector, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
....
FIRST APPEAL NO.131 OF 2015
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
having its office at Marol Industrial Estate,
Andheri East, Mumbai and having its Regional
Office at By-pass Road, Amravati, through
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
16 FA56-06& ors.odt
its Chief Executive Officer.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Hiralal Mathura Yadao
Aged 60 years, Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Weekly Market, Yavatmal,
District-Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Mrs. M.A. Barabde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
.....
FIRST APPEAL NO.425 OF 2009
Keshrichand s/o Mishrilal Abad,
Aged 66 years,Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o Near Head Post Office, Yavatmal,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Collector, Yavatmal,
Tahsil and District-Yavatmal.
3] The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
4] Maharashtra Industrial Development
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
17 FA56-06& ors.odt
Corporation, Lohara, Tahsil
and District Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. A.P. Tathod, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
with
FIRST APPEAL NO.06 OF 2012
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Lohara, Yavatmal through its
Regional Officer, Amravati, having office at
By-pass Road, Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Keshrichand Mishrilal Abad,
Aged 64 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o near Head Post Office, Yavatmal,
Tq. And District-Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra.
3] The Collector, Yavatmal.
4] S.D.O. and Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. A.P. Tathod, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
.....
FIRST APPEAL NO.133/2007
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
through its Chief Executive Officer having its
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
18 FA56-06& ors.odt
office at Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri
East, Mumbai and having its Regional
Office at By-pass Road, Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Ramrao Shankar Tapase,
Aged about 52 years, Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Lohara, Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Akola.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.1234 OF 2009
Shri Jagannath s/o Shankar Zinge,
Age 47 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o Bhoyar, Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
2] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
3] The Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Executive Officer,
Lohara, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
19 FA56-06& ors.odt
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
with
FIRST APPEAL NO.430 OF 2018
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
having its Chief Executive Officer, Marol Industrial
Estate, Andheri (East), Mumbai having its
Regional Office at By-pass Road, Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Jagannath Shankar Zinge,
Aged about 56 years, Resident of Bhoyar,
Yavatmal, Taluka and District-Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
... RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
....
FIRST APPEAL NO.1248 OF 2009
Shri Madhao s/o Maroti Lagad,
Age 67 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
Legal heirs of R/o Wadgaon Road Yavatmal,
the appellant Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal (Since deceased)
are brought on through L.R's.
record as per
order dated
26.7.13 1] Smt. Shantabai wd/o Madhaorao Lagad, Deleted as per Court
passed by this Aged about 75 years, order dated 22.9.17.
Hon'ble Court. Occupation: Household.
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
20 FA56-06& ors.odt
2] Shri Vishwanath s/o Madhaorao Lagad,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation: Service,
Both R/o Village Bhoyar, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANTS
.. Versus ..
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
2] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
3] The Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Executive Officer,
Lohara, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
with
FIRST APPEAL NO.431 OF 2018
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
having its Chief Executive Officer, Marol Industrial
Estate, Andheri (East), Mumbai having its
Regional Office at By-pass Road, Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Madhao Maroti Lagad,
Aged about 76 years,
Resident of Wadgaon Road,
Yavatmal, Tq. And District-Yavatmal.
Legal Heirs
Amendment 1.a) Vishwanath s/o Madhaorao Lagad,
carried out as per
Courts order dated
14-02-2018
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
21 FA56-06& ors.odt
Aged about 61 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Village Bhoyar, Tq. And District-Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
3] The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
... RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri and Mr. Sharad Thakare, Advocates for
Appellant
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.60 OF 2009
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through it's Chief Executive
Officer, having its office of Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai
through Executive Engineer, M.I.D.C.,
(Lohara), Yavatmal, Tq. Dist. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Prabhudas Bhagwandas Gothale,
Aged about 29 years, Occupation-Labourer.
2] Durga d/o Bhagwandas Gothale,
Aged about 27 years,
Occupation: Household Work
Both R/o c/o Shantabai K. Ingle,
Rani Zansi Chowk, Athawadi Bazar,
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
3] State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Collector, Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
22 FA56-06& ors.odt
4] Sub-Divisional Officer
and Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. S.C. Bhalerao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
....
FIRST APPEAL NO.636 OF 2008
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer
having its office at Marol Industrial Estate,
Andheri East, Mumbai and having its Regional
Office at By-pass Road, Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Nilesh s/o Vijay Kokle,
Aged about 13 years,
Minor through natural guardian
Mother Sau. Chabutai @ Durgatai Vijay Kokle,
R/o Weekly market Yavatmal,
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra.
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
...
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
23 FA56-06& ors.odt
FIRST APPEAL NO.1407 OF 2008
The Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer,
having its office at Marol Industrial Estate,
Andheri East, Mumbai through Executive Engineer,
MIDC Lohara, Yavatmal, Tq. and District-Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Smt. Shantabai Krushnabanshi Ingle,
Aged about 67 years,
Occupation: Household, R/o Yavatmal
Tq. And District- Yavatmal.
2] Sau. Saraswati Krishnaswami Putti,
(since deceased through L.Rs)
2(a) ---- Dead----
2(b) Ku. Sunita Krishnaswami Putti,
Aged about 44 years, Occu:Service,
2(c) Ku. Anita Krishnaswami Putti,
Aged about 40 Years, Occupation:Household.
2(d) Anand Krishnaswami Putti,
Aged about 38 years, Occu:Service,
2(e) Adesh Krishnaswami Putti,
Aged about 36 Years, Occu:Service,
Nos. 2(a), (c) (d) (e) resident of Tajan Peth, Akola
No.2 (b) resident of Buldhana,
Tq. and Dist. Buldhana.
3] State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
4] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
24 FA56-06& ors.odt
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S.C. Bhalerao, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
,,,,
FIRST APPEAL NO.1428 OF 2008
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
through its Chief Executive Officer having
its Registered Office at Marol Industrial
Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and Regional office
at By-pass Road, Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Rameshchandra Ishwaryya Kokle,
Aged about 56 years, Occu:Nil,
R/o Weekly Market, Yavatmal
Now resident at Mumbai.
2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. M.A. Barabde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 24 OF 2012
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1428 OF 2008
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
through its Chief Executive Officer having
its Registered Office at Marol Industrial
Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and Regional office
at By-pass Road, Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
25 FA56-06& ors.odt
1] Rameshchandra Ishwaryya Kokle,
Aged about 56 years, Occu:Nil,
R/o Weekly Market, Yavatmal
Now resident at Mumbai.
2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Cross Objector.
Mrs. M.A. Barabde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.288 OF 2011
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation having its Office at Marol Industrial
Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai, through its
Executive Engineer Office at MIDC (Lohara) Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Shivkumar Ishwaryya Kokle,
Aged about 53 years,
R/o Weekly Market, Yavatmal,
Tq. And Distt- Yavatmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
...
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
26 FA56-06& ors.odt
FIRST APPEAL NO.340 OF 2005
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through it's Chief Executive
Officer, having its Regional Office at
Amravati Industrial Estate By-pass road,
Amravati.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Chandrakant Laxman Kale,
Aged about 51 years, Occupation: Service,
Resident of Yavatmal Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2] Bhalchandra Laxman Kale,
Aged about 43 years, Occupation: Service,
Resident of Yavatmal, Tah & Dist. Yavatmal.
3] Rajeshwar Laxman Kale,
Aged about 37 years, Occupation: Service,
Resident of Pusad, Tahsil Pusad,
District-Yavatmal.
4] Vithabai Laxman Kale,
Deleted as per Court's order
Aged about 77 years,
dt.23-02-06
resident of Lohara
Tahsil and District-Yavatmal.
5] State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yeotmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. S.C. Bhalerao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
with
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
27 FA56-06& ors.odt
FIRST APPEAL NO.389 OF 2005
1] Chandrakant Laxman Kale,
Aged about 54 years, Occu: Service,
2] Bhalchandra Laxman Kale,
Laxman Kale, aged about 45 years,
Occu:Service (Dead)
Legal Heirs
2] Bhalchandra Laxman Kale (Since deceased)
through L.R's
2A] Smt. Asha wd/o Bhalchandra Kale,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation-Household-Widow.
2B] Sachin s/o Bhalchandra Kale,
Aged about 30 Years, Occupation-Business-Son.
Both R/o Arunodaya Society,
Yavatmal, Tq. And Dist-Yavatmal.
3] Rajeshwar Laxman Kale,
Aged about 40 years, Occu:Service.
.. APPELLANTS
.. Versus ..
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
2] Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Bombay, through its Office at
Lohara Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal and Regional
Office at Amravati.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.C. Bhalerao, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.2
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
28 FA56-06& ors.odt
FIRST APPEAL NO.269 OF 2007
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer
having its Office at Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri
East, Mumbai through Executive Engineer,
MIDC (Lohara) Yavatmal, Tq. And Dist. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1] Dhanraj Pullaiya Bodalkar,
Aged about 61 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist.
2] Muniraj Pullaiya Bodalkar,
Aged about 70 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist.
Both r/o Mahatma Phule Society,
Waghapur Tekadi, Tq. Dist. Yavatmal.
3] State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
4] Sub Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. A.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
...
FIRST APPEAL NO.477 OF 2012
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, having its office at Marol Industrial Estate,
Andheri East, Mumbai and having its Regional Office at
Lohara, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal through its Chief
Executive Officer.
.. APPELLANT
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
29 FA56-06& ors.odt
.. Versus ..
1] Drupati wd/o Ramkrushna Sakrapure,
Aged 61 years, Occupation: Agriculturist.
2] Manohar Ramkrushna Sakrapure,
Aged 36 years, Occupation: Agriculturist.
3] Chandrabhan Ramkrushna Sakrapure,
Aged 33 years, Occupation: Agriculturist.
4] Ramesh Ramkrushna Sakrapure,
aged 61 years, Occupation: Agriculturist.
5] Mankarnabai Ramkrushna Sakrapure,
Aged 27 years, Occupation: Agriculturist.
6] Gokarnabai d/o Ramkrishna Sakrapure
Aged 27 years, Occupation: Agriculturist.
7] Annapurna Ramkrushna Sakrapure,
Aged 18 years,
All r/o Bhoyar, Tq. And Dist. Yavatmal.
8] State of Maharashtra.
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
9] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.8 and 9.
....
FIRST APPEAL NO.1255 OF 2009
Shri Umashankar s/o Tukaramsingh Gautam,
Age 58 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o Bhoyar Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
.. APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:16:28 :::
30 FA56-06& ors.odt
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
2] Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
3] The Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Executive Officer,
Lohara, Tq. and District-Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
....
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : FEBRUARY 20, 2018.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT : APRIL 24 , 2018
JUDGMENT
This bunch of appeals arises from land acquisition
proceedings undertaken by the State Government for the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), the
acquiring body, for extension of industrial estate in village
Bhoyar, Taluka and District Yavatmal. The State Government
issued a Notification on 30.11.1994 under Section 1(3) of the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, identifying
areas of land situated in the said village, wherein Chapter VI of
the said Act pertaining to acquisition and disposal of land
would come into effect. Thereafter on 09.03.1995, the State
31 FA56-06& ors.odt
Government issued further Notification under Section 32 (2) of
the said Act for acquisition of areas of lands pertaining to
village Bhoyar. By this notification, various pieces of land
located in survey numbers spread out in the village of Bhoyar,
belonging to the claimants herein, were acquired and by
awards issued by the respondent Special Land Acquisition
Officer, quantum of compensation payable to the claimants
was determined. The claimants preferred reference applications
under section 34 of the said Act read with section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Reference Court seeking
enhancement of compensation. It is from judgments and orders
passed by the reference court in such applications that the
present set of appeals has arisen.
2. It is the acquiring body, the MIDC, which has
approached this court by way of appeals challenging the
enhanced quantum of compensation granted by the reference
court to the claimants, while in some cases the claimants have
filed appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation. It
is an admitted position that while the claimants had placed on
record documentary and oral evidence in support of their
claims, neither the MIDC nor the State Authorities placed any
evidence on record to support their stand or to negate the
32 FA56-06& ors.odt
contentions raised on behalf of the claimants.
3. Even though the MIDC and the state authorities failed
to place on record evidence in support of their stand, as per
settled law, the claimants being in the position of plaintiffs in
the court were required to support their case with cogent
evidence and material. Therefore, while considering the
present set of appeals, this court has applied the said principle.
In fact, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion
of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 751, in this
context, which reads as follows:
"4. The following factors must be etched on
the mental screen:
(1)......
(2)......
(3)......
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff
who has to show that the price offered for his
land in the award is anadequate on the basis of
the materials produced in the court. Of course
the materials placed and proved by the other
side can also be taken into account for this
purpose.
(5)......
(6)......
(7)......
(7)......
(9)......
33 FA56-06& ors.odt
(l0) The most comparable instances out of the
genuine instances have to be identified on the
following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which
provide the index of market value the price
reflected therein may be taken as the norm
and the market value of the land under
acquisition may be deduced by making
suitable adjustments for the plus and minus
factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by
placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors
may be drawn for this purpose and the
relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of
price variation as a prudent purchaser would
do.
(13) The market value of the land under
acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by
loading the price reflected in the instance
taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it
for minus factors
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to
(13) has to be undertaken in a common sense
manner as a prudent man of the world of
business would do. We may illustrate some
such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.
2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at
a distances from the Road.
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with
very small frontage compared
to depth
4. nearness to developed 4. lower level requiring the
area depressed portion to be filled
34 FA56-06& ors.odt
up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed
locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land 6. some special
under acquistion. disadvantageous
factor which would
deter a purchaser.
7. special value for an owner
of an adjoining property
to whom it may have some
very special advantage."
4. A perusal of the impugned judgments and orders
passed by the Reference Court in the present case shows that
all the claimants have relied upon sale instances of small plots
of land located in adjoining village of Lohara, wherein there
existed an already established industrial estate of MIDC. None
of the claimants placed on record sale instances from village
Bhoyar, wherein the acquired lands of the claimants were
located. It has also come on record that not a single piece of
land from village Bhoyar was converted to non-agricultural use.
The claimants did not place on record sale instances from
village Bhoyar, although they would have been the most
relevant pieces of evidence for assessing market value of
acquired lands.
5. The Reference Court in the impugned judgments and
orders has referred to the sale instances placed on record on
behalf of the claimants and despite finding that the lands under
35 FA56-06& ors.odt
acquisition and the plots of land pertaining to village Lohara
were not comparable, it used the said sale instances from
village Lohara as reference points for arriving at the figures of
enhanced compensation payable to the claimants. Only one
sale instance from village Bhoyar came on record dated
18.09.1992, which was the very sale deed on the basis of which
the claimant therein had purchased the land that was also
subject matter of acquisition. This sale instance, along with
assessment of location and features of the acquired lands
would have been a better basis for arriving at a proper figure of
just and fair compensation payable to the claimants. The value
that such lands would have fetched when a prudent purchaser
sought to buy such lands could have been a better basis for
assessment.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgments and orders of
the reference court shows that the enhanced compensation
granted to claimant concerning First Appeal No. 56 of 2006, has
been referred to and relied upon in other cases of claimants. In
the judgment and order in the case of the aforesaid claimant,
the Reference Court has relied upon a sale instance of a small
plot of land from village Lohara and relying upon the same, it
has calculated amount of enhanced compensation payable to
36 FA56-06& ors.odt
the claimant on square feet basis, by treating the land in
village Bhoyar, which was subject matter of the acquisition,
virtually as developed land. This has had a trickle-down effect
on other cases. Therefore, this court has considered an
analyzed the judgment and order in the case of the claimant in
First Appeal No. 56 of 2006 in detail.
7. In the case of P. Rajan Vs. Kerala State
Electricity Board (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 330, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that when a large extent
of land is acquired, it would be wrong to determine
compensation on square feet or square yard basis. The
relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
"4. It is well settled legal position that when a
large extent of land is acquired, determination
of compensation on the foot of a cent, square
yard of square foot is a wrong principle. This
Court repeatedly emphasised that the
principle of fixation on acreage basis would be
the correct principle. The other principle is
that if the acquired is situated in a developed
area and is converted into buildings in a
colony after obtaining sanction from the
competent authority or is situated in a well
developed area like in the heart of a
commercial centre, determination of the
compensation could be on square yard basis
after giving due deduction according to law.
Determination on square foot basis would be
confined only to highly developed commercial
land or land situated at a place in the heart of
a city like Nariman Point in Bombay or
Connaught Place in Delhi. This principle of
37 FA56-06& ors.odt
determination of compensation on square foot
basis would be justified."
Thus, compensation could be granted on square feet
basis only if the land, which was subject matter of acquisition
was developed land. In the present case, the lands that were
subject matter of acquisition were all agricultural lands.
Although some of the claimants had applied for conversion of
lands to non-agricultural use, there was not a single instance of
such conversion demonstrated by the claimants. Thus, grant of
compensation was required to be determined by treating the
lands as agricultural lands with non-agricultural potentiality.
This was because the adjoining village of Lohara did have an
industrial estate already established by the MIDC and there
were certain factories and educational institutions in the said
village, as has come on record in the evidence and material
placed by the claimants. Therefore, it was necessary to assess
the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants by
appreciating the location of the lands in terms of distance from
the adjoining village of Lohara and from the Yavatmal Darwha
State highway running through the said village of Bhoyar. As
the reference court did not undertake such an exercise and
emphasis was placed on sale instances pertaining to village
Lohara, this court was required to look into the location of the
38 FA56-06& ors.odt
lands in question from map of village Bhoyar and adjoining
villages, including Lohara, in district Yavatmal to make an
assessment of the just and fair compensation payable to the
claimants on the basis of principles laid down in various
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. The
said map was exhibited in some of the cases before the
Reference Court, including in the cases concerning First Appeal
No. 216 of 2011 and 276 of 2011, wherein it was exhibited as
Exhibit 33. The counsel appearing for the claimants and MIDC,
as also the State Authorities, have all referred to and relied
upon the said map in order to make their submissions as
regards the location and other features of the acquired lands
for an assessment of the quantum of enhanced compensation
payable to the claimants.
8. Since this court has found that the basis on which the
Reference Court proceeded to assess and arrive at figures of
enhanced compensation was not in terms of the law laid down
in various judgments, the location of the lands in question has
been taken into consideration and by applying settled
principles, the just and fair compensation payable to the
claimants has been determined. In this context some amount
of guesswork is inevitable, but, this court has applied the
39 FA56-06& ors.odt
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
context of guesswork and the principles embodied in Sections
23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, so that the
quantum of compensation determined is just and fair.
9. This court has assessed the case of the claimant in
First Appeal No. 56 of 2006 in detail as the land of the claimant
therein was located in Survey No. 33, which was adjacent to
the industrial estate of village Lohara and it was on the
aforesaid State highway. Thereafter, cases of other claimants
have been assessed and dealt with, keeping in mind the
location of the lands, particularly distance from the said State
highway and the already established industrial estate of village
Lohara. In this manner, the fair market value of the lands as on
09.03.1995, when the notification was issued, has been
assessed and component of non-agricultural potentiality has
been added to the same to arrive at figures of just and fair
compensation payable to the claimants. In doing so, this court
has applied the principles enumerated in the case of
Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra). The other principles
elucidated in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and this court have also been applied, so as to arrive at such
figures. Relevant portions of such judgments have been quoted
40 FA56-06& ors.odt
at appropriate places while dealing with the appeals
individually. On this basis, the appeals have been decided and
disposed of.
The individual appeals are now considered hereinbelow.
First Appeal No.56 of 2006
1. By this appeal, the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (MIDC) has challenged judgment and
order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Yavatmal (Reference Court) in Land Acquisition
Case No. 50 of 2002. By the said judgment and order, the
Reference Court has granted enhancement of compensation
payable to respondent No.1 and the appellant herein is
aggrieved by the same.
2. The State Government issued a Notification on
30.11.1994 under Section 1(3) of the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the MID
Act), identifying areas of land situated in village Bhoyar, taluka
and district Yavatmal, wherein Chapter VI of the MID Act
pertaining to acquisition and disposal of land would come into
effect. Thereafter on 09.03.1995, the State Government issued
further Notification under Section 32 (2) of the MID Act for
41 FA56-06& ors.odt
acquisition of areas of lands pertaining to village Bhoyar. The
said Notification under Section 32(2) of the MID Act also
pertained to land owned by the respondent no.1 admeasuring
4.47 hectares in field Survey No. 33/4 in village Bhoyar. An
area of 1.10 hectares in the said land was plain, while the
balance 3.37 hectares was under hills. The purpose of the said
acquisition was extension of industrial area of the MIDC, as
such industrial area had been already established in the
adjoining village of Lohara.
