Bombay High Court
Prabhakar Ramling Choudhari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
(1) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2003
. Prabhakar S/o Ramling Choudhari
Age : 52 Years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. At present Latur Tq. &
Dist. Latur .. Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Special Land Acq1uisition Officer
( S.P.) at Latur.
3. The Collector,
Latur. .. Respondents
(Orig. Opponents)
=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
FIRST APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2003
. Smt.Sugalabai W/o Prabhakar Choudhari
Age : 47 Years, Occu. Household,
R/o. At present Latur. ..Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(S.P.) at Latur.
3. The Collector,
Latur. ..Respondents
(Orig. Opponent)
=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 00:26:29 :::
(2) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
FIRST APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2003
1) Smt. Sugalabai W/o Prabhakar Choudhari
Age : 47 Years, Occu. Household,
R/o. At present Latur,
Tq. & Dist.Latur
2) Shantibhushan S/o.Prabhakar Choudhari
Age: 28 years, Occu.: Agril
R/o.Bhatangali, Tq. & Dist.Latur. ..Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(S.P.) at Latur.
3. The Collector,
Latur. ..Respondents
(Orig. Opponent)
=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
FIRST APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2003
Shri. Prabhakar s/o Ramling Choudhari
Age : 52 Years, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Bhatangali Tq. & Dist. Latur. ..Appellant
( Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(S.P.) at Latur.
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 00:26:30 :::
(3) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
3. The Collector,
Latur. Respondents
(Orig. Opponent)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr.H.I.Pathan
Advocate for respondents/State : Mr.A.M.Phule
...
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE : 9th JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1) Heard Mr.H.I.Pathan, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr.A.M.Phule, learned AGP for the
respondents in these appeals. The learned counsel for
the parties agreed that all these appeals can be disposed
of by common Judgment and order taking into consideration
the fact that the acquisition was for one and the same
Project.
2) The First Appeal Nos.53 of 2003 and 56 of 2003 have
been instituted by Mr.Prabhakar Ramling Choudhari in
respect of acquisition of his agricultural lands from Gut
(4) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
No.453 ad-measuring 28 Are and 72 Are. In First Appeal
Nos.53 of 2003 and 56 of 2003 the Notification under
Section 4 was issued on 22.2.1990. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer has determined compensation in
respect of land ad-measuring 28 Are @ Rs.32,000/- per
Hectare and compensation in respect of land ad-measuring
72 Are @ Rs.35,000/- per Hectare.
3) The appellant in First Appeal Nos.53 of 2003 and 56
of 2003, Mr.Prabhakar Ramling Choudhari applied for
enhancement and the References came to be registered as
LAR Nos.473 of 1995 and 872 of 1997. The Reference
Court has determined the compensation @ Rs.85,000/- per
Hectare. It is the case of the appellant that such
determination is not reflecting the actual market value
as on date of Notification under Section 4 i.e.
22.2.1990. Hence, the two appeals.
4) The First Appeal Nos.54 of 2003 and 55 of 2203 have
(5) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
been instituted by Smt.Sugalabai w/o Prabhakar Choudhari.
This relates to acquisition of her land in Gut No.460 ad-
measuring 1 Hectare 22 Are and 1 Hectare 99 Are
respectively. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
determined compensation @ Rs.51,000/- per Hectare and the
Reference Court has enhanced the same to Rs.85,000/- per
Hectare. Smt.Sugalabai has appealed the determination by
the Reference Court since according to her, the market
value of the acquired land was Rs.1,50,000/- per Hectare.
5) Mr.Pathan, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that there is ample evidence on record, which
establishes that the acquired lands were Bagayat lands.
