Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Vinayakrao Arjunji Umate And ... on 31 August, 2021
Bench: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1007 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector, Wardha.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(General), Collectorate Office,
Wardha, Tah and Dist-Wardha.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division, Civil Lines,
Wardha, Tah and Dist-Wardha. .. APPELLANTS
...Versus...
1. Vinayakrao Arjunji Umate (Dead),
Thr. LRs
1-A Smt. Champabai Vinayakrao Umate,
(wife)
Aged about 75 years,
R/o. Civil Lines, Jail Road, Near
Church, Tah. and Distt. Wardha.
1-B Pradip Vinayakrao Umate (Son)
Aged about 57 years,
Plot No. 9, Mauli Darshan Building,
Flat No.1101, Sector 15, Kharghar,
Navi Mumbai, Pink Road 410210.
1-C Dilip Vinayakrao Umate (Son)
Aged about 54 years,
R/o Near Yamuna Lawn, Near
Adv.Ashok Pawde House,
Gopuri Chowk, Post Nalwadi,
Distt. Wardha.
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 05:24:33 :::
2 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
1-D Anil Vinayakrao Umate (Son)
Aged about 42 years,
R/o in front of Varma Nursing Home,
Shehal Nagar, Sewagram Road,
Wardha.
1-E Kalpna Vinayakrao Umate (Daughter)
Aged about 48 years,
C/o Shri Vikas N. Potdukhe, D-27,
ONGC Nagar, Phase-1, Dhumas Road,
Magadhale, Surat, Gujrat. 394518.
1-F Mohan Vinayakrao Umate (Son)
Aged 45 years,
R/o Civil Lines, Jail Road,
Near Church, Tah. and Distt. Wardha.
1-G Varsha Vinayakrao Umate (Daughter)
Aged 40 years,
C/o Dr. Sanjay Devtale, B-34,
Vijayanand Society Narendra Nagar
Nagpur.
1-H Jeevan Vinayakrao Umate (Son) Deleted as per
Aged 36 years, Court's order
R/o Civil Lines, Jail Road, dated
Near Church, Tah. and Distt. Wardha. 31.08.2021.
2. Jiwan Vinayakrao Umate,
Aged about 31 years, Occ-Cultivator,
R/o. Jail Road, Civil Lines, Wardha,
Tah and Dist-Wardha. .. RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for the Appellants/State.
Shri K.R. Lule, Advocate for LRs of Respondent No. 1 & 2.
-----------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 05:24:33 :::
3 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.
DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
On oral request made by Shri K.R. Lule, learned
counsel for the respondents, to delete the name of respondent
No.1-H from the array of the respondents, as his name is
already on record as respondent No.2. Request is accepted.
Learned counsel for the respondents has carried out the
necessary amendment forthwith.
2. In this Appeal, the appellants-State have challenged
the judgment and award dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in L.A.C. No. 518/2007 wherein
the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation at the
rate of Rs. 1200/sq. mtr. against the compensation at the rate of
Rs. 59/sq. mtr. granted by the learned Special Land Acquisition
Officer.
3. The facts in brief may be stated as under:
The land admeasuring 0.02 H.R. and O.69 H.R. out
4 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
of Survey Nos. 33 and 34 respectively, owned by the
respondents-claimants, situated at village Masala, Tah. and
District Wardha came to be acquired by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer for the construction of Wardha by-pass road.
The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 ("the Act") was published on 13.01.2000. The award came
to be passed on 17.05.2003. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer awarded Rs. 4,40,727/- towards compensation for the
acquired land @ Rs.5,90,000/- per hectare i.e. Rs. 59/per sq.
mtr.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of
SLAO, the respondents/claimants filed a reference proceedings
under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation at
the rate of Rs.1200 per Sq.mt. The appellants-State resisted the
claim of the owners of the land in its written statement vide
Exhibit-26 and supported the award passed by the learned
SLAO.
5. Learned Reference Court framed necessary issues
vide Exhibit-27 and recorded evidence as adduced by the
5 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
parties. The claimants examined Jeevan Vinayak Umate,
appellant No.2 at Exhibit-9 and brought on record the following
documents:
(i) Copy of Award (Exhibit-11).
(ii) Valuation of land (Exhibit-12).
(iii) Statement of Well (Exhibit-13).
(iv) Notice issued under Section 12(2) of the said
Act (Exhibit-14).
(v) Claim of the claimants before Special Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 9(3) of the said
Act (Exhibit-15).
(vi) Sale instances (Exhibit Nos. 16 to 21) and
(vii) N.A. order (Exhibit-35).
6. The appellants-State examined one Shailendra
Mahadeorao Meshram, Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition,
Wardha below Exhibit-31.