3. Pursuant to completion of acquisition proceedings, on
03.11.1997, the respondent no.3- Special Land Acquisition
Officer, issued award specifying the rate of compensation fixed
for acquisition of the aforesaid land. Under the award, the rate
of compensation was fixed at Rs.1500/- per hectare for the
entire land and an amount of Rs.1305/- was fixed towards
compensation for a well situated in the said land.
4. Aggrieved by the said award, on 27.01.1998, the
respondent no.1 filed an application for enhancement of
compensation before the Reference Court under Section 34 of
the MID Act read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. The respondent no.1 claimed compensation at
42 FA56-06& ors.odt
Rs.9,00,000/- per hectare for the land, Rs.1,00,000/- for the
well and Rs.50,000/- for the minor mineral i.e. Murum ( stone
used in construction activity) said to be found in the hills
located on the aforesaid land. On this basis, the respondent
no.1 claimed an amount of Rs.89,66,580/- towards
compensation along with 30 % solatium and 12% interest.
Before the Reference Court, the respondent no.1 relied upon his
own evidence as a witness in support of the claim made in the
reference application and upon the evidence of an expert Mr.
Chendkapure, who appeared as witness no.2 on his behalf. The
said expert relied upon a valuation report prepared by him as
regards the market value of the land and the value of the
aforesaid minor mineral that could have been excavated from
the hills. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 being State Authorities,
had filed their written statement in the said reference
application, but they failed to examine any witness on their
behalf. The appellant MIDC was proceeded against ex parte
before the Reference Court. Thus, evidence before the
Reference Court was only that which was produced on behalf of
the respondent no.1 and cross-examination of witnesses by the
State Authorities.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, as also the evidence
43 FA56-06& ors.odt
and material on record, by the impugned judgment and order,
the Reference Court partly allowed the application of
respondent no.1, holding that he was entitled to compensation
for land @ Rs.17/- per square feet amounting to Rs.34,75,260/-
with further compensation of Rs.34,53,582/- towards
compensation for the said minor mineral Murum and an
amount of Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for the well. The
Reference Court directed payment of the said amounts with
interest @ 9% P.A. for the first year from the date of taking over
possession and thereafter at 15% P.A. , apart from 30% towards
compensation and 12% P.A. towards additional component.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of
the Reference Court, the appellant MIDC has filed this appeal.
This appeal was admitted on 22.02.2006 by this Court. Later,
interim order was granted in favour of the appellant MIDC upon
deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the Reference Court.
By order dated 12.11.2008, the respondent no.1 was permitted
to withdraw 10% of the said deposited amount. As the
respondent No.1 expired during the pendency of the appeal, his
legal representatives were brought on record, who are
representing his interest in this Court.
44 FA56-06& ors.odt
7. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant MIDC, submitted that the enhancement
of compensation granted by the Reference Court is extremely
high and it is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence
and material on record. It is submitted that the reliance placed
by the Reference Court on sale deed dated 28.11.1994 (Exh.31)
is wholly misplaced because it pertains to a plot of land in
village Lohara, which is the adjoining village and that the price
of land at the relevant time in the said village was much higher
than lands located in village Bhoyar, because there was already
an established industrial estate in village Lohara. It was
submitted that sale instances pertaining to lands located in
village Bhoyar were deliberately not produced on behalf of the
respondent no.1, as no land in village Bhoyar had been
converted to non-agricultural use and the market value of land
at the relevant time in village Bhoyar was far less than plots of
land located in village Lohara. It was submitted that the said
sale deed at Exh.31 could not be said to be pertaining to a
piece of land that was comparable to the acquired land in the
present case. It was further submitted that while the land
under acquisition was agricultural land, the Reference Court
committed a grave error in fixing market value of the said land
on square feet basis.
45 FA56-06& ors.odt
8. In this regard, it was submitted that in one of the
connected cases before the Reference Court there was a sale
instance placed on record pertaining to a piece of land in
village Bhoyar of the year 1992, located in adjoining Survey
No.20, wherein the sale consideration was only Rs.1,11,000/-
for an area of about 1.21 hectares. It was submitted that since
this was the only sale instance of village Bhoyar before the
Reference Court in all the cases pertaining to acquisition from
the said village, it could be taken as a valid reference for
ascertaining the market value of the land even in the present
case when Notification dated 09.03.1995 was issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act. It was submitted that while the
said Notification was issued on 09.03.1995, the date of the
aforesaid only available sale instance from the adjoining survey
number of village Bhoyar was 18.09.1992, which could be a
relevant factor for assessing the true market value of the land
belonging to respondent No.1. It was contended that 10%
annual increase at cumulative rate could be granted from the
date of the aforesaid sale instance of village Bhoyar till the
issuance of aforesaid Notification on 09.03.1995. It was further
contended that since the said sale instance from village Bhoyar
pertained to the adjoining survey number 20, for the land
46 FA56-06& ors.odt
belonging to respondent no.1 in Survey No. 33, which was
nearer to the said village Lohara where there was an industrial
estate already established, some further amount could be
added. On this basis, it was submitted that the enhanced
compensation granted by the Reference Court, which came to
about Rs.7,77,463/- per hectare was extremely high and wholly
unsustainable.
9. It was further submitted that the compensation
granted for minor mineral Murum by the Reference Court was
totally unsustainable, because it was against the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the context of
grant of compensation when a minor mineral was said to be
existing in a piece of land, which becomes subject matter of
acquisition. It was contended that under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966, particularly Section 48
thereof and Rules framed thereunder, minerals existing under
the surface of the land entirely belonged to the State and no
compensation was payable to respondent no.1 for the same.
10. As regards the finding of the Reference Court that
since the respondent no.1 had applied for conversion of the
land to non-agricultural use, which was deemed to have been
47 FA56-06& ors.odt
granted, it was submitted that there was lack of cogent
evidence to show actual submission of such application for
permission by respondent no.1 before the concerned State
Authorities. In the alternative, it was contended that under
Rule 4(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of
Use of Land and Non-agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969,
unless the respondent no.1 commenced non-agricultural use of
land within one year from such conversion, such permission
was deemed to have lapsed. It was submitted that when the
respondent no.1 had failed to show that he had actually put the
land to any non-agricultural use and not a single plot from the
said land was shown to have been sold, payment of
compensation treating the land as non-agricultural land by the
Reference Court was wholly unsustainable. It was further
contended that the evidence of the expert witness produced by
the respondent no.1 could not have been relied upon in the
absence of proof of the report relied upon by him. The learned
counsel placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer .vs.
Sidappa Omanna Tumari - 1995 Suppl (2), Supreme
Court Cases 168, Hookiyar Singh .vs. Spl. Land
Acquisition Officer - (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 766,
P. Rajan .vs. Kerala State Electricity Board - (1997) 9
48 FA56-06& ors.odt
Supreme Court Cases 330, Union of India .vs. Pramod
Gupta - (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 and judgment
of this Court in the case of MIDC .vs. Kantabhai dated
12.10.2015 passed in First Appeal No.448 of 2003.
11. Per contra, Mr. J.M. Gandhi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submitted that the
enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court was
justified, as it was based on the evidence and material on
record placed on behalf of respondent no.1. As no contra
evidence was produced by the appellant MIDC or the
respondent State Authorities, it could not be said that there
was any error committed by the Reference Court. It was
submitted that the location of the acquired land was such that
it had immense non-agricultural potentiality, apart from the
fact that it was deemed to have been converted to non-
agricultural use as permission for conversion was not refused
by the concerned authorities within the stipulated period of
time. It was further contended that permission for excavation
of the minor mineral Murum was granted on 04.08.1997
(Exh.37) and that, therefore, the compensation granted for the
said minor mineral by the Reference Court was justified. It was
pointed out that the acquired land was located in Survey No.33,
49 FA56-06& ors.odt
which was adjacent to the already existing industrial estate of
village Lohara with factories of Raymond and Hindustan Liver
towards the east, as also a water filter plant of the MIDC in the
vicinity. The land had 57 meters of frontage on the Yavatmal-
Darwha State Highway. The distance between the land in
village Lohara pertaining to the said sale deed at Exh. 31 and
the acquired land was not much and that this demonstrated
the fact that grant of compensation on square feet basis by the
Reference Court was fully justified. The learned counsel
submitted that the appellant MIDC could not rely upon sale
deed pertaining to aforesaid land in adjoining Survey No.20 of
village Bhoyar because it had failed to adduce any evidence in
respect of its claims before the Reference Court. Reliance was
placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Threesiamma Jacob .vs. Geologist, Deptt of
Mining and Geology, AIR 2013 SC 3251, Special Land
Acquisition Officer .vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb - AIR 2011
Supreme Court 3178.
12. The record of the present case shows that the
appellant MIDC failed to file written statement before the
Reference Court and it could not adduce any evidence in
support of its contentions. It was only the State Authorities
50 FA56-06& ors.odt
(respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein ) which filed written statement
but they also failed to adduce any evidence before the
Reference Court. Thus, evidence was adduced only on behalf
of the respondent No.1 (claimant). It was the only material
before the Reference Court to determine as to what was the
just and fair compensation payable to respondent No.1 for
acquisition of his land. In this context, judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Hookiyar Singh .vs. Spl. Land
Acquisition Officer (supra) is relevant, wherein it has been
laid down that even if it is found that time and again the
acquiring authorities failed to adduce evidence and there was
ineffective cross-examination on their behalf of the witnesses
of the claimant, it was the duty of the Court to carefully
scrutinize the evidence to determine just and adequate
compensation payable to the claimant. It has been
emphasized that the Court ought not to indulge in feats of
imagination but it must sit in the armchair of the prudent
purchaser in open market and to put a question to itself
whether as a prudent purchaser it would offer the same price in
the open market as is claimed by the claimant. Reference has
been made in the aforesaid judgment to clause fifthly of
Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which prohibits
taking into consideration future user to which the land would
51 FA56-06& ors.odt
be put upon acquisition, while determining the amount of
compensation payable to the claimant. Applying the said
principle, it would be necessary in the present case to examine
whether the Reference Court has properly analyzed the
evidence and material on record, while rendering finding of
grant of enhanced compensation to respondent no.1.
13. In the present case, it has come on record that lands
in village Bhoyar were not converted to non-agricultural use. In
the present case and in other connected cases arising from
acquisition of lands in the said village, not a single instance of
conversion of land to non-agricultural use from village Bhoyar
was demonstrated. The sale instance relied upon in the
present case by the Reference Court was dated 28.11.1994
(Exh.31) pertaining to a plot of land in adjoining village Lohara.
It was a plot of land admeasuring 1089 sq. ft. i.e. 101.20 sq.mt.
It was clearly a small piece of land as compared to the acquired
land of respondent no.1 admeasuring 4.47 hectares. It has also
come on record that an industrial estate of the appellant MIDC
had already come into existence in the lands of village Lohara.
Thus, apart from the fact that the said land subject matter of
the sale deed at Exh.31 was a very small plot of land as
compared to the acquired land, its nature in terms of being
52 FA56-06& ors.odt
developed land, was very different from the agricultural land
belonging to respondent no.1, which was acquired in the
instant case. Yet, the Reference Court relied upon the said sale
deed at Exh.31 on the ground that village Lohara was about 2
kms. away and that the said sale deed at Exh.31 was dated
28.11.1994, which was just before the Notification dated
09.03.1995, issued in the present case under Section 32(2) of
the MID Act. On this basis, the Reference Court held that even
the land of respondent no.1 could be considered for grant of
compensation on square feet basis because the rate of market
price of the land could be worked out at Rs.17/- per square
feet, taking into account the aforementioned sale deed at
Exh.31. The Reference Court then referred to potentiality of
the land of respondent no.1 and held that it was clearly
possible to equate the said land to the land mentioned in
Exh.31. The Reference Court found that since the land at
village Lohara was used for establishment of industrial estate
of the appellant MIDC and the acquired land of respondent no.1
was also to be put to extension of industrial estate, the two
lands could be equated and compensation could be granted on
that basis.
14. But, the Reference Court failed to appreciate that the
53 FA56-06& ors.odt
two pieces of lands could not be compared and that they could
certainly not be held to be identical in terms of their valuation.
The Reference Court has placed much emphasis on the location
of the acquired land and the testimony of respondent no.1 and
his expert witness in that regard. But, factors like the land at
village Bhoyar still being agricultural land was not taken into
consideration. As regards the application for conversion of land
to non-agricultural use and the evidence of the respondent no.1
and his expert witness regarding deemed grant of permission,
it was still be necessary for the respondent no.1 to have shown
that such land was actually put to non-agricultural use by him
when the Notification dated 09.03.1995 was issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act. In this regard, Rule 4(1)(c) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Use of Land and
Non-agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969, assumes
importance. The said provision reads as follows:-
"Rule 4 Conditions in which permission
may be granted
(1) Permission to convert the use of
agricultural land for any non-agricultural
purpose, or to change the use of land from
one non-agricultural purpose to another non-
agricultural purpose may be granted by the
Collector after consulting the Planning
Authority and such other authority as the
State Government may, from time to time,
direct subject to the provisions of any law for
the time being in force and to the following
among other conditions, that is to say-
54 FA56-06& ors.odt
(a) .....
(b) .....
(c) the applicant shall commence the
non-agricultural use applied for within one
year from the date of the order made by the
Collector in that behalf; failing which, unless
the said period is extended by the Collector
from time to time, the permission granted
shall be deemed to have lapsed."
15. In the present case, it was claimed by the respondent
no.1 that he had applied for conversion of acquired land for
non-agricultural use and that he had submitted layout of plots
with map to the Sub Divisional Officer after obtaining no
objections from various departments. According to him, since
the said application submitted by him was not rejected, by
operation of law i.e section 44 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966, , it was deemed to have been granted.
But, the respondent no.1 failed to demonstrate that, even
assuming that deemed permission was granted to him, he had
utilized the said land for non-agricultural use as there was no
material to show that even a single plot from alleged layout
demarcated in the acquired land was ever sold. Therefore, in
the absence of any such material, by operation of the aforesaid
Rule 4(1)(c), the permission for conversion, if any, stood lapsed
and the Reference Court could not have granted enhanced
compensation treating the acquired land as developed land and
fixing the rate of compensation on square feet basis.
55 FA56-06& ors.odt
16. In fact, the respondent no.1 himself stated that he
had purchased the acquired land admeasuring 4.47 hectares
on 01.04.1989 for consideration of only Rs.55,000/-. This could
have been taken as a basis to arrive at a reasonable figure for
market value of the said land on 09.03.1995, when the
Notification under Section 32(2) of the MID Act was issued.
But, no sale deed of a piece of land from village Bhoyar was
produced by the respondent no.1 before the Reference Court.
As stated above, in the entire group of appeals arising from the
acquisition proceedings pertaining to village Bhoyar, only one
sale deed proximate in time to notification dated 09.03.1995
from village Bhoyar was placed on record pertaining to a piece
of land admeasuring 1.21 hectares from Survey No.20, which
was adjacent to Survey No. 33 wherein the acquired land in the
present case was located. The said sale deed from village
Bhoyar shows consideration amount of only Rs.1,11,000/- for
1.21 hectares land. Since this Court has considered this group
of appeals from village Bhoyar together, judicial notice of the
aforesaid singular sale deed from village Bhoyar is being taken
for the present appeal also, in order to ascertain the fair market
value of the acquired land in the present case. In fact, it was
for the respondent no.1 to have produced sale deed from the
56 FA56-06& ors.odt
survey number of village Bhoyar wherein the acquired land was
located or at least from any other adjoining survey number
from village Bhoyar, which could be said to be a comparable
sale instance. Such material would have been the best
evidence for the Court to arrive at a proper evaluation of the
market value of the acquired land. But, instead of doing so, the
respondent no.1 produced sale deed at Exh.31 pertaining to
small plot of developed land in village Lohara, where industrial
estate of appellant MIDC was already established. It was not a
comparable sale instance, which the Reference Court failed to
appreciate. Even in the absence of any evidence produced by
the appellant MIDC or the State Authorities, it was incumbent
on the respondent no.1 to have produced relevant material
pertaining to lands located in village Bhoyar. This
demonstrates an error in the approach of the Reference Court
in simply relying upon the aforesaid sale instance at Exh.31
and evidence of the expert witness produced on behalf of the
respondent no.1.
17. In this situation, this Court is required to determine
the just and fair compensation payable to the respondent no.1
on the basis of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in this context. The law laid down by the Hon'ble
57 FA56-06& ors.odt
Supreme Court in the context of annual increment in market
price of land, relevance of sale instances from other villages
vis-à-vis sale instances from same village and the concept of
guess work, assumes significance.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the
case of Pehlad Ram .vs. HUDA - (2014) 14 Supreme
Court Cases 778, has taken into consideration various earlier
judgments regarding grant of annual increase in the amount of
compensation for acquisition of land. Upon finding that the
range of annual increment in earlier judgments, in the facts
and circumstances of those cases, was between 10% and 15%,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that a 10% cumulative
annual increment could be said to be the reasonable basis to
calculate enhanced compensation payable to a claimant.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar
Singh .vs. Union of India - (1998) 8 Supreme Court
Cases 136, has held that if compensation was determined on
the basis of awarded compensation to claimants of adjoining
village, it would not lead to correct assessment of market value
because there would be difference in location and potentiality
of the lands situated in two different villages, even if they were
58 FA56-06& ors.odt
adjoining and that if sale instances from the same village were
available, they ought to be relied on for determining market
value of the acquired land. In the case of Ranvir Singh .vs.
Union of India - (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 59, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the position of law that sale
deeds pertaining to portion of lands which were subject to
acquisition would be the most relevant piece of evidence for
assessing the market value of the acquired lands. It was
further held in the said judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that burden of proving that the acquired land and the
land covered by a sale transaction bears similar or same
potentiality or advantageous features, was also on the claimant
and it was reiterated that sale price in respect of small piece of
land could not be a basis for determination of the market value
of a large stretch of land. The relevant principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this context in the case of
Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) have been already quoted
hereinabove. This position of law, demonstrates that the
reliance placed by the Reference Court on the sale deed at
Exh.31 in the present case pertaining to a small plot of land in
village Lohara was wholly misplaced.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborated on the
59 FA56-06& ors.odt
concept of guesswork and "Guesstimate" in its judgment in the
case of Trishala Jain .vs. State of Uttaranchal - (2011) 6
Supreme Court Cases 47. It has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in this context as follows:-
"56. More often than not, it is not possible to
fix the compensation with exactitude or
arithmetic accuracy. Depending on the facts
and circumstances of the case, the Court may
have to take recourse to some guesswork
while determining the fair market value of the
land and the consequential amount of
compensation that is required to be paid to
the persons interested in the acquired land.
57. `Guess' as understood in its common
parlance is an estimate without any specific
information while `calculations' are always
made with reference to specific data.
`Guesstimate' is an estimate based on a
mixture of guesswork and calculations and it
is a process in itself. At the same time `guess'
cannot be treated synonymous to
`conjecture'. `Guess' by itself may be a
statement or result based on unknown factors
while `conjecture' is made with a very slight
amount of knowledge, which is just sufficient
to incline the scale of probability.
`Guesstimate' is with higher certainty than
mere `guess' or a `conjecture' per se.
60 FA56-06& ors.odt
58. The concept of `guesswork' is not
unknown to various fields of law. It has been
applied in cases relating to insurance,
taxation, compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act as well as under the Labour Laws.
All that is required from a Court is that such
guesswork has to be used with greater
element of caution and within the
determinants of law declared by the
Legislature or by the Courts from time to
time."
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quoted
from earlier judgments wherein guesswork has been applied to
arrive at a figure of compensation payable to claimants in land
acquisition cases and thereupon, it has been further held in the
said judgment of Trishala Jain .vs. State of Uttaranchal
(supra) as follows:-
"64. These precedents clearly demonstrate
that the Court may apply some guesswork
before it could arrive at a final determination,
which is in consonance with the statutory law
as well as the principles stated in the judicial
pronouncements. As already noticed, the
guesswork has to be used for determination of
compensation with greater element of caution
and the principle of guesstimation will have no
61 FA56-06& ors.odt
application to the case of `no evidence'. This
principle is only intended to bridge the gap
between the calculated compensation and the
actual compensation that the claimants may
be entitled to receive as per the facts of a
given case to meet the ends of justice.