He submits that the Reference Court has relied upon the
Sale Deed dated 18.3.1992 (Exh.25) in First Appeal No.56
of 2003 in respect of land ad-measuring 82 Are situated
in village Bhatangali, Tq. & Dist.Latur, which is the
same village where the acquired lands were situated. He
submits that from reading of the Sale Deed itself and
(6) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
also from the oral evidence led on behalf of the
appellants, it is quite clear that the Sale Deed pertains
to Jirayat lands and the rate as per the Sale Deed is
Rs.1,50,000/- per Hectare. Mr.Pathan submits that as a
Thumb Rule, compensation in respect of Bagayat land has
to be twice the rate at which Jirayat land can be sold or
purchased. On this basis, Mr.Pathan submits that
compensation could have been determined at the rates,
which is higher than Rs.1,50,000/- per Hectare and in any
case the amount as claimed by the appellants i.e.
Rs.1,50,000/- per Hectare should have been awarded to
them by the Reference Court.
6) Mr.A.M.Phule, learned AGP for the State submits that
there is neither any evidence to establish that the
acquired lands were Bagayat lands nor that the land,
which is subject matter of Exh.25 was Jirayat land.
Mr.Phule, submits that the Sale Deed dated 18.3.1992 is
quite irrelevant in so far as determination of
(7) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
compensation in respect of lands, which were the subject
matter of Notification under Section 4 dated 22.2.1990
i.e. the First Appeal Nos.53 of 2003 and 56 of 2003
instituted by Mr.Prabhakar Ramling Choudhari. Mr.Phule,
learned AGP submits that in the absence of any cogent
evidence on record, there is no reason to interfere with
the impugned Awards made by the Reference Court and
therefore, all these appeals may be dismissed.
7) In so far as the First Appeal Nos.53 of 2003 and 56
of 2003 instituted by Mr.Prabhakar Ramling Choudhari are
concerned, obviously the Sale Deed dated 18.3.1992
(Exh.25) cannot be regarded as extremely relevant
documentary evidence. Normally, Sale Deeds in respect of
transactions prior to Notification under Section 4 are
relevant for determining the market value. Though,
there is no absolute bar to refer to post Notification
Sale Deeds, such reference is usually for the purposes of
establishing the trend of escalation and not for the
(8) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
purposes of actual market value.
8) In First Appeal Nos.53 of 2003 and 56 of 2003, upon
perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the
claimants had produced the sale instance, which was
marked as Exh.15. This sale instance was dated 4.3.1989
in which the vendor sold his land ad-measuring about 3
Acres for consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-. The Reference
Court has however, noted that the land in question had
been mortgaged by the vendor to the vendee. The
Reference Court has noted that the Sale Deed itself
states that the vendee would execute a re-conveyance of
sold lands after one year on 3.3.1990. The Reference
Court has noted that except of said sale instance, no
other sale instance has produced on record by the
appellants to determine the market price in respect of
acquired lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired
land.
(9) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
9) In these appeals also, no material was pointed out
on the basis of which, the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- per
Hectare could be justified. The sale instance dated
4.3.1989 was quite rightly excluded from consideration by
the Reference Court.
10) The Reference Court, has taken into consideration
the Award in LAR No.278 of 1995 (Exh.40) in which
compensation determined @ Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare in
respect of lands situated at Village Shivani (BK), Taluka
Ausa. The Reference Court has observed that though this
field is not adjacent to the village in which the
acquired lands are situated, some sustenance can be drawn
from the award and after making suitable allowance for
the differences in the quality and fertility to the lands
in question, compensation can be determined @ Rs.85,000/-
per Hectare. In the lands of this nature, some amount of
guesswork is inevitable. The State has also accepted
this determination of compensation of Rs.85,000/- per
( 10 ) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
Hectare. There is no case made out to order further
enhancement. Accordingly First Appeal Nos.53 of 2003 and
56 of 2003 are liable to be dismissed and hereby
dismissed.
11) Mr.Pathan, learned counsel submitted that the
possession of the acquired land was taken over on
16.10.1987, though the Notification Section 4 was issued
on 22.2.1990. He submits that Reference Court should
have granted atleast some compensation for the period
between 16.10.1987 to 22.2.1990. Since, these are
statutory appeals under the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, and since, even the determination
of compensation before the Reference Court was in
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it may
not be possible to accede to this request. Therefore,
without going into the issue of the date on which the
possession have been taken, suffice to note that this
contention cannot be accepted in the present appeals.