65. It will be appropriate for us to state
certain principles controlling the application of
`guesstimate:
(a) Wherever the evidence produced by the
parties is not sufficient to determine the
compensation with exactitude, this principle
can be resorted to.
(b) Discretion of the court in applying
guesswork to the facts of a given case is not
unfettered but has to be reasonable and
should have a connection to the data on
record produced by the parties by way of
evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to
be within the limitations specified under
Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be
made in detriment thereto."
21. Applying the aforesaid principles controlling the
application of the concept of guesstimate, in the present case,
it will be appropriate to guess the enhanced compensation
payable to respondent no.1 (claimant) on the potentiality of the
62 FA56-06& ors.odt
acquired land. Taking into consideration the pleadings and
evidence on record, showing that the acquired land had on its
East certain factories located in the already existing industrial
estate of MIDC as also the fact that the land was on the
Yavatmal- Darwha road, it would be appropriate that
enhancement for potentiality is granted to the respondent no.1.
22. Since the acquired land could not have been treated
as developed land for which rate of compensation could have
been granted on square feet basis, its market value would have
to be assessed on its location and non-agricultural potentiality.
In this situation, the evidence and material on record does
show that the acquired land was located on the Yavatmal-
Darwha State Highway (although it has been claimed on behalf
of the appellant -MIDC that it is not a State Highway but a road
connecting the two places) and it was located near the land of
village Lohara wherein industrial estate of the MIDC was
already established. Thus, non-agricultural potentiality of the
agricultural land could not be denied. In this context, the
Reference Court has held that when the land in question was
being acquired for extension of the industrial estate of the
appellant MIDC, the user to which it was to be put could
certainly be taken into consideration for determining the
63 FA56-06& ors.odt
market value. But, this factor has to be taken into
consideration by taking into account the prohibition under
Clause fifthly of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
which was ignored by the Reference Court in the present case.
The user to which the land may be put can said to be an aspect
of non-agricultural potentiality of the acquired land. In the
case of Digambar .vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 2013
SC 3532, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the context of
potentiality, has held as follows:-
"17. Also paras 16 and 17 from Sabhia
Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (supra)
are quoted hereunder:
"16. We have considered the respective
arguments and carefully perused the record. It
is settled law that while fixing the market
value of the acquired land, the Land
Acquisition Collector is required to keep in
mind the following factors:
(i) Existing geographical situation of the
land.
(ii) Existing use of the land.
(iii) Already available advantages, like
proximity to National or State Highway or road
and/or developed area.
(iv) Market value of other land situated in the
64 FA56-06& ors.odt
same locality/village/area or adjacent or very
near the acquired land.
17. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of
Gujarat[8] this Court laid down the following
principles for determination of market value of
the acquired land: (SCC pp. 796-97)
"17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the
matters required to be considered in
determining the compensation; the principal
among which is the determination of the
market value of the land on the date of the
publication of the notification under sub-
section (1) of Section 4.
18. One of the principles for determination of
the amount of compensation for acquisition of
land would be the willingness of an informed
buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond
any cavil that the price of the land which a
willing and informed buyer would offer would
be different in the cases where the owner is in
possession and enjoyment of the property and
in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the
property may fetch in the open market if sold
by a willing seller unaffected by the special
needs of a particular purchase. Where definite
material is not forthcoming either in the
shape of sales of similar lands in the
65 FA56-06& ors.odt
neighbourhood at or about the date of
notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise,
other sale instances as well as other
evidences have to be considered."
18. Further, it would be worthwhile to refer to
the portion which is extracted from Atma
Singh Vs. State of Haryana[9] which para is
referred to at para 18 in Sabhia Mohammed
Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla's case (supra) which
reads thus:
"5. For ascertaining the market value of the
land, the potentiality of the acquired land
should also be taken into consideration.
Potentiality means capacity or possibility for
changing or developing into state of actuality.
It is well settled that market value of a
property has to be determined having due
regard to its existing condition with all its
existing advantages and its potential
possibility when led out in its most
advantageous manner. The question whether
a land has potential value or not, is primarily
one of fact depending upon its condition,
situation, uses to which it is put or is
reasonably capable of being put and proximity
to residential, commercial or industrial areas
or institutions. The existing amenities like
water, electricity, possibility of their further
extension, whether nearabout town is
66 FA56-06& ors.odt
developing or has prospect of development
have to be taken into consideration."
19. In para 22 of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf
Abdul Hamid Mulla's case (supra), the
judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition
Officer Vs. L. Kamalamma[10] is referred to
and the relevant portion of which is extracted
hereunder:
"7. ... When a land is acquired which has
the potentiality of being developed into an
urban land, merely because some portion of it
abuts the main road, higher rate of
compensation should be paid while in respect
of the lands on the interior side it should be at
lower rate may not stand to reason because
when sites are formed those abutting the
main road may have its advantages as well as
disadvantages. Many a discerning customer
may prefer to stay in the interior and far away
from the main road and may be willing to pay
a reasonably higher price for that site. One
cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to
indulge in a meticulous exercise of
classification of the land as was done by the
Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land
was acquired in one block and therefore
classification of the same into different
categories does not stand to reason."
67 FA56-06& ors.odt
23. Thus, it would be evident that even in the present
case the market value of acquired land for ascertaining just
and fair compensation payable to the respondent no.1 ought to
have been determined on the said factors i.e. geographical
location of the land, its existing use, its proximity to
road/highway and its potentiality. In the present case, the
acquired land was on the State Highway with a frontage of
about 57 meters and it definitely had non-agricultural
potentiality when the Notification dated 09.03.1995 was issued
under Section 32(2) of the MID Act. As noted above, it could
not be held to be a land converted to non-agricultural use, but
its proximity to village Lohara wherein there was already
existing industrial estate of appellant MIDC, could not be
ignored. But, the sale deed at Exh.31 could certainly not be
used as a base for determination of market value of the
acquired land because the small plot, which was subject matter
of sale deed at Exh.31 located in village Lohara, was certainly
not comparable to the acquired land. Therefore, grant of
compensation on square feet basis by the Reference Court was
wholly unsustainable.
24. In this situation, the process of ascertaining rate at
which just and fair compensation was payable to respondent
68 FA56-06& ors.odt
no.1 would necessarily involve some amount of guess work.
Such guess work has to be based on logical criteria and it
cannot be based on imagination. A reasonable basis for
ascertaining such rate of compensation could be the sale deed
dated 18.09.1992 pertaining to a piece of land admeasuring
1.21 hectares located in Survey No.20/2 of village Bhoyar,
which was adjacent to Survey No.33 in which the acquired land
of respondent no.1 was located. The aforesaid sale deed was
exhibited as Exh.29 before the Reference Court in the cases
pertaining to First Appeal Nos.116 of 2006 and 208 of 2006,
which have also fallen for consideration of this Court in this
group of appeals. The per hectare rate in the said sale deed
comes to about Rs.91,736/- per hectare. Considering that the
acquired land of respondent No.1 was located on the eastern
side, further nearer to the already established industrial estate
in village Lohara, it could be said that the value of the acquired
land around the same time as 18.09.1992 was higher and it
could be taken at about Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. Since the
Notification in the present case was issued on 09.03.1995
under Section 32(2) of the MID Act, adding 10% increase
cumulatively for about three years, at the time of issuance of
the said Notification, the fair market rate of the acquired land
would come to Rs.1,33,100/- per hectare.
69 FA56-06& ors.odt
25. Since the location of the acquired land was such that
its potentiality could not be denied, although it was not
converted to non-agricultural use, further amount would have
been fetched by such land if it was ascertained as to what a
prudent purchaser would have paid for the said land at the
time when the said Notification was issued on 09.03.1995.
Taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record,
showing that the acquired land had on its East certain factories
located in the already existing industrial estate of MIDC as also
the fact that the land was on the Yavatmal- Darwha road, it
would be appropriate that enhancement for potentiality to the
extent of Rs. 65,000/- is granted to respondent no.1. Adding
the said amount of Rs.65,000/- per hectare, the total amount
would then would come to Rs.1,98,100/- per hectare, which can
be rounded of to Rs. 200,000/- per hectare. But, by
ascertaining the market value of the acquired land erroneously
at Rs.17/- per square feet, by equating the said land to the land
that was subject matter of Exh.31, located in village Lohara,
the Reference Court committed a grave error. This is evident
from the fact that at the aforesaid per square feet rate, the
enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court has
come to an extremely high figure to Rs.7,77,463/- per hectare.
70 FA56-06& ors.odt
The grant of such enhanced compensation by the Reference
Court in the present case was clearly based on erroneous
considerations and it cannot be sustained. In fact, the findings
rendered by the Reference Court in the present case of
granting compensation at Rs.17/- per square feet has been
relied upon in the cases of other land owners of village Bhoyar
where compensation was determined. As a result, there has
been a trickle down effect of error in determination of
compensation in the other cases also. The basis of
determining compensation on per square feet basis by the
Reference Court is found to be wholly erroneous and is,
therefore, liable to be set aside.
26. As regards the grant of compensation for minor
mineral Murum determined by the Reference Court, reliance
has been placed in the impugned judgment and order on the
evidence of the expert witness and his method of determining
valuation of the rate at which the said minor mineral would
have been sold in the market. In this context, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant MIDC, has relied
upon Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
and judgment of this Court in the case of MIDC .vs.
Kantabhai passed in First Appeal No. 448 of 2003, which
71 FA56-06& ors.odt
in turn has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India .vs. Pramod Gupta
(supra).
27. Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966, provides that the right in minerals whether on surface or
underground is expressly reserved and shall vest in the State
Government, which shall have all powers for proper enjoyment
of such rights. Thus, a land owner cannot claim right in any
mineral found on the surface or underground, in land belonging
to him as it is expressly reserved and vested in the State
Government. Therefore, unless the land owner has permission
to mine or excavate such mineral located in his land, in
accordance with the procedure established by law, upon such
conditions that the State Government may apply, he cannot
claim any right in such mineral. Consequently, a land owner
like the respondent no.1 in the present case, could claim
compensation for the minor minerals Murum said to be located
in the hills in his land, only if there was evidence on record that
he had applied for and that he was granted permission for
mining or excavating such mineral. This Court in its judgment
in the case of MIDC .vs. Kantabhai (supra) has considered
this aspect and it has been held in the said judgment as
72 FA56-06& ors.odt
follows:-
"10. The Reference Court while
enhancing the compensation has
proceeded on the basis that mining minerals
were available under the soil of the acquired
land and therefore valuation of said
minerals had been successfully proved by the
claimant. Much importance was not granted
to the refusal of permission to excavate
the minerals. The evidence led on behalf of
the claimant of the Architect and the Geologist
came to be accepted.
11] In Union of India (supra) the
Supreme Court in para 74 of its judgment it
was observed thus:
"But while examining the
question of computing the quantum of
compensation, the Courts are required to bear
in mind the extent of such rights and in
particular the statutory provisions which
prohibit carrying out mining
operations without obtaining an
appropriate mining lease, prospecting
licence or permits. Thus Courts much
also bear in mind that even in a case where
owners are entitled to the minerals having
regard to the provisions contained in the
Punjab Minor Minerals Rules, 1934, the
73 FA56-06& ors.odt
amount of compensation would be
much less and with the acquisition of
land the right to use the minerals would
come to an end. Compensation for such
minerals may not be computed on the basis
of the profits earned by a mining lessee
having a valid mining lease therefor.
Furthermore, a person having a right to use
mines and minerals for his personal use and
not for sale will still have to obtain an
appropriate permit in terms of the statutory
provisions."
In para 77 it has been thereafter observed that
any profit earned by carrying on mining
operations in a manner contrary to relevant
provisions would not be a safe criterion for
determining the amount of compensation.
12] Reference to provisions of Section 48
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966 (for short the Code) is also
necessary. As per said provisions, the
right in minerals whether on surface or
underground vests with the State Government.
Under Section 48(3) such right over mines and
minerals can be assigned by the State
Government and under Section 48(4) of the
Code in case the right of any person stands
infringed, compensation can be paid by the
State Government or its assignee for such
74 FA56-06& ors.odt
infringement. Under Section 48(7) of the Code
illegal extraction of minerals without due
permission of the State Government is
prohibited. The evidence on record indicates
that the claimant had applied to the Collector
for permission to carry out mining activities
but he was not aware about the fate of his
application. He further stated that though the
SubDivisional Officer had granted permission
he had not filed a copy of said order. The
SubDivisional Officer who was examined vide
Ex. 55 had stated that if permission is
granted for excavation upto 1000 brass
by the Sub Divisional Officer then such
entry is taken in the records. He further stated
that there was a recommendation granted by
the SubDivisional Officer vide Ex. 33 and there
were other transit passes also on record. He
denied the suggestion that any such
permission was granted by the Sub-
Divisional Officer.
13] In the light of judgment of the
Supreme Court in Union of India (supra) the
aspect of necessary permission for
excavating the minerals assumes
importance. The decision in the case of
Threesiamma Jacob (supra) with regard to
holders of Jenmom land in the State of Kerala
would not apply to the facts of the present
75 FA56-06& ors.odt
case especially when under Section 48(1) of
the Code, the right in such minor minerals in
so far as the State of Maharashtra is
concerned vests with the State Government.
Similarly the judgment of the Kerala High
Court in State of Kerala (supra) requiring
valuation of the minerals to be taken into
consideration also cannot be made applicable
in view of observations made in para
74 of the judgment in Union of India
(supra) that have been reproduced herein
above. The decision in Raja Anand (supra) is
clearly distinguishable on facts as the
acquisition was set aside on the ground that
the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of
the said Act was found to be illegal. In view of
aforesaid mere existence of minor minerals in
the acquired land would be of not
much assistance to the claim for
enhancement in the amount of compensation.
It is also pertinent to note that the
market value was determined on the basis of
deposition of Architect as per his report at Ex.
48. In his cross examination he clearly
admitted that the aspect of mineral mining
was not part of architecture. Similarly, the
other witness examined was a Hydro
Geologist who was concerned with the survey
for investigating existence of water. His
deposition is also not helpful in the present
facts. The Reference Court therefore was not
76 FA56-06& ors.odt
justified in awarding compensation to the
claimant on the basis of valuation of the minor
minerals."
As is evident from the above quoted paragraphs, this
Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India .vs. Pramod Gupta
(supra) to elucidate the aforesaid position of law. As noted in
the above quoted judgment, the land owner cannot rely upon
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Threesiamma Jacob .vs. Geologist, Deptt of Mining and
Geology, (supra) because it was clearly distinguishable on
facts. In the present case also, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.1 has relied upon the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Threesiamma Jacob .vs. Geologist, Deptt of Mining and
Geology, (supra), but, in the light of the aforesaid position of
law, it cannot be of assistance to the respondent no.1.
28. In the light of the aforesaid position of law, the
evidence and material on record in the present case needs to
be examined. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.1 relied upon a document at Exh.37 to claim
that the respondent no.1 was entitled to grant of compensation
77 FA56-06& ors.odt
for the minor mineral Murum located in the hills in the land at
the rate specified by the expert witness who had appeared in
support of the claim made by the respondent no.1. At Exh.37
is an order passed by the Collector, Yavatmal, dated
04.08.1987 granting permission to the respondent no.1 for
mining of minor mineral Murum from land located in Survey No.
30/1 of mouza (village) Godani. This order has no relevance for
the land of the respondent no.1 which was acquired , as it was
located in Survey No. 33/4 in village Bhoyar. In fact, the said
land at village Bhoyar was purchased by the respondent no.1
on 01.04.1989. Thus, it can have no connection with the order
at Exh.37, which was passed on 04.08.1987. It was sought to
be submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the said
order at Exh.37 at least demonstrated that the respondent no.1
was in the business of mining minor mineral Murum and that,
therefore, it could be said that he would be entitled for
compensation for the said minor mineral shown by the expert
witness to be located in the hills in the acquired land. But, in
view of the aforesaid position of law laid down by this Court in
the case of MIDC .vs. Kantabhai (supra), in the absence of
evidence and material on record showing permission granted
to respondent no.1 to mine the minor minerals Murum, no
compensation could be claimed by the respondent no.1 in that
78 FA56-06& ors.odt
regard. In this light, the evidence tendered by the expert
witness as regards quantity of minor mineral Murum available
in the hills in the acquired land and its valuation become
meaningless and they cannot come to the aid of the
respondent no.1. This clearly demonstrates that the
respondent no.1 was not entitled to grant of compensation for
minor mineral Murum , as granted by the Reference Court in
the impugned judgment and order.
29. Thus, it becomes clear that the instant appeal filed
by the MIDC deserves to be partly allowed. The compensation
granted to the respondent no.1 for minor mineral Murum by the
Reference Court in the impugned judgment and order is set
aside. The compensation for acquired land @ Rs.17/- per
square feet granted by the Reference Court is also set aside. It
is held, on the basis of the calculation of compensation payable
to respondent no.1 in the manner detailed above, that the
respondent no.1 is entitled to compensation for acquisition of
his land at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. The
compensation granted by the Reference Court of Rs.35,000/-
for the well located in the land is maintained. The other
directions pertaining to solatium, additional component and
interest granted by the Reference Court are also maintained.
79 FA56-06& ors.odt
The quantum of compensation payable to the respondent no.1
at the aforesaid rate shall be for the entire extent of 4.47
hectares of land. Accordingly, this appeal of the MIDC is partly
allowed and the judgment and order of the Reference Court is
modified to the above extent.
...
First Appeal Nos. 116/2006 and 208/2006
These are two appeals filed by the acquiring body
MIDC (First Appeal No. 116 of 2006) and the claimant Satish
Nimodiya (First Appeal No. 208 of 2006), both challenging
judgment and order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 214 of 2001. The Reference
Court has granted enhanced compensation to the said claimant
@ Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare. While the appellant MIDC claims
that the aforesaid quantum of enhanced compensation is
extremely high and unjustified, the claimant has contended
that he deserved enhanced compensation at Rs.35/- per square
feet for part of the land touching the road and Rs.18/- per
square feet for part of the land away from the road.
2. The State Government had issued notification dated
30.11.1994 under Section 1(3) of the MID Act in respect of
making applicable the MID Act to various lands in village
80 FA56-06& ors.odt
Bhoyar, including land belonging to the claimant in this appeal,
being land in Survey No.20/2 admeasuring 1.21 hectares of
village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal. On 09.03.1995,
Notification under Section 32(2) of the MID Act, was issued by
the State Government in respect of acquisition of the aforesaid
land, thereby initiating acquisition proceedings. Upon
culmination of the said proceedings, award was issued by the
respondent -Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27.11.1997,
granting compensation @ Rs.1500/- for Pot Kharab land (i.e.
land which is incapable of being cultivated due to features in
the land) admeasuring 0.51 hectares and an amount of
Rs.56,000/- for 0.70 hectare of cultivable land. In addition, the
claimant was granted amount of Rs.3450/- towards cost of one
mango tree.
3. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant filed Land
Acquisition Case No. 214 of 2001 under Section 34 of the MID
Act read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
being a Reference Application before the Reference Court,
claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent-State
Authorities filed written statement in the said reference
application opposing enhancement of compensation claimed
by the land owner, while the appellant MIDC failed to file any
81 FA56-06& ors.odt
written statement. The claimant examined himself and two
witnesses in support of his claim before the Reference Court.
The State Authorities and the MIDC failed to examine any
witness in support of their contentions. The documentary
evidence placed on record by the claimant included a sale deed
dated 18.09.1992 at Exh.29. This was the very sale deed by
which the claimant had purchased the said acquired land
admeasuring 1.21 hectares for a consideration of Rs.1,11,000/-.
In fact, this is the only sale instance on record pertaining to the
village Bhoyar in all the appeals arising out of the acquisition
proceedings undertaken by the appellant MIDC in village
Bhoyar. The other document on which the claimant relied
before the Reference Court was a sale deed dated 28.11.1994
(Exh.28) pertaining to a plot of land located in adjoining village
Lohara, which was purchased for a consideration of
Rs.18,500/-.
4. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and
order partly allowed the application of the claimant and held
that he was entitled to enhanced compensation @
Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare. Although the claimant relied upon
the aforesaid sale deed pertaining to plot of land in adjoining
village Lohara (Exh.28), the Reference Court did not rely upon
82 FA56-06& ors.odt
the same while arriving at findings in favour of the claimant.
The Reference Court also found that while the claimant had
claimed that his land could be treated as non-agricultural land ,
there was nothing on record to show that he had taken steps
for conversion of the land to non-agricultural use or that
despite advertisement issued by him, any person had come
forward to buy a plot in the alleged layout demarcated on his
land. In this situation, the Reference Court took into
consideration only Exh.29 i.e. the sale deed dated 18.09.1992
whereby the claimant had purchased the very land that was
subject matter of acquisition in the present proceedings.
Thereafter, the Reference Court held that if the prices of lands
in village Bhoyar were considered, they were increasing at the
rate of 50% per year. On this basis, the Reference Court
granted increase for about three years, as Notification under
Section 32(2) of MID Act, was issued on 09.03.1995.
Thereupon, by adding further amount towards potentiality of
the land, as it was located near industrial zone, the Reference
Court came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare.
5. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant - MIDC contended that the rate of
83 FA56-06& ors.odt
increase at 50% P.A. granted by the Reference Court was wholly
unsustainable and that considering the position of law in
respect of cumulative annual increment that could be granted,
such increase at 10% P.A. was reasonable. It was contended
that grant of annual increase at 50% by the Reference Court
was not sustainable at all. On this basis, it was submitted that
the appeal deserved to be allowed, even if the sale deed at
Exh.29 dated 18.09.1992 pertaining to acquired land was taken
as a basis for calculation of compensation.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Rohan Joshi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the claimant (respondent no.1) in First
Appeal No. 116 of 2006 and appellant in First Appeal No. 208 of
2006 submitted that the rate of compensation granted by the
Reference Court was much less than the actual market value of
the land. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the claimant relied upon the documentary and oral
evidence placed on record. It was submitted that there was
sufficient evidence to show that the acquired land was in the
vicinity of developed industrial area of village Lohara and that
it was located on Yavatmal- Darwha State Highway. It was
further contended that there were factories and educational
institutions in the vicinity and that such evidence was not
84 FA56-06& ors.odt
shown to be false by the State Authorities or the appellant-
MIDC. In fact, the State Authorities and the MIDC had failed to
place on record any contra evidence. It was contended that
considering the location of the acquired land, the claimant was
entitled to compensation at per square feet rate by treating the
land as converted to non-agricultural use. On this basis, it was
contended that the claimant was entitled to compensation at
the rate of Rs.35/- per square feet.
7. Having heard the counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the evidence and material on record, it appears that
the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court at
Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare was on the higher side. The oral and
documentary evidence on record shows that the claimant has
not been able to support his claim that the acquired land ought
to have been treated as developed land or land converted to
non-agricultural use. The Reference Court itself has found that
there was lack of evidence to show that acquired land was
converted to non-agricultural use and it also found that despite
advertisements issued by the claimant for sale of plots
allegedly demarcated in the acquired land, there were no
takers for the same. Therefore, it is evident that the claimant
is not justified in contending that he was entitled to
85 FA56-06& ors.odt
compensation at the rate of Rs.35/- per square feet. A perusal
of the oral and documentary evidence on record shows that the
Reference Court was justified in treating the sale deed at
Exh.29 dated 18.09.1992 pertaining to the acquired land as the
basis for calculating compensation payable to the claimant.
But, the Reference Court committed a grave error in granting
increase at the rate of 50% P.A. from 1992 to 1995 i.e. a period
of three years, while calculating the enhanced amount of
compensation. There was no basis for granting such an
extremely high annual increment to the claimant. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in various judgments that such annual
increment could be granted on cumulative basis ranging
between 7.5 % to 15%. In fact, in its judgment in the case of
Pehlad Ram .vs. HUDA (2014) 14 SCC 778, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has taken into consideration various judgments
in this regard and it has been held that an annual cumulative
increment of 10% would be just and reasonable. Thus,
applying the said rate of cumulative annual increment to the
facts of the present case, would give a proper estimate of the
enhanced compensation that was payable to the claimant in
the present case. The valuation of the acquired land as per the
aforesaid sale deed at Exh.29 dated 18.09.1992 comes to
about Rs.91,736/- per hectare. Applying cumulative annual
86 FA56-06& ors.odt
increment for three years to the said rate, it comes to
Rs.1,22,101/-.
8. The location of the acquired land ascertained on the
basis of the evidence on record shows that it was located on
the Yavatmal- Darwha Highway and it also had industrial estate
established by the appellant- MIDC in village Lohara towards its
east. In fact, between Survey No.20/2 and the said industrial
estate was located Survey No.33 and, therefore, it can be said
that the location of the land shows that it had potentiality,
which needed to be taken into consideration for arriving at a
just and fair amount of compensation payable to the claimant.
In this situation, some amount of guesswork is inevitable, the
principles of which have been quoted above in the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trishala Jain .vs.
State of Uttaranchal (supra). As it has been held that the
claimant in the acquired land in adjoining Survey No.33, which
was nearer on the eastern side to the already established
industrial estate of village Lohara, was entitled to enhanced
compensation towards potentiality at Rs.65,000/- per hectare
for the acquired land, in this case the land being a little further
away towards the west from the said industrial estate, it would
be just and reasonable to hold that the claimant would be
87 FA56-06& ors.odt
entitled to enhanced compensation towards potentiality at
Rs.60,000/- per hectare.
9. Thus, by adding the aforementioned figure arrived at,
upon grant of cumulative annual increment at 10% to the
enhanced compensation payable for potentiality, the total
enhanced compensation to which the claimant would be
entitled in the present case, would be Rs.1,82,101/-, which can
be rounded of to Rs. 1,85,000/- per hectare. This shows that
the appeal (First Appeal No. 116/2006) filed by the appellant-
MIDC deserves to be partly allowed and the appeal (First
Appeal No.208/2006) filed by the claimant deserves to be
dismissed.
10. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant in this case is
entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.1,85,000/-
per hectare and First Appeal No.208/2016 is dismissed while
First Appeal No. 116/2006 filed by the appellant - MIDC is partly
allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court is modified to that extent. The compensation
of Rs.5000/- granted by the Reference Court towards one Neem
tree is confirmed and other directions pertaining to solatium,
additional component and interest are also confirmed. The
88 FA56-06& ors.odt
compensation payable to the claimant will have to be worked
out accordingly. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.
....
First Appeal No.489 of 2017
This is an appeal filed by the appellant - MIDC
challenging the impugned judgment and order dated
23.11.2012 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition
Case No. 13 of 2005. The land which is subject matter of
acquisition in this case is located in Survey No.32/1
admeasuring 1.62 HR in the said village Bhoyar, taluka and
district Yavatmal. The Notification under Section 32(2) of the
MID Act pertaining to the said land was published on
09.03.1995, as it was a common notification for acquisition of
various lands in the village Bhoyar, for extension of industrial
estate of the MIDC. By award dated 03.11.1997, the
respondent- Special Land Acquisition Officer granted
compensation to the respondent no.1-claimant at the rate of
Rs.1500/- per hectare for the entire land and further amount of
Rs.2123/- was granted for four teak trees on the said acquired
land.
89 FA56-06& ors.odt
2. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent no.1
filed a reference application under Section 34 of the MID Act
read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 13 of 2005 seeking
enhanced compensation. While the respondent no.1 adduced
oral and documentary evidence on record in support of her
claim, the respondent- State Authorities and the appellant-
MIDC failed to place any evidence on record.
3. By the impugned judgment and order dated
23.11.2012 passed by the Reference Court, enhanced
compensation was granted to the respondent no.1 at the rate
of Rs.3,75,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. The
Reference Court relied upon a sale deed at Exh.67 dated
21.06.1993, pertaining to a piece of land in adjoining village
Lohara to arrive at the aforesaid figure of enhanced
compensation payable to respondent no.1.
4. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant- MIDC submitted that the Reference
Court committed an error in relying upon the sale deed at
Exh.67 dated 21.06.1993, as it pertained to a piece of land
located in village Lohara. It was contended that industrial
90 FA56-06& ors.odt
estate had been already established in the aforesaid village
Lohara and that the lands in the said village were fetching far
more price than the agricultural lands located in village Bhoyar.
It was pointed out that not a single piece of land in village
Bhoyar had been converted to non-agricultural use and the
respondent no.1 had failed to place on record any sale deed
pertaining to land in village Bhoyar, although sale deeds were
available. It was contended that only one sale deed pertaining
to the village Bhoyar had come on record, which was the sale
deed dated 18.09.1992 pertaining to the land located in Survey
No. 20/2 of village Bhoyar. It was contended that the land of
the respondent no.1 in the present case was situated on the
other side of the Yavatmal- Darwha road, as compared to the
land of the claimant in First Appeal No.56 of 2006 and that
enhanced compensation payable that this Court would
determine in that case could be taken as a valid basis for
determination of enhanced compensation payable to the
respondent No.1 herein. None has appeared on behalf of the
respondent no.1 claimant.
5. In the case of the claimant pertaining to First Appeal
No.56 of 2006, it has been already held above that the sale
deed pertaining to land located in Survey no.20/2 could be
91 FA56-06& ors.odt
taken into consideration as a basis for estimating the market
value of the land on the date when the Notification was issued
under Section 32(2) of the MID Act. Applying the same
principle, since the land of the respondent no.1 in the present
case also is on the Yavatmal- Darwha road and it is adjoining
the already existing industrial estate in village Lohara, like the
land of the claimant pertaining to First Appeal No.56 of 2006,
the same formula can be applied. On that basis, it can be held
that the value of the land of the respondent no.1 in the present
case would have been about Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare in the
year 1992 and granting cumulative annual increment of 10%
for three years upto 1995 when the said Notification was
issued, it would come to Rs.1,33,100/-. Since the land in the
present case is located on the other side of the Yavatmal-
Darwha road, as compared to the land of the claimant in First
Appeal No.56 of 2006 and its location is otherwise identical to
the said land, for non-agricultural potentiality a further amount
at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare could be added. Some
amount of guesswork is inevitable in such circumstances and
while arriving at the said figure, the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trishala Jain .vs. State
of Uttaranchal (supra) have been taken into consideration.
92 FA56-06& ors.odt
6. By adding the two figures , the amount comes to
Rs.1,98,100/-, which could be rounded of to Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare as in the case of the claimant in First Appeal No.56 of
2006. Therefore, it becomes evident that this appeal filed by
the MIDC deserves to be partly allowed. The Reference Court
has committed an error in relying upon sale deed at Exh.67
pertaining to land located in village Lohara. On this basis, it
has erred in granting compensation at Rs.3,75,000/- per
hectare. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Reference Court deserves to be modified.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is partly allowed. It is
held that the respondent no.1 is entitled to enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare for the
land acquired for the appellant- MIDC. The impugned judgment
and order of the Reference Court is modified in the said terms.
But, it is made clear that other directions given in the
impugned order by the Reference Court pertaining to solatium,
additional component and interest shall remain the same and
they are confirmed. Accordingly this appeal is disposed of.
..
93 FA56-06& ors.odt
First Appeal Nos. 591/2006 & First Appeal No. 124/2007
These two appeals are filed by the MIDC (First Appeal
No.124 of 2007) and the claimant Lilabai Langote (First Appeal
No.591 of 2006) challenging the judgment and order dated
15.04.2006 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition
Case No. 130/2002. The Reference Court has granted
enhanced compensation to the said claimant for acquisition of
her land at Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare, which according to the
claimant is not sufficient, while it is contended on behalf of the
MIDC that the said enhanced compensation is on the higher
side. The subject matter of the present case is land in Survey
No. 33/2 admeasuring 2.43 hectares belonging to the said
claimant in village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal. By the
aforementioned Notification issued under Section 32(2) of the
MID Act dated 09.03.1995, the aforesaid land belonging to the
claimant was sought to be acquired. Upon culmination of the
acquisition proceedings, by award issued on 03.11.1997 by the
respondent- Special Land Acquisition Officer, compensation at
Rs.1500/- per hectare was granted to the claimant.
2. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act, read with Section
94 FA56-06& ors.odt
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Reference
Court, wherein it was contended that the compensation
granted under the award was meager and that the claimant
deserved enhanced compensation at Rs.12,50,000/- per
hectare.
3. The appellant- MIDC filed written statement in the
said reference application opposing the claim of enhanced
compensation raised by the claimant. The claimant adduced
oral and documentary evidence in support of her claim by
adducing evidence of her son-power of attorney holder, and
also evidence of expert witness Mr. Chendkapure, who had also
appeared as expert witness in the case of the claimant in First
Appeal No.56 of 2006.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court partly allowed the application of the claimant and
directed payment of enhanced compensation at Rs.4,00,000/-
per hectare along with solatium and other benefits.
5. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant - MIDC in First Appeal No.124 of 2007,
has submitted that the Reference Court has erred in granting
95 FA56-06& ors.odt
such enhanced compensation and that if the factors pertaining
to the agricultural lands located in village Bhoyar were properly
taken into consideration, the Reference Court could not have
granted such enhanced compensation. It was pointed out that
the documentary and oral evidence placed on record on behalf
of the claimant was of no avail because the sale instances
relied upon did not pertain to village Bhoyar and the location of
the land and its potentiality did not justify the enhanced
compensation granted by the Reference Court.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Nidhi Singhvi, learned counsel
holding for Mr. Anil Killor, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
claimant/appellant in First Appeal No.591/2006 submitted that
a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record
demonstrated that the enhancement of compensation granted
by the Reference Court was on the lower side and that
considering the location of the land in question, the claimant
deserved compensation at the rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per
hectare claimed by her in her application filed before the
Reference Court. It was submitted that the land was adjacent
to already existing industrial estate in village Lohara and that
it was on the Yavatmal- Darwha road, with Raymond Factory
and other factories in the vicinity, which demonstrated that the
96 FA56-06& ors.odt
enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court was
inadequate. On this basis, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the claimant, submitted that the appeal filed by the
claimant deserved to be allowed and the appeal filed by the
MIDC deserved to be dismissed.
7. The reasoning of the Reference Court for grant of
such enhanced compensation can be found in paragraph 18 of
the impugned judgment and order. The Reference Court has
taken into consideration the amount paid by the claimant when
she purchased the acquired land on 30.09.1980 by paying
Rs.10,000/-. The Reference Court has held that considering the
increase in prices of land in village Bhoyar, an annual
increment of 50% could be granted till the year 1995 when the
Notification under Section 32(2) of the MID Act was issued and
on such basis, the Reference Court has come to the figure of
Rs.85,000/- per hectare in respect of the land in question.
Thereafter, the Reference Court has abruptly jumped to the
conclusion that looking to the potentiality of the land and the
fact that several industries were located in the vicinity, the
prices of the land on the date of the Notification could be
calculated to be Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare. There is no
reference to any evidence and material on record by the
97 FA56-06& ors.odt
Reference Court while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. The
annual increment of 50% granted from 1980 to 1995 is wholly
misconceived because the Hon'ble Supreme Court the case of
Pehlad Ram .vs. HUDA (supra) has laid down in various
judgments that cumulative annual increase could be between
7.5 % and 15 %.
8. Therefore, the aforesaid finding rendered by the
Reference Court in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment
and order is wholly unsustainable. Similarly, the abrupt finding
that the prices of the land on the date of the Notification could
be taken as Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare because the land had
industries in its vicinity and that it had immense potentiality,
was also not based on any logical principle. Thus, the basis of
the Reference Court reaching conclusion in favour of the
claimant in this case, is wholly unsustainable.
9. At the same time, location of the land in the present
case in Survey No.33/2, shows that it is in the very survey
number wherein the land of the claimant in First Appeal No.56
of 2006 was located. In the earlier part of this judgment, the
location of the land in Survey No.33 has been discussed in
detail in the case of the aforesaid claimant in First Appeal
98 FA56-06& ors.odt
No.56 of 2006. Since, it has been held that the land in the said
survey number would have fetched about Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare on the date when Notification was issued under Section
32(2) of the MID Act, it can be held in the case of the claimant
in the present case also that she was entitled to compensation
at the same rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare, considering the
value of the land at the relevant date and the potentiality of
the land on the basis of its location adjacent to the already
established industrial estate at village Lohara and being in
close proximity to Yavatmal-Darwha State Highway.
10. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant in the present
case is entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of
Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. Hence, First Appeal No.591/2006
filed by the claimant seeking further enhanced compensation is
dismissed and the appeal filed by the appellant -MIDC First
Appeal No. 124/2007 is partly allowed and the impugned
judgment and order of the Reference Court is accordingly
modified. The directions pertaining to solatium, additional
component and interest on the enhanced amount of
compensation granted by the Reference Court are not
disturbed and they are confirmed. These appeals are disposed
of in above terms.
99 FA56-06& ors.odt
...
First Appeal No.683/2016 with Cross-Objection
No.30/2017
By this appeal, the appellant- MIDC has challenged
judgment and order dated 02.02.2008 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No.61 of 2002, whereby the
Reference Court has partly allowed the application of the
respondent no.1-land owner and enhanced compensation at
Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare has been granted to him.
2. Upon Notification being issued by the State
Government on 09.03.1995 under Section 32(2) of the MID Act
for acquisition of land belonging to respondent no.1 located in
Survey No. 33/3-A admeasuring 1.21 HR in village Bhoyar,
tehsil and district Yavatmal, the acquisition process
commenced and it culminated in award dated 03.11.1997. By
the said award, the respondent- Special Land Acquisition
Officer granted an amount of Rs.2940/- towards compensation
to respondent no.1.
3. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent no.1
filed reference application under Section 34 of the MID Act read
100 FA56-06& ors.odt
with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which has
been disposed of by the impugned judgment and order. The
respondent no.1 claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.15/-
per square feet on the ground that the aforesaid land was likely
to be used for non-agricultural purpose. It was claimed that
since the land was located very near to the industrial estate
already established by the MIDC in adjoining village Lohara,
there was high potentiality in the land and that, therefore,
respondent no.1 deserved compensation at the rate claimed by
him. The appellant- MIDC failed to file written statement in
response to the aforesaid application while the State
Authorities appeared before the Reference Court and denied
the claim made by the respondent no.1. Documentary
evidence in the form of sale deeds pertaining to village Lohara
were placed on record on behalf of respondent no.1 and
reliance was also placed on orders passed by the Reference
Court in cases pertaining to other lands located in the same
village of Bhoyar. On the basis of the material on record, the
Reference Court found that the claim made by the respondent
no.1 of compensation at Rs.15/- per square feet could not be
granted. It was noted that not a single transaction pertaining
to village Bhoyar was placed on record and that no land in
village Bhoyar was converted to non-agricultural use prior to
101 FA56-06& ors.odt
the aforesaid Notification dated 09.03.1995. The Reference
Court relied upon the development that had taken place in
adjoining village of Lohara and it also relied upon the fact that
the land in question in the present case was situated near
Yavatmal town. On this basis, the Reference Court granted
enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare.
4. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant- MIDC submitted that reliance on the
developed land in adjoining village Lohara was misplaced and
the reasons given by the Reference Court for enhancing
compensation in favour of respondent no.1 were not justified.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Bharat Vora, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 as also the Cross-
objector, submitted that the location of the land in question
and the fact that it was to be put to non-agricultural use
justified the claim of enhanced compensation at Rs.15/- per
square feet. It was contended that there was already a well
established industrial estate of the appellant - MIDC in the
adjoining village of Lohara and that, therefore, compensation at
per square feet rate could be justified.
102 FA56-06& ors.odt
6. Having considered the contentions raised on behalf of
the parties, although the reasons given by the Reference Court
in enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare
appear to be perfunctory, the amount granted cannot be said
to be erroneous. This is because, as discussed in detail in the
order passed in First Appeal No.56 of 2006 above, considering
the only available sale instance from the village Bhoyar and
considering the location of the land in Survey No.33, as also by
giving cumulative annual increments upto the year 1995, it
becomes evident that when the Notification dated 09.03.1995
was issued by the State Government, the fair market value of
the land in Survey No.33 was about Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare.
Thus, by relying upon the reasoning given in the order passed
in First Appeal No. 56 of 2006, pertaining to land from the very
same Survey No.33, it is held that the compensation granted
by the Reference Court in the present case at Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare is justified.
7. The claim raised on behalf of respondent No.1 in the
cross-objection that the Reference Court ought to have granted
compensation at Rs.15/- per square feet is not sustainable,
because there is no material on record to show that the land in
103 FA56-06& ors.odt
the present case or for that matter any piece of land in the
whole village of Bhoyar was ever converted to non-agricultural
use. In fact, it is found in the present case that right upto the
date of the Notification dated 09.03.1995, the respondent No.1
was performing agricultural activity in the land in question.
Therefore, there is no substance in the claim raised on behalf of
respondent no.1 in his cross-objection.