( 11 ) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
12) In so far as the lands, which are the subject matter
of First Appeal Nos.54 of 2003 and 55 of 2003,
Notification the Section 4 was issued on 30.9.1993 i.e.
after a period of almost three years since the issuance
of Notification under Section 4 dated 22.2.1990 by which
lands which were subject matter of the First Appeal
Nos.53 of 2003 and 56 of 2003 came to be acquired.
13) The determination of market rate @ Rs.85,000/- Per
Hectare by the Reference Court in LAR Nos.473 of 1995 and
872 of 1997, which determination has now been confirmed
in First Appeal Nos.53 of 2003 and 56 of 2003, stands.
Infact, such determination was never questioned by the
State Government or the acquiring body. Thus, the rate
of Rs.85,000/- Per Hectare in respect of acquired lands
at Bhatangadi as on 22.2.1990, will have to be taken as
the basis. If this is taken as the basis, then in
respect of acquisition under Section 4 Notification dated
( 12 ) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
30.9.1993, escalation of 10% each year on compound basis
will have to be awarded in determining the market value
as on 30.9.1993. On this basis, market value will have
to be determined @ Rs.1,13,050/- per Hectare which can be
safely rounded up to Rs.1,15,000/- Per Hectare. Taking
into consideration the fact that by this time, the work
of the Project had already commenced or was already known
in view of the earlier acquisition under Section 4
Notification dated 22.2.1990, the Reference Court, which
decided all the four lands acquisition references
together was not at all justified in determining the same
rate of compensation in respect of lands from the same
village under two different Notifications issued three
years apart. In respect of the later acquisition,
escalation @ 10% p.a. on compound basis was due and has
been erroneously withheld by the Reference Court.
14) Mr.H.I.Pathan, learned counsel's contention that the
compensation has to be awarded @ Rs.150,000/- per
( 13 ) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
Hectare, however, cannot be accepted because there is no
cogent evidence on record to establish that the sale
instance dated 18.3.1992 (Exh.25) was in respect of
Jirayat land. Witness, who was examined to prove the
sale instance was not posed any questions as regard the
nature of land. Even the appellants merely stated that
the acquired land was better land than the land, which
was the subject matter of the sale instance Jirayat land
or dry land. Mr.Pathan did make a request to take on
record 7/12 extract, in which, there is an indication
that certain non-essential crops were grown in the land,
which is the subject matter of the sale instance. At
this stage, it is really not possible to take into
consideration such documents and on the basis of the
same, award compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per Hectare.
This is not a case where there was any deprivation of any
opportunity to the appellants to produce relevant
evidence on record.
( 14 ) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
15) The First Appeal Nos.54 of 2003 and 55 of 2003 are
liable to be partly allowed and the compensation amount
is liable to be enhanced from Rs.85,000/- per Hectare to
Rs.1,15,000/- per Hectare. The appeals are therefore,
allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned awards,
which are the subject matter of First Appeal Nos.54 of
2003 and 55 of 2003 are modified by substituting the
compensation amount of Rs.85,000/- per Hectare to
Rs.1,15,000/- per Hectare. Save and except such
modification/substitution, the rest of the award is
maintained.
16) The appeals are disposed of by the following order:-
ORDER
(I) First Appeal Nos.53 of 2003 and 56 of 2003
are hereby dismissed.
(II) First Appeal Nos.54 of 2003 and 55 of 2003
are partly allowed and the compensation amount is
( 15 ) 947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
enhanced from Rs.85,000/- Per Hectare to
Rs.1,15,000/- per Hectare.
(III) In all these appeals, there shall be no
order as to costs.
(IV) The appellants in First Appeal Nos.54 of
2003 and 55 of 2003 shall be entitled to
consequential benefits like interest, solatium
etc. in so far as the enhanced compensation is
concerned.
(V) The respondents are directed to pay the
additional compensation together with proportionate
statutory benefits to the appellants in First Appeal
Nos.54 of 2003 and 55 of 2003, within a period of
12 weeks from today.
[M.S.SONAK, J.]
SPT/947 FA 53 of 2003 & ors.