8. Although, the reasons for arriving at the figure of
Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare by this Court are different from those
assigned by the Reference Court, in the present case since the
amount of enhanced compensation granted by the Reference
Court at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare is found to be correct, the
instant first appeal of the appellant- MIDC as well as the cross-
objection of respondent no.1 are dismissed.
...
First Appeal No.1254/2009 with First Appeal No.7/2013
These are two appeals filed by the claimants/land
owners and the MIDC, both challenging judgment and order
dated 16.02.2009 passed by the Reference Court in Land
Acquisition Case No.49 of 2002. The land acquired in the
present case belonging to the claimants herein was located in
104 FA56-06& ors.odt
Survey No.2/1 admeasuring 3.40 hectares in village Bhoyar,
tehsil and district Yavatmal. The acquisition proceeding was
initiated by issuance of aforesaid Notification dated 09.03.1995
under Section 32(2) of the MID Act, which culminated in
passing of award dated 27.11.1997 by the respondent-Special
Land Acquisition Officer. Under the award, the claimants were
granted compensation at Rs.62,529/- per hectare for 2.75
hectares, at Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.65 hectares, as the
former piece of land was treated as cultivable land and the
remaining land was treated at Pot Kharab land.
2. Aggrieved by the said award, claimants filed
reference application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, wherein the
Reference Court has passed the impugned judgment and order.
It has been held by the Reference Court that the claimants
were entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare for 2.75 hectares of cultivable land and at
Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare for 0.65 hectares of Pot Kharab land.
The claimants had prayed for enhanced compensation at
Rs.15,00,000/-per hectare before the Reference Court. The
State Authorities filed a written statement opposing the claim
but the MIDC failed to file written statement. The claimants
105 FA56-06& ors.odt
placed on record sale deeds pertaining to lands located in
village Lohara wherein industrial estate had been already
established by MIDC and oral evidence was adduced by one of
the claimants appearing as witness before the Reference Court.
3. The Reference Court in the impugned judgment and
order found that the sale deeds at Exhs. 61 to 64 relied upon
by the claimants, did not pertain to lands that were similar to
the acquired land. But, the Reference Court found that they
could be used as piece of evidence for guidance to fix the
market value of the acquired land on the basis of guesswork.
On this basis, the Reference Court held that the acquired land
located in village Bhoyar would fetch 50% less than the market
value of the land at the relevant time located in village Lohara.
On this basis, the Reference Court arrived at the aforesaid
figures of enhanced compensation payable to the claimants. It
was held that for the Pot Kharab land, half the amount of the
compensation could be granted as compared to the amount
fixed for cultivable land. On this basis, the Reference Court
granted the amounts of enhanced compensation to the
claimants.
4. Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, learned counsel appearing on
106 FA56-06& ors.odt
behalf of the claimants, who are appellants in First Appeal No.
1254 of 2009, submitted that the claimants had placed on
record sufficient oral and documentary evidence to support
their claim for grant of enhanced compensation at
Rs.15,00,000/- per hectare. It was claimed that the land was
located in proximity to the already developed industrial estate
in the adjoining village of Lohara, wherein various factories had
been in existence for a long period of time. It was contended
that the sale deeds placed on record by the claimants could be
relied upon, even though they pertained to lands located in
village Lohara because the distance between the two villages
was not much and the potentiality of the acquired land located
in village Bhoyar was also a factor pointing towards higher
market value, as compared to the compensation granted by
the Reference Court.
5. On the other hand, Mr. M.M.Agnihotri, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the MIDC- appellant in First Appeal No. 7
of 2013, submitted that when sale instance from village
Bhoyar was available, reliance could not be placed on sale
instances pertaining to village Lohara. It was pointed out that
sale instance from adjoining Survey No. 20 was available and
it could be used as a basis for calculating fair market value of
107 FA56-06& ors.odt
the land in the present case on the date of Notification issued
under Section 32(2) of the MID Act.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court shows that although the sale deeds at Exhs.
61 to 64 pertaining to the village Lohara have been held to be
concerning lands not comparable to the acquired land, they
have been used as a guiding factor by the Reference Court to
reach findings in favour of the claimants. A perusal of the oral
evidence of the claimants in the present case shows that their
claim of enhanced compensation at Rs.15,00,000/- per hectare
is mainly based on location of the land being on the Yavatmal-
Darwha State Highway and the fact that factories existed
towards the eastern side of the land in the already established
industrial estate of village Lohara. There is no material placed
on record by the claimants in support of their claim. Even in
the cross-examination, the claimant has stated that the rate of
land in village Bhoyar in the year 1995 was at Rs.1,00,000/- per
acre which comes to about Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare. But, he
has admitted that not a single sale deed pertaining to village
Bhoyar was placed on record. Thus, it is evident that the claim
of enhanced compensation at Rs.15,00,000/- per hectare made
on behalf of the claimants is not supported by material on
108 FA56-06& ors.odt
record.
7. The map of village Bhoyar shows that the land
belonging to the claimants was located in Survey No.2, which is
towards western side of Survey No.20 and it is located on the
Yavatmal - Darwha road. It was further away from the
Industrial estate of MIDC in village Lohara and, therefore, in
terms of potentiality it was having less non-agricultural
potentiality as compared to lands located in Survey Nos. 20
and 33, which have been dealt with in this order above. Since
the only available sale instance from the entire village Bhoyar
was from Survey No.20, which was towards the eastern side of
the acquired land in the present case, it can be used as a basis
for arriving at a figure of fair market value of the acquired land
in the present case. In First Appeal Nos. 116 of 2006 and 208
of 2006, pertaining to acquired land located in survey No.20, it
has been held above that the claimant was entitled to
compensation at Rs.1,85,000/- . This was based on the
cumulative annual increments from the year 1992 to the year
1995 with the component of non-agricultural potentiality being
added to the same. Since the acquired land in the present
case is further away from the industrial estate of MIDC in
village Lohara, its potentiality would certainly have been lesser
109 FA56-06& ors.odt
than the aforesaid land in Survey No.20. But since, this land is
also located on the Yavatmal-Darwha road, the rate that the
land could have fetched in the year 1995, could be said to be
similar to the amount determined above of the land located in
Survey No.20. Only the amount towards potentiality would
stand reduced as the acquired land in the present case is
further away on the western side from the industrial estate of
the MIDC in village Lohara. Accordingly, the fair market value
of the land in the year 1995 is held to be the same as granted
above for the land in survey No.20, which comes to
Rs.1,22,101/-. But the component of compensation towards
potentiality would have to be reduced to Rs.55,000/-.
Therefore, the enhanced amount of compensation payable to
the claimants in this case would come to Rs.1,77,101/-, which
can rounded of to Rs. 1,80,000/-. As the amount of
compensation payable for Pot Kharab land would be half the
amount payable for cultivable land, the amount for Pot Kharab
land would come to about Rs.90,000/-.
8. Accordingly, First Appeal No.1254 of 2009, filed on
behalf of the claimants seeking further enhanced
compensation is dismissed. The appeal filed by MIDC, bearing
First Appeal No.7 of 2013, is partly allowed and it is held that
110 FA56-06& ors.odt
the claimants in the present case are entitled to compensation
at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for 2.75 hectares of cultivable land
and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for 0.65 hectares of Pot Kharab
land. The impugned judgment and order stands modified
accordingly. The other directions in the impugned judgment
and order pertaining to solatium, additional component and
interest are maintained. These appeals are disposed of in
above terms.
....
First Appeal No.216/2011 with First Appeal
No.276/2011
These appeals have been filed by MIDC and the
claimants, both challenging judgment and order dated
17.09.2010 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition
Case No. 102 of 2001, whereby the Reference Court has
granted enhanced compensation at Rs.2,40,000/- per hectare
to the claimants.
2. The land belonging to the claimants located in Survey
No.2/2 in village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal,
admeasuring 2.2 HR was acquired by issuance of Notification
dated 09.03.1995 under Section 32(2) of the MIDC Act. The
111 FA56-06& ors.odt
process culminated in issuance of award dated 27.11.1997,
whereby the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer
granted compensation at Rs.1500/- per hectare.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Reference
Court. The claimants contended that they were entitled to
compensation at Rs.30/- per square feet for their lands, which
would come to about Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. The MIDC filed its
written statement opposing the claim. The claimants placed
oral evidence on record in the form of one of the claimants
appearing as witness and by producing expert witness Mr.
Chendakapure. The claimants also placed reliance on sale
deeds pertaining to villages Lohara and Wadgaon. The
claimants could not place on record any sale instance
pertaining to village Bhoyar.
4. The Reference Court took into consideration the
aforesaid sale deeds filed on behalf of the claimants and held
that although they pertained to lands belonging to other
villages, they could be taken into consideration as evidence
when sale instance from the same village was not filed on
112 FA56-06& ors.odt
record. It was held by the Reference Court that some
guesswork could be undertaken. The Reference Court has also
relied upon map at Exh.33 showing the location of village
Bhoyar and adjoining villages. It took into consideration the
fact that lands in adjoining village Lohara and Wadgaon had
been converted to non-agricultural use and that, therefore, the
lands in village Bhoyar did have non-agricultural potentiality.
The said map at Exh.33, is in fact the map relied upon by all
parties in this group of appeals and it has been referred to by
counsel while making submissions in respect of location of
various lands acquired by the State Government for MIDC. On
the basis of its reasoning, the Reference Court granted
enhanced compensation at Rs.2,40,000/- per hectare to the
acquired land belonging to the claimants herein.
5. Mr. Rohit Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the claimants, who are appellants in First Appeal No.
216/2011, submitted that location of the land in the present
case was crucial and that a perusal of the map demonstrated
that the land was located in Survey No.2, which was on the
Yavatmal-Darwha State Highway. It was submitted that
towards the eastern side of the acquired land were located
factories in the already established industrial estate of village
113 FA56-06& ors.odt
Lohara and that the expert witness had also deposed in detail
regarding the location of the land and its tremendous non-
agricultural potentiality. It was pointed out that even if the sale
deeds placed on record on behalf of the claimants pertained to
lands in villages Lohara and Wadgaon, the said villages were
not very far from village Bhoyar and that the compensation
claimed by the claimants on per square feet basis was justified.
6. On the other hand, Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the MIDC, submitted that sale
deeds of villages Lohara and Wadgaon could not have been
relied upon and that the Reference Court was not justified in
holding that when a sale instance from the same village was
not placed on record, reliance could be placed on sale deeds
pertaining to lands in other villages. It was contended that the
amount of enhanced compensation granted by the Reference
Court was on the higher side.
7. It has been already held by this Court in the lands
pertaining to claimants in First Appeal Nos. 1254 of 2009 and 7
of 2013, also located in the same survey No.2, that looking to
the location, fair market value of the land in the year 1995 and
the non-agricultural potentiality, enhanced compensation
114 FA56-06& ors.odt
ought to be Rs.1,80,000/-. For the same reasons, it is held that
in the present case also, the claimants are entitled to
compensation at the aforesaid rate. The claimants have failed
to show any material to justify their claim of enhanced
compensation at Rs.30/- per square feet. It is clear from the
material on record that the land in question was not converted
to non-agricultural use. In fact, not a single piece of land in the
entire village Bhoyar was converted to non-agricultural use.
The locational advantage claimed by the claimants also does
not justify the extremely high figure of Rs.30/- per square feet
claimed by them. The acquired land was agricultural land and,
therefore, claim of further enhanced compensation made by
the claimants is not supported by material on record.
8. Accordingly, First Appeal No.216 of 2011 filed by the
claimants is dismissed and the First Appeal No. 276 of 2011
filed by the MIDC is partly allowed. It is held that the claimants
are entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per
hectare and the impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court is modified accordingly. The other directions
granted by the Reference Court pertaining to solatium,
additional component and interest are maintained and these
appeals are disposed of.
115 FA56-06& ors.odt
...
First Appeal No. 661/2006
By this appeal, the appellant- MIDC has challenged
judgment and order dated 29.07.2005 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No.100/1999. The Reference
Court has granted compensation to the respondent no.1 at
Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995 issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act, the land belonging to the
respondent no.1 located in Survey No. 2/3 admeasuring 4.04
hectares in village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal, was
acquired. By award dated 27.11.1997, the respondent no.1
was granted compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per hectare.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.1 filed
reference application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherein the
Reference Court has passed the impugned judgment and order
enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare.
4. The respondent no.1 had claimed enhanced
compensation at Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare. The respondent
116 FA56-06& ors.odt
no.1 relied upon sale deeds pertaining to the adjoining village
Lohara in support of his claim. The Reference Court considered
the said material placed on record by respondent no.1 and
concluded that he was entitled to compensation at
Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare.
5. The counsel for the parties have been heard in this
appeal. But, since in the case of claimants whose lands were
acquired from the very same Survey No. 2 in First Appeal Nos.
216 of 2011 and First Appeal No. 1254 of 2009 have been
already held above to be entitled to compensation at
Rs.1,80,000/-, it cannot be said that the compensation granted
by the Reference Court to respondent no.1 in the present case
needs any interference. Reliance is placed on the reasons
given above, while disposing of First Appeal Nos. 216 of 2011
and 1254 of 2009 along with First Appeal No. 7 of 2013.
Accordingly this appeal of the MIDC is dismissed.
.....
First Appeal No.1421 of 2009.
By this appeal, the appellant, being land
owner/claimant, has challenged judgment and order dated
22.04.2009 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition
Case No. 122 of 2000, whereby enhanced compensation has
117 FA56-06& ors.odt
been granted to the appellant at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for
0.27 hectares of cultivable land and at Rs.90,000/- per hectare
for 0.94 hectare of Pot Kharab land.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995, issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act, land belonging to the appellant
was acquired located in Survey No. 2/4 admeasuring 1.21
hectares in village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal. Award
was passed by the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer
on 27.11.1997 awarding compensation of Rs.1500/- per hectare
for 0.94 hectare Pot Kharab land and at Rs.50,000/- per hectare
for 0.27 hectare of cultivable land. Aggrieved by the same,
the appellant filed reference application under Section 34 of
the MID Act read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 before the Reference Court claiming enhanced
compensation of Rs.14,19,090/-. The appellant claimed that he
was entitled to such enhanced compensation, looking to the
tremendous non-agricultural potentiality of the acquired land
and the fact that it was located near factories and educational
institutions.
3. The Reference Court took into consideration the oral
and documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of the
118 FA56-06& ors.odt
appellant. There were sale instances placed on record but
none of them pertaining to village Bhoyar. The Reference Court
noted that the appellant had admitted that no lands in village
Bhoyar were converted to non-agricultural use and that there
were no residential houses or colonies constructed in village
Bhoyar. The Reference Court came to the conclusion that the
sale deeds placed on record by the appellant did not pertain to
lands similar to the acquired land. Yet, it relied upon such sale
instances to apply guesswork and by reducing the value as
shown in the said sale deeds while coming to the conclusion
that the appellant was entitled to compensation at Rs.
1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and at Rs.90,000/- per
hectare for Pot Kharab Land.
4. Mr. A.V. Bhide, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant has submitted that the Reference Court failed to
appreciate the tremendous non-agricultural potentiality of the
acquired land and that the location of the land was not properly
appreciated by the Reference Court. It was contended that
when already established industrial estate in village Lohara was
located towards the eastern side of the acquired land, the
locational advantage of the acquired land and its non-
agricultural potentiality ought to have been taken into
119 FA56-06& ors.odt
consideration. It was submitted that there was an order dated
21.01.1988 sanctioning industrial layout at Exh.75, which the
Reference Court did not appreciate while passing the impugned
judgment and order. On the other hand, Mr. M.M. Agnihotri,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent- MIDC opposed
the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.
5. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order shows
that the Reference Court has taken into consideration various
aspects of the matter, including non-agricultural potentiality
and location of the acquired land. Although the appellant
claimed enhanced compensation on the basis of the said
document at Exh.75, the Reference Court has found that the
appellant himself had given admissions to the effect that he
was taking crop of Jawar and Tur in the acquired land till its
acquisition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reasoning of
the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and order is
vitiated.
6. Even otherwise, in the case of claimants whose lands
were located in the same Survey No.2 in First Appeal Nos. 216
of 2011 and 1254 of 2009, it has been already held above that
they were entitled to compensation at Rs.1,80,000/-. This
120 FA56-06& ors.odt
Court has taken into consideration the fair market value of the
said land in Survey No.2 in the year 1995 when the Notification
for acquisition was issued and the component of non-
agricultural potentiality considering the location of the land in
Survey No.2 has already been added to it. For the same
reasons, this appeal can also be disposed of. Since the
Reference Court in the present case has granted Rs.1,80,000/-
per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for
Pot Kharab land, it cannot be said that there is any error in the
findings rendered by the Reference Court.
7. Accordingly, this appeal for further enhanced
compensation filed by the appellant (original land
owner/claimant) is dismissed.
....
First Appeal No.737 of 2006 with Cross-Objection No.8
of 2014
By this appeal the appellant- MIDC has challenged
judgment and order dated 14.09.2005 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 62 of 2002, whereby the
Reference Court has granted enhanced compensation at the
rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare to the respondent no.1-
121 FA56-06& ors.odt
claimant.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995 under Section 32(2)
of the MID Act, land belonging to respondent no.1 in Survey No.
35/1 in village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal,
admeasuring 5.66 hectares was acquired. By award dated
03.11.1997, issued by the respondent-Special Land Acquisition
Officer, compensation at Rs.1500/- per hectare was granted.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.1 filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Reference
Court. The respondent no.1 adduced oral and documentary
evidence in support of his claim for enhanced compensation of
Rs.63,59,010/-.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court has held that looking to the location of the acquired land
and applying guesswork based on sale deeds of village Lohara
placed on record by the respondent no.1, enhanced
compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare could be granted.
4. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the MIDC has fairly submitted that looking to the
122 FA56-06& ors.odt
location of the acquired land in Survey No.35, which is
adjoining Survey No.33 towards the south, in view of the
submissions made by him in respect of lands located in survey
No.33, pertaining to First Appeal No.56 of 2006, it could not be
said that the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference
Court in the present case was exorbitant.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Bharat Vora, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and cross-
objector submitted that the Reference Court has failed to take
into consideration the non-agricultural potentiality of the
acquired land and the fact that a valuation report had been
placed on record on behalf of the respondent no.1. It was
claimed that since the land had tremendous non-agricultural
potentiality, compensation on per square feet rate ought to
have been granted.
6. Since the acquired land in the present case is located
in Survey No.35, which is adjoining Survey No.33 towards the
south, without dilating any further, it would be appropriate to
rely upon the order passed by this Court above in First Appeal
No.56 of 2006 pertaining to the land located in adjoining
Survey No.33. In the said case, value of the land has been
123 FA56-06& ors.odt
determined on the basis of its location being on Yavatmal-
Darwha State Highway and potentiality has been estimated on
the basis that factories in already established industrial estate
MIDC in village Lohara are located immediately towards the
east of the said land.
7. The land in the present case is towards the south of
Survey No.33 and hence it is further away from Yavatmal-
Darwha State Highway and this is a distinguishing feature for
the present land. Insofar as potentiality is concerned, in terms
of location, even this land has the already established industrial
estate of the village Lohara immediately towards its east.
Therefore, reasoning given above while disposing of First
Appeal No.56 of 2006 can be relied upon, although some
amount while estimating fair market value of the present land
in the year 1995 will have to be reduced as the land in the
present case was located in Survey No.35, which was away
from the Yavatmal-Darwha State Highway, as opposed to the
land in First Appeal No.56 of 2006, which was on the State
Highway. As the fair market value of the land in aforesaid
Survey No.33 pertaining to First Appeal No.56 of 2006 was held
to be Rs.1,33,100/- per hectare which in the present case it can
be held to be Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare. The component of
124 FA56-06& ors.odt
potentiality would remain the same at Rs.65,000/- per hectare
and, therefore, the total amount would come to Rs.1,85,000/-
per hectare.
8. Accordingly, First Appeal No.737 of 2006 filed by the
MIDC is dismissed and Cross-Objection No.8 of 2014 filed by
the respondent no.1 is partly allowed. It is held that the
respondent No.1/Cross-Objector is entitled to compensation for
his acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,85,000/- per hectare. The
other directions pertaining to solatium, additional component
and interest granted by the Reference Court are maintained.
....
First Appeal No.1037/2009 with Cross-Objection No.8 of
2016.
By this appeal, the MIDC has challenged judgment
and order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Reference Court in
Land Acquisition Case No. 16 of 2000, whereby the Reference
Court has granted enhanced compensation at Rs.1,75,000/- per
hectare for cultivable land and Rs.87,500/- per hectare for Pot
Kharab Land to the respondent no.1 (land owner-claimant).
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995, land belonging to
125 FA56-06& ors.odt
respondent no.1 in Survey No.4/4 admeasuring 3.82 hectares in
village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal, was acquired. The
respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award on
27.11.1997 and granted compensation at Rs.56,845/- per
hectare for 2.01 hectares of cultivable land and at Rs.1500/-
per hectare for 1.81 hectares of Pot Kharab land.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.1 filed
reference application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming
enhanced compensation at Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare. The
respondent no.1 relied upon sale deeds pertaining to small
plots of land located in villages Lohara and Wadgaon in support
of her claim. She also claimed that there was non-agricultural
potentiality in the said land and that, therefore, her claim for
enhanced compensation was justified. The State Authorities
and the appellant- MIDC filed their written statement in the
reference application and opposed the claim of respondent
no.1. She appeared in the witness box in support of her claim
and stated that her land was located near industries already
established in village Lohara and that since the entire area was
developed, the meager compensation granted in the award
was not justified.
126 FA56-06& ors.odt
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court held that although sale deeds relied upon by the
respondent no.1 pertained to lands located in villages Lohara
and Wadgaon, but it could not be ignored that the said villages
were in the vicinity of village Bhoyar wherein the acquired land
of respondent no.1 was located. Taking into consideration the
aforesaid sale deeds, the Reference Court reduced the value by
half and it came to the conclusion that the fair market value of
the acquired land of respondent no.1 was Rs. 1,75,000/- in the
year 1995 when the Notification was issued. On this basis, the
Reference Court partly allowed the application of respondent
no.1.
5. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant MIDC, submitted that the sale deeds
pertaining to lands located in village Lohara could not have
been relied and that in any case, such sale deeds pertained to
plots of land while the subject matter of acquisition in the
present case was a large piece of land admeasuring 3.82
hectares. It was contended that the non-agricultural
potentiality claimed by the respondent no.1 was taken into
consideration by the Reference Court but higher compensation
127 FA56-06& ors.odt
was erroneously granted.
6. On the other hand, Mr. A.B. Nakshane, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and cross-
objector contended that there was sufficient evidence and
material on record to demonstrate that the respondent no.1
was entitled to at least Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare. It was
contended that the non-agricultural potentiality was not taken
into consideration by the Reference Court and that the location
of the land being on the Yavatmal-Darwha State Highway was
also ignored. It was contended that although the lands in
village Bhoyar were not converted to non-agricultural use, a
fully developed industrial estate existed in the adjacent village
of Lohara and that this aspect was not properly appreciated by
the Reference Court. Reliance was placed on judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atma Singh .vs. State
of Harayana - (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 568, to
contend that sale instances of smaller pieces of land could not
be ignored by the Reference Court while determining just and
fair compensation.
7. Having heard the counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the record, it is necessary to appreciate the location
128 FA56-06& ors.odt
of the acquired land in the present case. It was located in
Survey No.4, which was on the Yavatmal-Darwha State
Highway.On the other side of the State Highway was located
Survey No.2 of village Bhoyar. In terms of distance from the
adjoining industrial estate of village Lohara on the eastern side,
the location of the land in Survey No.4 in the present case can
be said to be comparable to the land in Survey No.2. Thus, for
ascertaining the fair market value of the acquired land in the
present case in the year 1995 and the component of non-
agricultural potentiality, location is such that it would have the
same features and advantages as the land located across the
Highway in Survey No.2.
8. It has been already held in this order above in the
case of lands located in Survey No.2 pertaining to First Appeal
Nos. 216 of 2011 and 1254 of 2009 that the claimants in those
cases were entitled to compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. Since the location of the acquired
land in the present case is not much different from the
aforesaid lands located in Survey No.2, this Court is placing
reliance on the reasoning given in this order above, pertaining
to lands located in Survey No.2. The nature of oral and
documentary evidence on record in the present case is not any
129 FA56-06& ors.odt
different from the material that was on record before the
Reference Court in cases of claimants whose lands were
located in Survey No.2. The reliance placed on the aforesaid
judgment in the case of Atma Singh .vs. State of Haryana
(supra) by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no.1/cross-objector would not come to the aid of
the respondent no.1 in order to support her claim for further
enhancement of compensation. The only sale instance
pertaining to the entire village Bhoyar has been already taken
into consideration while ascertaining the enhanced
compensation payable to the claimants whose lands were
located in Survey No.2 just across the State Highway.
9. Accordingly, in the present case also, it is held that
based on fair market value of the acquired land in the year
1995 when the Notification was issued and adding the
component of non-agricultural potentiality, the respondent no.1
would be entitled to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. Hence the
appeal filed by the MIDC is dismissed , while the cross-
objection of respondent no.1 is partly allowed and it is held that
the respondent no.1 is entitled to compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for 2.01 hectares of cultivable land
and at Rs.90,000/- per hectare for 1.81 hectares of Pot Kharab
130 FA56-06& ors.odt
land. The impugned judgment and order of the Reference
Court is modified in above terms and other directions
pertaining to solatium, additional component and interest are
maintained.
...
First Appeal Nos.215 of 2011 and 602/2012
By these appeals , both the acquiring body i.e. MIDC
and the land owner-claimant have challenged judgment and
order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the Reference Court in Land
Acquisition Case No. 22 of 2002, whereby the Reference Court
has granted enhanced compensation to the claimant at
Rs.2,40,000/- per hectare and Rs.80,000/- for well located in
the land.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995 issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act, the land acquisition process was
initiated in respect of land of the claimants located in Survey
No.4/3 in village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal,
admeasuring 4.5 HR. The respondent-Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed award dated 27.11.1997 and granted
compensation of Rs.4,19,175/- to the claimant in the present
case.
131 FA56-06& ors.odt
3. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Reference
Court, claiming enhanced compensation of Rs.38,91,250/-. The
respondent-State Authorities and the MIDC filed their written
statements denying the claim made by the land owner-
claimant. The claimant placed on record oral and documentary
evidence in support of his contention seeking enhanced
compensation. The Reference Court took into consideration
the material on record and found that the respondent no.1 was
entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.2,40,000/- per
hectare.
4. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant- MIDC has contended that the Reference
Court erred in granting the aforesaid enhanced compensation
on the basis of the sale instances placed on record by the
claimant, because all such sale instances pertained to village
Lohara, which already had an industrial estate developed by
the MIDC. It was contended that not a single sale deed from
the village Bhoyar was placed on record and that it was for the
claimant to have placed on record material pertaining to village
Bhoyar in support of his claim of enhanced compensation. It
132 FA56-06& ors.odt
was contended that although the MIDC failed to examine
witnesses, in the cross-examination of the witnesses who
appeared for the claimant, sufficient material was brought on
record to demonstrate that the claim made by the claimant
was not supported by cogent evidence on record. It was
contented that the evidence of the expert witness produced on
behalf of the claimant was also not reliable, as the only sale
instance available from village Bhoyar was from Survey No.20
pertaining to First Appeal No. 116 of 2006. It was contented
that the same could be taken into account for arriving at a
reasonable figure of enhanced compensation payable to the
claimant.
5. Mr. S.C. Mehadia, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the claimant, contended that the Reference Court had
erred in limiting the enhanced compensation only to
Rs.2,40,000/- per hectare, when there was sufficient material
placed on record that further enhanced compensation ought to
have been granted to the claimant. The learned counsel
submitted that material was placed on record by the claimant
to demonstrate that his application for conversion of land to
non-agricultural use was deemed to have been granted under
Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and
133 FA56-06& ors.odt
that this factor was not properly taken into consideration by
the Reference Court while passing the impugned judgment and
order. It was contended that once deemed conversion of the
land was taken into consideration, further enhanced
compensation ought to have been granted by considering
market value at square feet rate. On this basis, it was
contended that the appeal filed by the MIDC deserved to be
dismissed and the appeal of the claimant being First Appeal No.
215 of 2011 deserved to be allowed.
6. Upon hearing counsel for the parties and having
perused the evidence and material on record, it appears that
the Reference Court has arrived at the figure of enhanced
compensation on the basis of sale instances placed on record
by the claimant as also the location of the lands being adjacent
to already established industrial area of MIDC in village Lohara.
It has been contended on behalf of the claimant that there was
sufficient material on record to conclude that the application
for conversion to non-agricultural use made in respect of the
acquired land was deemed to have been granted under Section
44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. On this basis
it was claimed that the Reference Court ought to have
determined enhanced compensation by treating the acquired
134 FA56-06& ors.odt
land as developed land. But, a perusal of the impugned order
and the evidence and material on record shows that the
evidence relied upon by the claimant in the present case, fell
short of proving that there was deemed conversion under the
said provision in the present case. The Reference Court found
that the witnesses produced on behalf of the claimant to prove
the aforesaid did not inspire confidence and that there was
insufficient material on record to show that an application was
indeed submitted by the claimant before the concerned
authorities for conversion of the acquired land to non-
agricultural use. Therefore, the said contention raised on behalf
of the claimant cannot be accepted.
7. As regards the evidence pertaining to location of the
land and its proximity to already established industrial estate in
village Lohara, it cannot be accepted in the context of
potentiality of the land only because the MIDC failed to
examine any witness in support of its contentions. In fact, the
evidence of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the claimant
shows that reliance is heavily placed on the rate at which
compensation was granted to the claimant pertaining to First
Appeal No. 56 of 2006. It was claimed that if the claimant in
that case was granted compensation at Rs.17/- per square feet,
135 FA56-06& ors.odt
the land of the claimant herein deserved further enhanced
compensation because the land in this case was not hilly and it
was plain.
8. The order of the Reference Court granting
compensation at square feet rate to the claimant in First
Appeal No. 56 of 2006 has not been accepted by this Court and
it has been found that reliance in that case was placed on the
sale deeds pertaining to small plot of developed land in village
Lohara and that such reliance was not sustainable. In the
present case also, the claimant has relied upon sale deeds
pertaining to plots of land located in village Lohara and,
therefore, the claim based on such evidence cannot be
accepted. As regards locational advantage claimed on behalf
of the land owner-claimant in the present case, it is nothing but
an aspect of potentiality of the land. In this regard, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant has relied upon
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sagunthala .vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) -
(2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 661, to contend that the
purpose for which the land was being acquired was also an
important factor for determining the quantum of
compensation. There is no doubt that the purpose of
136 FA56-06& ors.odt
acquisition is a relevant factor, but, the mandate of Section 24
fifthly can also not be ignored. Even if the said factor is taken
into consideration, it cannot be said that the claimant in the
present case was entitled to compensation at square feet rate.
This aspect has been already dealt with in detail in the order
above pertaining to First Appeal No. 56 of 2006.
9. The acquired land in the present case is located in
Survey No.4 and the location of the said survey number has
been already discussed above in the case of claimant
pertaining to First Appeal No.1037 of 2009. The location of the
land in Survey No.4 being on the Yavatmal- Darwha State
Highway, has been considered and its distance from the
industrial estate of village Lohara on the east has been also
considered and on that basis it has been concluded that fair
market value of the land in Survey No.4 in the year 1995 was
Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. Since the land in the present case is
also located in Survey No.4 of village Bhoyar, for the same
reasons, it is held that in the present case also, the claimant is
entitled to compensation at the same rate.
10. Accordingly, First Appeal No.215 of 2011 filed by the
claimant for further enhancement of compensation is
137 FA56-06& ors.odt
dismissed and First Appeal No.602 of 2012 filed by MIDC is
partly allowed. It is held that the claimant in the present case
shall be paid compensation for acquisition of his land at
Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. He shall be entitled to compensation
of Rs.80,000/- granted by the Reference Court for the well
located in the land. The other directions pertaining to solatium,
additional component and interest are maintained and these
appeals are disposed of.
.....
First Appeal No. 131 of 2015
By this appeal, the appellant- MIDC has challenged
the judgment and order dated 13.06.2012 passed by the
Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 81 of 2005,
whereby the Reference Court has granted enhanced
compensation at Rs.3,50,000/- per hectare to the respondent
No.1 herein.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995 issued by the State
Government, the land of the respondent no.1 was acquired
being located in Survey No.15/2, village Bhoyar, tehsil and
district Yavatmal, admeasuring 7.24 HR. By award dated
03.11.1997, the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer
138 FA56-06& ors.odt
granted compensation of Rs.4,06,305/- to the respondent no.1.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.1 filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming that the
compensation granted by the Reference Court was meager and
that he was entitled to further enhanced compensation.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court has enhanced the compensation at the aforesaid rate.
The Reference Court found that the respondent no.1 had failed
to place on record any sale instance in support of his claim
and, therefore, the method of ascertaining quantum of
compensation by comparable sale instances could not be used
in the present case. In this situation, the Reference Court took
into consideration orders passed by it in other cases of
acquisition pertaining to lands from the very same village of
Bhoyar, acquired pursuant to the same Notification. Upon
taking into consideration such orders, the Reference Court held
that on parity, the respondent no.1 was entitled to enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per hectare.
4. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant MIDC submitted that there was no
139 FA56-06& ors.odt
discussion of any evidence and material on record in the
present case and the Reference Court had simply relied upon
its own order pertaining to other pieces of land acquired from
the very same village of Bhoyar. It was submitted that such
orders were obviously subject matter of challenge before this
Court and the relief granted to respondent no.1 merely on the
basis of parity, without examination of the factors relevant for
determination of compensation, was wholly unsustainable.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Abhay Sambre, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submitted
that the compensation granted by the Reference Court was
fully justified. It was submitted that the location of land in
Survey No.15 was such that it was in proximity to the Yavatmal-
Darwha State Highway and that the industrial estate of village
Lohara was also in the vicinity. On this basis, it was submitted
that no interference was warranted in the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Reference Court.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court shows that respondent no.1 had failed to place
on record any cogent documentary or oral evidence in support
of his claim for enhanced compensation. The Reference Court
140 FA56-06& ors.odt
had simply relied upon orders passed by it pertaining to lands
that were acquired from the same village of Bhoyar and there
was no discussion or reasoning on the basis of which the
Reference Court had arrived at the figure of Rs.3,50,000/- per
hectare as enhanced compensation payable to respondent
no.1.
7. Survey No.15 of village Bhoyar is located towards the
west of Survey No.4. It is not abutting the Yavatmal - Darwha
State Highway and it has Survey Nos. 4,5 and 6 between the
said Highway and its location. It is also further away towards
the west from the already established industrial estate of
village Lohara. Therefore, it can be inferred that the fair
market value of the land and its non-agricultural potentiality,
as compared to lands abutting the said Highway and being
nearer to the industrial estate of Lohara, would be much less.
In respect of the lands located in Survey No.4, it has already
been held above that the claimants would be entitled to
compensation by holding that the value of the land would be
about Rs.1,22,701/- and the component of potentiality would
be about Rs.55,000/-(the total has been rounded of to Rs.
1,80,000/-). Thus, in the present case pertaining to land of
respondent no.1 located in Survey No.15, which is not abutting
141 FA56-06& ors.odt
the Highway and it is further away from the industrial estate of
Lohara, it would be appropriate that the fair market value of
the land in the year 1995 and its potentiality is estimated at a
lesser value. On this basis, the respondent no.1 in the present
case would be entitled to fair market value of the land in the
year 1995 at Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare and the component of
potentiality would also stand reduced at Rs.50,000/-. In this
manner, the respondent no.1 would be entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,65,000/- per hectare.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and it is
held that the respondent no.1 shall be paid compensation at
the rate of Rs.1,65,000/- per hectare. The impugned judgment
and order of the Reference Court is modified accordingly. The
other directions of the Reference Court pertaining to solatium,
additional component and interest are maintained and this
appeal is disposed of.
...
First Appeal No.425/2009 with First Appeal No.6 of
These appeals have been filed by the acquiring body
MIDC and the land owner-claimant, both challenging judgment
142 FA56-06& ors.odt
and order dated 28.02.2008 passed by the Reference Court, in
Land Acquisition Case No.15/2002, whereby the Reference
Court has granted enhanced compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare to the claimant.
2. Upon issuance of Notification dated 9.3.1995 by the
State Government, the process of acquisition of land belonging
to the claimant was initiated. The said land was located in
Survey No.26 of village Bhoyar, teshil and district Yavatmal ,
admeasuring 0.81 R. The respondent- Special Land Acquisition
Officer issued award in pursuance of the said acquisition
proceedings and granted compensation of Rs.1969/- to the
claimant.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per square feet i.e.
Rs.29,62,962/- per hectare. The State Authorities and the
MIDC filed their written statements, opposing the claim of the
claimant. The claimant examined himself and an expert
witness in support of his claim, while the State Authorities and
MIDC failed to examine any witness.
143 FA56-06& ors.odt
4. In the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court took into consideration the fact that the claimant had
applied for conversion of his land to non-agricultural use. It
was held that although such order of conversion was not
passed, the intention of the claimant for such conversion was
evident. It was also found that village Bhoyar was located next
to village Lohara near village Wadgaon and that the said two
villages of Lohara and Wadgaon were already developed,
having industrial estate. The valuation report and evidence of
the expert witness was not relied upon by the Reference Court,
but, judgment and order passed in the case of claimant
pertaining to First Appeal No.56 of 2006, wherein compensation
was granted at Rs.17/- per square feet, was taken into
consideration. On this basis, the Reference Court held that the
claimant was entitled to compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare.
5. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the MIDC submitted that there was no specific
reasoning in the order of the Reference Court while arriving at
the figure of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It was submitted that
the land located in Survey No.26 was away from the Yavatmal-
144 FA56-06& ors.odt
Darwha road and that it was clearly at a distance from village
Lohara. On this basis, it was contended that the Reference
Court had taken into consideration factors which were
irrelevant, while arriving at the aforesaid figure of
compensation. Reliance was placed on the only sale instance
from Survey No.20 of village Bhoyar available on record in
connected cases, to contend that the compensation granted by
the Reference Court was not sustainable.
6. On the other hand, Mr. A.P. Tathod, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the claimant submitted that there was
sufficient material on record placed by the claimant justifying
payment of compensation at Rs.40/- per square feet. It was
contended that the land in Survey No.26 was near Gaothan of
village Bhoyar and that the industrial estate of village Lohara
was in the vicinity, due to which even though the land was not
actually converted to non-agricultural use, the claimant was
entitled to compensation by treating the land as developed
land.
7. A perusal of the map shows that Survey No.26 is
towards the south and away from the Yavatmal-Darwha State
Highway. Its distance from village Lohara is also higher as
145 FA56-06& ors.odt
compared to Survey Nos. 33,35, 20 and 2. The map does show
that it is adjoining the Gaothan of village Bhoyar. A perusal of
the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court,
shows that specific reasoning for grant of compensation at
Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare is missing. The Reference Court has
made observations pertaining to the location of the land being
near the villages of Lohara and Wadgaon. It has also stated
that even though the land was not converted to non-
agricultural use, the fact that the claimant had applied for
such conversion was important. A reference was also made to
the order passed in the case of claimant whose land was
located in Survey No.33 pertaining to First Appeal No.56 of
2006 wherein compensation at Rs.17/- per square feet was
granted. Thereafter, the Reference Court has taken into
consideration sale deeds placed on record by the claimant
pertaining to the village Lohara and it has observed that the
enhanced compensation claimed at Rs.40/- per square feet was
not proper. Thereupon, the Reference Court has abruptly
come to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to
compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. There does not
appear to be any analysis of material on record, including the
evidence of the expert witness or the location of the land in
village Bhoyar.
146 FA56-06& ors.odt
8. As a consequence, it is necessary for this Court to
take into consideration the material on record, particularly the
location of the land in Survey No.26, to arrive at a conclusion
regarding just and fair compensation payable to the claimant in
the present case. The evidence of the expert witness is not of
much assistance because he has admitted in the cross-
examination that although he inspected the spot in the year
1998, the valuation report was issued on 09.12.2004. He has
also admitted that he had no rough notes of spot observation
and valuation available with him in respect of the land in
question. Thus, the compensation payable in the present case
has to be estimated by taking into account the location of the
land, because mere intention of the claimant of converting the
land to non-agricultural use, cannot be a factor in
determination of compensation, as the land continued to be an
agricultural land. A perusal of the map shows that the land in
Survey No.26 in village Bhoyar is away from the Yavatmal-
Darwha State Highway as Gaothan and Survey No.1 are in
between the said land and the Highway. It is also further away
from village Lohara where the earlier industrial estate of MIDC
was located. In terms of distance from the State Highway and
the existence of village Lohara towards the east, the location of
147 FA56-06& ors.odt
the land in Survey No.26 can be said to be comparable with the
land in Survey No.15 discussed above. This is because the two
survey numbers are located almost at the same distance on
either side on the said Yavatmal- Darwha State Highway. Their
location in terms of distance from village Lohara towards east
also appears to be similar. Therefore, on both factors of
estimated fair market value in the year 1995 and potentiality,
lands in the two survey numbers appear to be comparable.
9. It has been already held above that the claimant
pertaining to land in Survey No.15 (First Appeal No.131 of
2015) was entitled to compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- per
hectare, which included fair market value of the land and
component of non-agricultural potentiality. As the land in the
present case located in Survey No.26 appears to be similarly
situated, the claimant in the present case would be entitled for
the same amount of compensation.
10. Accordingly, First Appeal No.425 of 2009 filed by the
claimant for further enhancement of compensation is
dismissed while First Appeal No.6 of 2012 is partly allowed and
it is held that the claimant in the present case shall be paid
compensation at Rs.1,65,000/- per hectare. The directions
148 FA56-06& ors.odt
pertaining to solatium, additional component and interest given
by the Reference Court are maintained and these appeals are
disposed of.
....
First Appeal No. 133/2007.
By this appeal, the appellant - MIDC has challenged
judgment and order dated 13.04.2006 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 213 of 1999, whereby the
Reference Court granted enhanced compensation at
Rs.3,75,000/- per hectare to the respondent no.1-claimant.
2. By issuance of Notification dated 09.03.1995 by the
State Government, the process of acquisition of land of
respondent no.1 was initiated. The said land was located in
Survey No.31/2 in village Bhoyar , tehsil and district Yavatmal,
admeasuring 4.91 hectares. By award dated 03.11.1997,
respondent no.1- Special Land Acquisition Officer granted
compensation at Rs.50,000/- for 4.23 hectares of cultivable
land and at Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.68 hectares of Pot
Kharab land.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.1 filed
149 FA56-06& ors.odt
reference application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming
enhanced compensation of Rs.58,33,690/-. The appellant -
MIDC filed written statement opposing the aforesaid claim. The
claimant examined himself and a witness in support of his
claim of enhanced compensation. The claimant also placed on
record documentary evidence in the form of sale deeds
pertaining to land located in adjoining village Lohara. He also
placed on record the aforementioned sale deed dated
18.09.1992, being the only sale deed pertaining to land located
in village Bhoyar from Survey No.20/2.
4. In the impugned judgment and order, reference has
been made to the aforesaid sale deeds relied upon by the
respondent no.1, but, the finding rendered by the Reference
Court in favour of the respondent no.1 is essentially based on
orders in other land acquisition cases from the village of
Bhoyar. The Reference Court has taken note of judgments and
orders at Exh.41, 42 and 44 arising from the same Notification
wherein fair market value of different lands in village Bhoyar
has been held to be in the range of Rs.3,75,000/- to
Rs.4,00,000/-. It is also on the basis of the said documents at
Exh.41, 42 and 44 that the Reference Court in the impugned
150 FA56-06& ors.odt
order has granted enhanced compensation to respondent no.1
at Rs. 3,75,000/-per hectare.
5. In this backdrop, Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant- MIDC has submitted that
there is no basis for the Reference Court to arrive at the
aforesaid finding, other than orders passed in land acquisition
cases, arising from the same village Bhoyar. There is no
application of mind by the Reference Court to material on
record and there is no analysis of what could be the fair market
value of the land in question in the year 1995 when the
Notification was issued by the State Government. It was
contended that since the land in the present case was located
far away from the Yavatmal-Darwha road and village Lohara,
the compensation granted by the Reference Court was
unsustainable.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Abhay Sambre, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 submitted that
there was sufficient material on record to show that the land
was irrigated and that crops were being taken on the land
which was fertile and perennially irrigated. It was contended
that since cash crops were being taken on the said land, the
151 FA56-06& ors.odt
amount of compensation granted by the Reference Court was
justified.
7. As noted above, the Reference Court has simply
relied upon orders passed in cases pertaining to acquisition of
other pieces of land from the village Bhoyar under the same
Notification. There is no independent application of mind by
the Reference Court in the present case while rendering
findings in favour of the respondent no.1. In this situation, it
becomes necessary to peruse the map and to ascertain the
location of Survey No.31 in village Bhoyar. A perusal of the
same shows that the land is clearly further away from the
Yavatmal-Darwha road, because there are Survey Nos. 18 and
19 between the said road and the land in Survey No. 31 in the
present case. It is also further away from village Lohara where
the existing industrial estate stood located. In this case, the
only sale deed available from the entire village of Bhoyar was
placed on record. It pertained to land belonging to claimant in
First Appeal No.116 of 2006 in Survey No.20/2. On the basis of
the said sale deed, by applying cumulative annual increments
for three years till the year 1995, as the sale deed was of the
year 1992, it has been held above that the fair market value of
the said land would have been Rs.1,22,101/- and a further
152 FA56-06& ors.odt
component of potentiality to the extent of Rs.60,000/- was
added, as the said land was located in proximity of industrial
estate of village Lohara with only Survey No.33 being in
between. It is significant that the said land at Survey No.20/2
was right on the Yavatmal-Darwha road. If a comparison is
made of the land in the present case at Survey No.31 in village
Bhoyar with the said land in Survey No.20/2, it would be
evident that the value of the land as in the year 1995 on both
the counts of location and potentiality would be reduced.
8. Taking into consideration the location of the land in
the present case and reducing it proportionately, it would be
appropriate that the fair market value of the land in the year
1995 is held to be Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare and considering
that it is some distance away from the industrial estate of
village Lohara, the component of non-agricultural potentiality
would also stand reduced to Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, the
respondent no.1 would be entitled to compensation at the rate
of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare.
9. Hence, this appeal is partly allowed and it is held that
the respondent no.1 shall be paid compensation at
Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare and the impugned judgment and
153 FA56-06& ors.odt
order of the Reference Court is modified accordingly. The
directions given by the Reference Court towards solatium,
additional component and interest are maintained and this
appeal is disposed of.
...
First Appeal No.1234 of 2009 with First Appeal No.430
of 2018.
By these two appeals, the acquiring body MIDC as
well as the land owner/claimant have challenged judgment and
order dated 18.10.2008 passed by the Reference Court in Land
Acquisition Case No. 131 of 2002, whereby the Reference Court
has granted enhanced compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per
hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for Pot
Kharab land to the claimants.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995 issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act, the land belonging to the
appellant was acquired, which was located in Survey No.17 of
village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal, admeasuring 2.02
hectares. By award dated 27.11.1997, passed by the
respondent- Special Land Acquisition Officer, compensation at
154 FA56-06& ors.odt
Rs.45,000/- per hectare was granted for 1.92 hectares
cultivable land and at Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.10 hectare of
land belonging to the claimant.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming enhanced
compensation at Rs.7,50,000/- per hectare. He also claimed
further enhanced compensation towards well and bunds of
permanent nature located on the land as also further amount
of Rs.1,75,000/- towards costs of trees. In support of his claim,
the claimant relied upon sale deeds of lands located in village
Lohara and he also adduced his own oral evidence before the
Reference Court. The State Authorities and the acquiring body
MIDC filed their written statements opposing the claim of the
appellant, but, they failed to examine any witness.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court partly allowed the application of the claimant and
granted enhanced compensation at the aforesaid rates. Mr.
Bhuibhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
claimant, submitted that the Reference Court erred in not
granting the quantum of enhanced compensation as claimed
155 FA56-06& ors.odt
by the claimant, when there was sufficient material on record
to support his claim. According to the learned counsel, the
Reference Court erred in deducting 50% to 55% from the
amount of consideration paid in respect of sale deeds at Exhs.
50 to 53 placed on record by the claimant. It was contended
that merely because the sale deeds pertained to the adjoining
village Lohara, the Reference Court was not justified in
drastically reducing the market value of the acquired land. It
was contended that since village Lohara was in the vicinity of
the acquired land and the Yavatmal - Darwha road was also in
the vicinity, the amount of enhanced compensation granted by
the Reference Court was on the lower side.
5. Mr.M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the MIDC submitted that failure on the part of the
claimant to place on record sale deeds pertaining to lands
located in village Bhoyar demonstrated that there was
suppression of facts in the present case. It was contended that
the lands located in village Lohara were not comparable to the
acquired land located in Survey No.17 village Bhoyar. It was not
converted to non-agricultural use and, therefore, there was no
question of accepting enhanced compensation claimed by the
appellant.
156 FA56-06& ors.odt
6. As discussed in the context of other claimants in the
connected appeals above, none of the lands in village Bhoyar
were converted to non-agricultural use and that they were not
comparable or similar to the lands located in village Lohara
where industrial estate of MIDC had been already established.
The fair market value of the lands located in village Bhoyar,
including the acquired land in the present case, was required to
be determined on the basis of its own distinct features. In
respect of lands located in Survey Nos. 33, 32 and 31 above,
the compensation payable has been already determined on the
basis of the only sale instance available from Survey No.20 of
village Bhoyar, in addition to the non-agricultural potentiality
as also distance from the Yavatmal - Darwha State Highway.
Considering the fact that the land even in Survey No.31 of
village Bhoyar has been granted compensation only at
Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare above, the acquired land in the
present case being located in Survey No.17, which is further
away from the State Highway and the industrial estate and
factories located on the east in village Lohara, it cannot be said
that the claimant in the present case is entitled to any further
enhancement in compensation.
157 FA56-06& ors.odt
7. Thus, relying upon the reasons given for lands located
in aforesaid survey numbers of village Bhoyar, the appeal of
the claimant for further enhanced compensation is dismissed.
However, the appeal filed by the MIDC deserves to be partly
allowed, because for land located in Survey No.31, amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare has been granted. If location of the
land in Survey No.17 is appreciated, it would show that
although it is nearer to the Yavatmal-Darwha State Highway, as
compared to lands in Survey No.31 of village Bhoyar, it is
slightly away on the eastern side from the already established
industrial estate of village Lohara. Therefore, it would be
appropriate that for the land of the claimant in the present
case, the same amount of compensation is fixed.
8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the MIDC is partly
allowed and it is held that the claimant is entitled to
compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for 1.92 hectares of
cultivable land and Rs.75,000/- per hectare for 0.10 hectares of
Pot Kharab land. The impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court is modified to that extent. The other
directions granted by the Reference Court regarding solatium,
additional component and interest are maintained.
158 FA56-06& ors.odt
First Appeal No.1248/2009 with First Appeal No.431 of
2018.
These are appeals filed by the acquiring body MIDC
and the land owner-claimant challenging the impugned
judgment and order dated 18.10.2008 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 54/2002, whereby the
Reference Court has granted enhanced compensation at
Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/-
per hectare for Pot Kharab land to the claimant.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995, State Government
initiated the process of acquisition of land belonging to the
claimant, located in Survey No.17, village Bhoyar, tehsil and
district Yavatmal admeasuring 9.50 hectares. By award dated
27.11.1997, issued by the respondent- Special Land Acquisition
Officer, compensation at Rs.45,000/- per hectare for 7.24
hectares cultivable land and at Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.51
hectare Pot Kharab land was granted to the claimant.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Reference
159 FA56-06& ors.odt
Court, claiming enhanced compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- per
hectare along further amounts towards well, pipeline and
bunds located in the lands.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
granted the aforesaid quantum of compensation by relying
upon sale instances pertaining to lands located in village
Lohara and applying guesswork while making deductions from
the amounts reflected in such sale instances.
5. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the MIDC submitted that the reasoning given by the
Reference Court was not sustainable as location of land and the
fact that it was not converted to non-agricultural use, was not
taken into consideration by the Reference Court while passing
the impugned judgment and order.
6. Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the claimant submitted that the compensation
granted by the Reference Court was inadequate and that
there was sufficient material placed on record to justify the
claim made by the claimant of Rs.7,50,000/- per hectare. It is
pointed out that the acquired land was fertile irrigated land and
160 FA56-06& ors.odt
that this aspect was also not properly taken into consideration
by the Reference Court.
7. Since this land is also located in Survey No.17 of
village Bhoyar and the material on record before the Reference
Court was similar to the land subject matter of First Appeal
Nos. 1234 of 2009 and First Appeal No. 430 of 2018, for the
reasons stated in the order above disposing of the said two
appeals, these appeals can also be disposed of.
8. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order in this
case shows that it is almost identical to the judgment and order
passed by the Reference Court, which was subject matter of
challenge in First Appeal Nos.1234 of 2009 and 430 of 2018.
The location of the land in the present case is also similar and,
therefore, by adopting the reasons given in the order above
pertaining to the said two appeals, it is held that the appeal
filed by the claimant for further enhancement of compensation
is liable to be dismissed and the appeal filed by MIDC deserves
to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, First Appeal No.1248 of 2009 is
dismissed and First Appeal No.431 of 2018 is partly allowed. It
161 FA56-06& ors.odt
is held that the claimant in the present case is entitled to
compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for 7.24 hectares of
cultivable land and at Rs.75,000/- per hectare for 0.51 hectares
Pot Kharab land. The impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court is modified to that extent. The other
directions pertaining to solatium, additional component and
interest granted by the Reference Court are maintained.
...
First Appeal No.60 of 2009.
By this appeal , the appellant- MIDC has challenged
judgment and order 29.04.2006 passed by the Reference Court
in Land Acquisition Case No.55 of 2002, whereby the Reference
Court has granted enhanced compensation to the respondent
nos.1 and 2 at Rs.2,15,000/- per hectare.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995, the process of
acquisition of the land belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2-
claimants was initiated. The said land was located in Survey
No. 30/2 village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal,
admeasuring 2.10 hectares. By the award, issued by the
respondent- Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants
were granted compensation at Rs.50,000/- per hectare for
cultivable land and at Rs.1500/- for Pot Kharab land.
162 FA56-06& ors.odt
3. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, claiming enhanced
compensation at Rs.7,50,000/- per acre. By the impugned
judgment and order, the Reference Court partly allowed the
application and granted enhanced compensation at
Rs.2,15,000/- per hectare to the claimants. The Reference
Court referred to the documentary and oral evidence placed on
record on behalf of the claimants, which included sale deeds
pertaining to lands located in village Lohara, as also certain
orders passed by the Reference Court in respect of acquisition
of lands located in village Lohara and village Pangri. A
reference was also made to award passed by the Reference
Court in respect of land belonging to claimant to First Appeal
No.56 of 2006 decided above, wherein compensation had been
granted at Rs.17/- per square feet. The Reference Court noted
the fact that the claimants had applied for conversion of land
to non-agricultural use. On the basis of the material on record,
the Reference Court granted the aforesaid enhanced quantum
of compensation.
4. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
163 FA56-06& ors.odt
behalf of the MIDC, submitted that the Reference Court erred in
relying upon sale instances pertaining to village Lohara and
awards passed by the Reference Court concerning acquisitions
in village Pangri, because the lands located in villages Lohara
and Pangri were not comparable at all to the acquired land
located in village Bhoyar. It is pointed out that the Reference
Court erred in arriving at the aforesaid figure of enhanced
compensation by relying upon sale instances, which pertained
to land not comparable with the acquired land. It was pointed
out that the location of the land in Survey No.30 was such that
it was far away from the Yavatmal-Darwha road and also from
village Lohara.
5. Mr. S.C. Bhalerao, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents-claimants, submitted that the
Reference Court had correctly enhanced the compensation
granted to them. It was submitted that village Lohara was not
at a long distance from the acquired land and that since the
land was being acquired for extension of industrial estate of the
MIDC, it had tremendous non-agricultural potentiality, which
justified the quantum of compensation granted by the
Reference Court.
164 FA56-06& ors.odt
6. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court shows that there is not a single sale instance
from village Bhoyar that has been placed on record. The
claimants have relied upon sale deeds pertaining to lands of
village Lohara and reliance has been placed on awards passed
by the Reference Court pertaining to lands of village Pangri. It
has been discussed earlier in this common judgment and order
how the lands located in village Lohara are not comparable to
the lands in village Bhoyar. The only sale instance available
from village Bhoyar pertained to land located in Survey No.20,
which also was located on the Yavatmal- Darwha State
Highway and it was comparatively in proximity to the
industries and industrial estate located in village Lohara,
pointing towards non-agricultural potentiality of the said land.
7. If the location of the acquired land in the present case
is ascertained from the map of village Bhoyar, it is found that
the acquired land is located in Survey No.30, which is far away
from the Yavatmal- Darwha State Highway and clearly a further
distance away from the boundary of industrial estate located in
village Lohara. On both these counts, the fair market value
and the non-agricultural potentiality of the acquired land gets
reduced. Therefore, for the reasons given in this order above
165 FA56-06& ors.odt
pertaining to determination of fair market value of land located
in Survey No.31, the just and fair compensation payable to the
claimants in the present case is being determined. In the land
pertaining to Survey No.31, which was subject matter of First
Appeal No.133 of 2007 decided above, the claimant has been
held to be entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- per
hectare. In the present case, looking to the location of the
acquired land, the fair market value of the land in the year
1995 is liable to be fixed at Rs.90,000/- and the component of
non-agricultural potentiality would get reduced to Rs.40,000/-.
As a result, the amount of compensation payable to the
claimants in the present case would come to Rs.1,30,000/-per
hectare.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and it is
held that the respondent nos. and 1 and 2-claimants shall be
paid compensation at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare and
the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court is
modified to that extent. The other directions of the Reference
Court pertaining to solatium, additional component and interest
payable to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are maintained.
...
166 FA56-06& ors.odt
First Appeal No.636 of 2008.
By this appeal, the appellant- MIDC has challenged
judgment and order dated 26.04.2006 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 20 of 2002, whereby the
reference application of the respondent no.1 has been partly
allowed and enhanced compensation has been directed to be
paid to him at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995, issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act, the process of acquisition of the
land of respondent no.1 was initiated. The said land was
located in Survey No.30/1 village Bhoyar, tehsil and district
Yavatmal, admeasuring 1.74 hectares. The respondent-Special
Land Acquisition Officer granted total compensation to the
respondent no.1 of Rs.70,995/-.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.1 filed
reference application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming
enhanced compensation at Rs.5,00,000/- per hectare. The
respondent no.1 relied upon sale instances pertaining to lands
located in village Lohara and certain awards passed by the
Reference Court in other cases of acquisition from the same
167 FA56-06& ors.odt
village.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court granted enhanced compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare, essentially on the basis that it had taken judicial notice
of the trend of rising market value of the land, taking into
consideration the rates at which lands were sold in village
Lohara.
5. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant - MIDC submitted that reliance placed
by the Reference Court on sale deeds pertaining to lands
located in village Lohara was improper, as the said lands were
not comparable to those located in village Bhoyar, particularly
the acquired land located in Survey No.30.
6. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1-
claimant.
7. It is evident that the reasoning given by the
Reference Court is not sustainable in view of findings rendered
by this Court while deciding connected appeals above in this
common judgment and order. In fact, in the case of claimant
168 FA56-06& ors.odt
pertaining to First Appeal No.60 of 2009, regarding land
pertaining to the very same survey number, it has been held
that the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation at
Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare. Since the land in the present case of
respondent no.1 is also located in Survey No.30, it is evident
that the same rate of compensation ought to be granted to the
respondent no.1 in the present case.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and it is
held that the respondent no.1 in the present case shall be paid
compensation at Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare and the impugned
judgment and order of the Reference Court is modified to that
extent. The other directions given by the Reference Court shall
be maintained.
....
First Appeal No.1407/2008
By this appeal, the appellant-MIDC has challenged
the impugned judgment and order dated 28.04.2006 passed by
the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.266 of 2002,
whereby the Reference Court has granted enhanced
compensation at Rs.2,15,000/- per hectare to the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2-claimants herein.
169 FA56-06& ors.odt
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995 issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act, lands belonging to the claimants
were acquired. Their lands were located in Survey No.30/2 in
village Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal, while the land of
respondent no.1 was admeasuring 3.40 hectares and that of
respondent no.2 was admeasuring 2.10 hectares. The
respondent- Special Land Acquisition Officer granted
compensation to the said respondents at Rs.50,000/- per
hectare for cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for Pot
Kharab land.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the said respondents claimed
compensation at Rs.7,50,000/- per hectare. The said
respondents relied upon sale deeds pertaining to lands located
in villages of Lohara and Wadgaon and also on awards passed
by the Reference Court in cases arising from the villages
Lohara, Pangri and Bhoyar. The reasoning given by the
Reference Court in the impugned order is the same as given in
the case of the claimant in First Appeal No.60 of 2009 decided
above, since the land therein was also located in Survey
No.30/2.
4. Mr. M.M.Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
170 FA56-06& ors.odt
behalf of the appellant- MIDC submits that reliance placed on
the sale instances and awards pertaining to different villages
by the Reference Court was wholly misplaced and that the
amount of enhanced compensation payable to the said
respondents ought to have been decided on its own merits.
5. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Bhalerao, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, supported the
impugned order passed by the Reference Court.
6. Since the lands belonging to the said respondents in
the present case are located in Survey No.30/2, which is the
same as the land of the claimant in respect of First Appeal
No.60 of 2009 decided above, for the reasons stated in the
order passed in First Appeal No.60/2009, this appeal is partly
allowed.
7. It is held that the said respondents shall be paid
compensation at Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare and the impugned
judgment and order of the Reference Court is modified to that
extent. The other directions given in the impugned judgment
and order pertaining to solatium, additional component and
interest are maintained.
171 FA56-06& ors.odt
...
First Appeal No.1428/2008 with Cross-Objection
No.24/2012
By this appeal, the appellant-MIDC has challenged
judgment and order dated 28.04.2006 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 14 of 2002, whereby the
Reference Court has granted enhanced compensation to the
respondent Nos. 1-claimant at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare and a
further sum of Rs.8029/- for teak tree standing in the acquired
land.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995 issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act, the process of acquisition of the
land belonging to respondent no.1 was initiated. The said lands
of the respondent no.1 were located in Survey Nos. 28/1, 29/1
and 30/1. By award passed by the respondent-Special Land
Acquisition Officer, the respondent no.1 was granted total
compensation of Rs.2,80,415/-.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.1 filed
reference application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming
172 FA56-06& ors.odt
enhanced compensation of Rs.10,45,000/- for the land located
in Survey No.28/1, Rs.15,60,000/- for the land located in Survey
No.29/1 and Rs.8,75,000/- for land located in Survey No.30/1.
The respondent no.1 relied upon sale deeds pertaining to other
villages and on the basis that his lands were extremely fertile
and further that they had high non-agricultural potentiality.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court has granted enhanced compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare by taking into account certain sale instances. The
Reference Curt has found that the respondent no.1 himself had
admitted that village Bhoyar was 2 kms. away from village
Lohara and about 5-6 kms. away from Yavatmal and that land
in Survey Nos. 4/3 and 4/1 in village Bhoyar had been sold at
much lesser rate, as compared to land located in other villages.
Yet, the Reference Court granted the aforesaid amount of
enhanced compensation to the respondent no.1 by observing
that the sale instance did not reflect the actual prices, as the
parties intended to save stamp duty. Therefore, the Reference
Court came to the conclusion that the aforesaid quantum of
compensation was payable to respondent no.1 for non-
agricultural potentiality of the lands belonging to respondent
no.1.
173 FA56-06& ors.odt
5. Mr. M.M.Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-MIDC submitted that there was no
cogent reasoning in the impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court while enhancing compensation, despite the
fact that the Reference Court had taken note of the admissions
given by respondent no.1. It was contended that the location
of the lands belonging to the respondent no.1 was such that
the fair market value of the land was far less than what was
granted by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and
order.
6. Mr. N.R. Saboo, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent no.1/cross-objector submitted that, the
Reference Court had in fact granted much less compensation
than what was payable to respondent no.1 for acquisition of his
land. It was submitted that there was sufficient material on
record to show that there was tremendous non-agricultural
potentiality in the acquired lands and that the claim raised by
respondent no.1 before the Reference Court was justified. It
was submitted that village Lohara was adjoining village Bhoyar
and that when a fully established industrial estate existed in
the said village, it was evident that the lands belonging to the
174 FA56-06& ors.odt
respondent no.1 in village Bhoyar had demonstrated non-
agricultural potentiality which justified the claim raised on
behalf of respondent no.1.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order shows
that the Reference Court has not given any detailed reasons for
its conclusions that the respondent no.1 was entitled to
enhanced compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It is only
stated in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment and order
that since actual price in sale deed is not reflected because the
parties intend to save stamp duty, considering the non-
agricultural potentiality of the lands in question, enhanced
compensation was being determined at Rs.2,00,000/- per
hectare. There was no analysis of the material on record or the
location of the acquired lands belonging to the respondent
no.1.
8. Upon perusal of the map in the present case, it is
evident that the lands belonging to the respondent no.1/cross-
objector are located in Survey Nos. 28/1, 29/1 and 30/1. All
these survey numbers are far away from Yavatmal- Darwha
State Highway and from village Lohara on the east. As regards
land located in Survey No.30/1, reliance was placed by this
175 FA56-06& ors.odt
Court on order passed in First Appeal No.60/2009, which
pertained to land of claimant belonging in the same survey
number. In that case, the compensation payable to the
claimant has been ascertained at Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare and
for the same reasons, in respect of land of respondent no.1
located in Survey No.30/1, it is held that he is entitled to
compensation at Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare.
9. As regards lands located in Survey No.28/1 and 29/1,
it is evident that the said lands are located even further away
from Survey No.30 and their distance from State Highway as
also village Lohara on the east, is more. Therefore, the fair
market value of these lands in the year 1995 when the
Notification was issued was lesser than the lands located in
Survey No.30 and it can be ascertained at Rs.80,000/- per
hectare and the component of non-agricultural potentiality
would also be reduced further to Rs.30,000/- per hectare.
Hence, it is held that for the lands located in Survey No.28/1
and 29/1, the respondent no.1 would be entitled to
compensation at Rs.1,10,000/- per hectare.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and cross-
objection is dismissed. It is held that the respondent no.1 shall
176 FA56-06& ors.odt
be paid compensation for the lands acquired from Survey
Nos.28/1 and 29/1 at Rs.1,10,000/- per hectare and for his land
acquired from Survey No.30/1 at Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare.
The impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court is
modified to that extent. The other directions given by the
Reference Court in the impugned order pertaining to solatium,
additional component and interest are maintained.
...
First Appeal No.288 of 2011
By this appeal, the appellant MIDC has challenged
judgment and order dated 25.09.2008 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 21/2002, whereby the
Reference Court has granted compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/-
per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for
Pot Kharab land to the respondent no.1-claimant.
2. By notification dated 09.03.1995 issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act, the State Government initiated
the process of acquisition of lands belonging to the respondent
no.1 located in Survey No. 28/3, 29/3 and 30/1-A of village
Bhoyar, tehsil and district Yavatmal. By award dated
27.11.1997, issued by the respondent-Special Land Acquisition
177 FA56-06& ors.odt
Officer, compensation for the said lands was granted to the
respondent no.1 at Rs.50,000/- per hectare for cultivable land
and Rs.1500/- per hectare for Pot Kharab land.
3. Aggrieved by the said award, respondent no.1 filed
reference application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the
Reference Court claiming enhanced compensation at
Rs.5,00,000/- per hectare. The respondent no.1 claimed that
the aforesaid lands belonging to him had tremendous non-
agricultural potentiality and they were located near village
Lohara, which was already developed area. He also examined
an expert witness, who deposed with respect to the potentiality
of the aforesaid lands and their crop yielding capacity.
4. In the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court noted the fact that the lands located in village Bhoyar
were not comparable with those in village Lohara. It held that
when there was lack of evidence about similarity of such lands.
But, it was held that considering nearness of such lands to each
other, the amount of compensation payable to respondent no.1
could be determined. On this basis, the Reference Court
granted the above mentioned enhanced compensation to the
178 FA56-06& ors.odt
respondent no.1.
5. Mr. M.M.Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant- MIDC submitted that there was no
appreciation of the location and other features pertaining to the
lands in question and that the reasoning of the Reference Court
was not sustainable. He submitted that the location of the land
being away from the Yavatmal - Darwha road and the
established industrial estate in village Lohara demonstrated
that the quantum of enhanced compensation granted by the
Reference Court was not justified.
6. The lands in the present case belonging to
respondent no.1 are in the same survey numbers as were the
lands in the case of claimant pertaining to First Appeal No.1428
of 2008 decided above. In the order disposing of the aforesaid
first appeal, observations have been made and reasons have
been given for ascertaining the just and fair compensation
payable to the claimant. Since the lands subject matter of First
Appeal No.1428 of 2008 were located in the same survey
numbers in which the lands of respondent no.1 in the present
case were located, this appeal is being disposed of for the
reasons stated while disposing of First Appeal No.1428 of 2008
179 FA56-06& ors.odt
above.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and it is
held that the respondent no.1 shall be paid compensation at
the rate of Rs.1,10,000/- per hectare for cultivable land in
Survey Nos. 28/3 and 29/3 and for the Pot Kharab land located
in Survey No. 28/3 and 29/3, the respondent No.1 shall be paid
amount of Rs.55,000/- per hectare. It is further held that the
respondent no.1 shall be paid compensation at Rs.1,30,000/-
per hectare for cultivable land in Survey No.30/1-A and at
Rs.65,000/- per hectare for Pot Kharab land located in the said
Survey No.30/1-A. The impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court is modified to that extent. Other directions
given by the Reference Court pertaining to solatium, additional
component and interest are maintained.
...
First Appeal No.340/2005 with First Appeal No.
389/2005
By these two appeals, the acquiring body MIDC and
the land owner-claimant have both challenged the impugned
judgment and order dated 25.02.2005 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 16 of 2002, whereby the
180 FA56-06& ors.odt
Reference Court has granted enhanced compensation to the
claimant at Rs.70,000/- per hectare.
2. By Notification issued under Section 32(2) of the MID
Act dated 09.03.1995, the process of acquisition of the land
belonging to the claimant was initiated. The land was located
in Survey No.12/2 admeasuring 3.76 hectares in villge Bhoyar,
tehsil and district Yavatmal. By award dated 03.11.1997 issued
by the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, the
compensation at Rs.51,230/- per hectare was granted for
cultivable land and at Rs.1500/- per hectare for Pot Kharab
land.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and claimed enhanced
compensation at Rs.3,75,000/- per hectare. The claimant relied
upon awards passed in cases of other claimants and also on
the claim of non-agricultural potentiality of the land. Certain
sale deeds pertaining to village Lohara were also placed on
record on behalf of the claimant.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
181 FA56-06& ors.odt
Court has granted enhanced compensation at Rs.70,000/- per
hectare to the claimant. The Reference Court relied upon a
judgment passed in the case of a claimant whose land was
located in the same survey number, wherein compensation had
been granted at Rs.50,000/- per hectare. By applying
guesswork, the Reference Court granted enhanced
compensation at Rs.70,000/- per hectare.
5. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the MIDC has fairly conceded that considering the
submissions made by him in respect of other lands located in
village Bhoyar and the location of the land in the present case,
the quantum of compensation granted by the Reference Court
in the present case was less than what could be said to be a
fair market value of the land in the year 1995.
6. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Bhalerao, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the claimant in support of his appeal for
enhancement of compensation, has submitted that there was
ample material on record to show that the lands located in
village Lohara were comparable to the acquired land of the
claimant in the present case and that his claim of enhanced
compensation at Rs.3,75,000/- per hectare was clearly justified.
182 FA56-06& ors.odt
7. A perusal of the map showing location of the land of
the claimant in the present case, demonstrates that it is in
proximity with lands located in survey no.28. Distance from
the Yavatmal - Darwha State Highway, as also from the already
established industrial estate of village Lohara on the east, is
similar to the land located in Survey No.28 of village Bhoyar.
8. Therefore, for the reasons on the basis of which First
appeal No.1428 of 2008 has been decided above concerning
land of claimant located in Survey No.28, the present appeal of
the acquiring body of the MIDC is dismissed and the appeal
filed by the claimant is partly allowed.
9. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant i.e. appellant
in First Appeal No. 389 of 2005 and respondent no.1 in First
Appeal No.340 of 2005 is entitled to compensation at
Rs.1,10,000/- per hectare. The directions given by the
Reference Court pertaining to solatium, additional component
and interest are maintained and the appeal are disposed of.
...
183 FA56-06& ors.odt
First Appeal No. 269 of 2007
By this appeal, the appellant-MIDC has challenged
judgment and order dated 28.4.2006 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 65/2002, whereby enhanced
compensation has been granted to the respondent nos. 1 and 2
at Rs.2,15,000/- per hectare.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995 issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act, the process of acquisition of the
land belonging to the claimants was initiated. The said land
was located in survey no. 8/2 village Bhoyar, tehsil and district
Yavatmal admeasuring 6.5 hectares. The respondent- Special
Land Acquisition Officer issued award granting total
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants.
3. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants
filed reference application under Section 34 of the MID Act read
with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming
enhanced compensation at Rs.7,50,000/- per hectare and
separate compensation for trees, pipeline and well located in
the land.
4. The claimant relied upon oral and documentary
184 FA56-06& ors.odt
evidence including sale instances pertaining to lands located in
villages Lohara and Wadgaon, as also the award passed in the
case of claimant pertaining to First Appeal No. 56 of 2006
wherein compensation had been awarded at Rs.17/- per square
feet. By the impugned judgment and order, the aforesaid rate
of compensation was granted to the claimants. The Reference
Court noted that the claimants in their evidence had given
admissions in favour of the State and that they had chosen not
to file a single sale instance from village Bhoyar. But, without
any specific reasoning, the Reference Court granted such
enhanced compensation.
5. Mr. M.M.Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant - MIDC submitted that when admissions
given by the claimants in their evidence were noted by the
Reference Court, there ought to have been specific reasons
assigned in the impugned judgment and order for granting the
aforesaid enhanced compensation to the claimants. It was
submitted that the perusal of the impugned judgment and
order demonstrated that in the absence of proper reasoning,
the findings in favour of the claimants were not sustainable.
6. On the other hand, Mr. A.R. Patil, learned counsel
185 FA56-06& ors.odt
appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, submitted that the
sale instances pertaining to villages Lohara and Wadgaon
placed on record were proper for estimation of fair market
value of the land in question. It was submitted that there was
tremendous non-agricultural potentiality in the acquired land of
the respondent no.1 and that no interference was called for in
the findings rendered by the Reference Court in the impugned
judgment and order.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order shows
that the respondent no.1 essentially relied upon sale instances
pertaining to villages Lohara and Wadgaon. The Reference
Court took note of the fact that not a single sale instance from
village Bhoyar was placed on record and that there were crucial
admissions given by the respondent no.1 in his evidence. Yet,
the said enhanced compensation was granted by the Reference
Court without assigning any specific reasons. Therefore, it is
necessary to appreciate the location of the land of respondent
no.1. The map pertaining to village Bhoyar and its surrounding
shows that survey no.8, wherein the land of respondent no.1
was located, was towards the western side of Yavatmal-Darwha
State Highway and that it was at quite a distance from the
already established industrial estate of village Lohara on the
186 FA56-06& ors.odt
east. The distance of the said land from Yavatmal-Darwha
State Highway, as compared to lands located in Survey Nos.
12, 28 and 29 considered above, is less. But, distance from the
already established industrial estate of village Lohara is almost
about the same.
8. In this backdrop, taking into consideration the
reasoning given for disposal of appeals concerning lands in
Survey nos. 12, 28, 29 and 30, it can be concluded that in the
present case the fair market value of the lands in question in
the year 1995 would have been Rs.90,000/- per hectare and
the component of non-agricultural potentiality would be
Rs.30,000/- per hectare considering the distance from village
Lohara in the east.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and it is
held that the respondent no.1 shall be paid compensation at
Rs. 1,20,000/- per hectare and the impugned judgment and
order of the Reference Court is modified to that extent. The
amount of compensation granted for house and pipeline by the
Reference Court is maintained. The other directions granted in
respect of solatium, additional component and interest are also
maintained and the appeal is disposed of.
187 FA56-06& ors.odt
....
First Appeal No.477 of 2012
By this appeal, the appellant- MIDC has challenged
judgment and order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Reference
Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 33 of 2005, whereby
respondent nos. 1 to 7 (original claimants) have been granted
enhanced compensation at Rs.2,20,000/- per hectare.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995 issued under
Section 32(2) of the MID Act, the process of acquisition of land
belonging to the claimants was initiated. The said land was
located in Survey No.10/1 village Bhoyar, tehsil and district
Yavatmal, admeasuring 1.33 hectares. The respondent- Special
Land Acquisition Officer issued award dated 27.01.1997
granting compensation at Rs.1520/- per hectare.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed reference
application under Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Reference
Court claiming enhanced compensation at Rs.7,00,000/- per
hectare. The claimants placed reliance on sale instances at
Exhs. 41 to 44 pertaining to village Lohara. It was contended
188 FA56-06& ors.odt
that the distance between village Bhoyar, village Lohara and
village Wadgaon, was not much and that there was non-
agricultural potentiality in the acquired land belonging to the
claimants.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court held that when sale instances from the same village were
not available, the sale instances of similar lands located near
the acquired land could be taken into consideration. On this
basis, the sale deeds at Exhs. 41 to 44 were relied upon by the
Reference Court and upon making deduction, the aforesaid
figure of Rs. 2,20,000/- per hectare was arrived at.
5. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the MIDC submitted that the reliance placed by the
Reference Court on sale instances pertaining to the village
Lohara, was erroneous and that the fair market value of the
land in question ought to have been determined on the basis of
the location of the land and the fact that it was not converted
to non-agricultural use.
6. None appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to
7 - claimants.
189 FA56-06& ors.odt
7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the
claimants failed to place on record any material pertaining to
the aspect as to what could have been fair market value of the
acquired land located in village Bhoyar. The entire material on
record pertained to village Lohara, which was already a
developed area. The Reference Court has simply relied upon
the sale instances pertaining to village Lohara and without
taking into consideration the locational features of the land in
question, it has arrived at its findings.
8. In this situation, it is necessary to appreciate the
location of the land in the present case. Survey No.10/1 of
village Bhoyar is away from the Yavatmal-Darwha State
Highway and it is further away from the already established
industrial estate of village Lohara on the east. The said survey
number is in proximity with Survey No.12 of village Bhoyar. It
cannot be said that the location and other features of the land
in question in the present case are similar to lands located in
survey No.12.
9. Therefore, for the reasons on which First Appeal No.
340 of 2005 has been decided above pertaining to land located
190 FA56-06& ors.odt
in Survey No.12, the present appeal can also be disposed of. In
the said appeal, it has been held that the claimant was entitled
to Rs.1,10,000/- per hectare. Accordingly, it is held that the
claimants in the present case are also entitled to the same
amount.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and it is
held that the respondent nos. 1 to 7- claimants shall be entitled
to compensation at Rs.1,10,000/- per hectare and the
impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court is
modified to that extent. The other directions pertaining to
solatium, additional component and interest granted by the
Reference Court are maintained.
...
First Appeal No.1255 of 2009.
By this appeal, the land owner-claimant has
challenged judgment and order dated 16.02.2009 passed by
the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 69 of 2002,
whereby the Reference Court has granted enhanced
compensation to the appellant.
2. By Notification dated 09.03.1995 issued under
191 FA56-06& ors.odt
section 32(2) of the MID Act, the State Government initiated
process of acquisition of land belonging to the appellant
located in Survey No.10/3 village Bhoyar, tehsil and district
Yavatmal. By award dated 27.11.1997, the respondent- Special
Land Acquisition Officer granted enhanced compensation at
Rs.45,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per
hectare for Pot Kharab land.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed
reference application for further enhancement of
compensation.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the Reference
Court has granted enhanced compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per
hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for Pot
Kharab land to the appellant.
5. By this appeal, the appellant is seeking further
enhancement of compensation. But, since it has been already
held above in respect of lands located in the very same survey
number from village Bhoyar in First Appeal No. 477 of 2012
that the claimant therein is entitled to much less
compensation, for the reasons stated in the orders disposing of
192 FA56-06& ors.odt
the said appeal, the present appeal is dismissed.
...
The appeals filed by the acquiring body-MIDC and
landowners/claimants are disposed of in above terms. The
calculation of compensation payable in terms of this judgment
and order shall be undertaken by the MIDC forthwith and the
process of recovery of amounts from the landowners/claimants
and/or disbursal of enhanced compensation in terms of this
judgment and order, as the case may be, shall be started after
a period of 2 months from the date of pronouncement of this
judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Manish Pitale, J. )
...
halwai/p.s.