6 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
7. The learned Reference Court on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence on record, allowed the reference
proceedings and fixed the market value of the acquired land at
the rate of Rs.1200 per sq.mt., and calculated compensation for
0.71 H.R. land at Rs.80,79,273/- with other statutory benefits
and interest. This judgment and award of the reference Court is
assailed in this appeal by the appellant-State.
8. I have heard Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, learned AGP for
the appellants State and Shri K.R. Lule, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents claimants.
9. Mrs. Deshmukh, learned AGP on behalf of the State
submits that the learned reference Court failed to appreciate the
evidence in its correct perspective. The learned reference Court
ought to have appreciated that the claimants have not filed any
sale instance showing market rate at the rate of 1200 per sq.mt.
and therefore, granting enhancement at the rate of 1200 sq.mt.
is excessive and exorbitant in nature. Learned AGP urged to
quash and set-aside the impugned judgment and award.
7 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
10. On the contrary Shri K.R. Lule, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents/ claimants while supporting the
judgment and award submitted that the land of the claimants
is converted into non-agricultural use in the year 1993-94,
and therefore, considering the value of the land and considering
the material on record with regard to the location of the
acquired land amid adjoining development, the learned
reference Court has correctly fixed the market value @ of Rs.
1200 per sq.mt.
11. I have considered the rival submissions and gone
through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for
both the parties. The principles to determine the quantum of
compensation are contained in Section 23(1) of the Act. The
Court in fixing the amount has to take into consideration the
prevailing market value of the land at the date of the
notification under Section 4(1) and the said market value has to
be determined by reference to the price which a willing seller
might have reasonably expected for similar property from a
willing purchaser. The underlying principle of fixing the market
value with reference to comparable sales is to reduce the
8 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
element of speculation. In a comparable sale, the features are:
(i) it must be within a reasonable time of the date of
notification under Section 4(1); (ii) it should be a bonafide
transaction; (iii) it should be a sale of the land acquired or of
the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should
possess similar advantages.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Printers
House (P) Ltd. v. Saiyadan, (1994) 2 SCC 133 at page 140, held
that where there is evidence of sales or awards of land(s), which
could be compared with the acquired land(s), the Court, as a
matter of course, adopts the 'Comparable Sales Method of
valuation of land', in preference to other recognised methods of
valuation of lands, such as 'Capitalisation of Net Income
Method' or 'Expert Opinion Method' for determining the market
value of the acquired land(s). 'Comparable Sales Method' is the
most favoured method, since the prices paid within a reasonable
time in bona fide transactions of purchase or sale of the very
acquired land or a portion thereof, or of the lands adjacent to
those acquired and possessing similar advantages, could furnish
to the court the 'price basis' for determination of the market
9 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
value of the acquired land, in that, there can be no better
evidence of what the willing purchaser would pay for the
acquired land if it had been sold in 'the open market at the time
of publication of preliminary notification'.
13. It is not disputed that the land of the claimants
admeasuring 0.69 H.R. land from survey No.34 and 0.02 H.R.
land from survey No.33 have been acquired by the appellants-
State for the construction of Wardha by-pass road. The total
area of the lands of survey Nos. 34 and 33 are 2.48 H.R. and
2.60 H.R. respectively, situated at Village Masala, Tahsil and
District Wardha.
14. The claimants have brought on record the sale
deeds during the period between 1998 to 2000 whereby the
claimants have sold some portions of these survey Nos. 33 and
34 during this period for the rates in between 400 to 500 per
sq.mt. The details of these transactions are as under:
i. Sold 146.37 sq.mtr. Land to Mr. Sanjay
Shankarrao Dhongade vide sale deed dated
03/07/1997 for Rs.40,000/- (Rs.420/- per sq. mtr.)
10 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
(Exh.16).
ii. Sold 146.46 sq.mtr. Land to Ramdas Shamrao
Bahirseth vide sale deed dated 06/08/1998 for
Rs.45,000/- (Rs.420/- per sq. mtr.).
iii. Sold 151.04 sq.mtr. Land to Mr. Sanjay
Wasudeorao Dhok vide sale deed dated 25/05/1999
for Rs.50,000/- (Rs.470/- per sq. mtr.) (Exh.17).
iv. Sold a plot to Pundalik Krushnaji Vairagade on
16/12/1999 vide registered sale deed for
Rs.60,000/- (Rs.470/- per sq. mtr.) (Exh.18).
v. Sold 246.38 sq.mtr. Land to Mr. Ramu Hiralal
Chhatre vide sale deed dated 07/11/2000 (Rs.500/-
per sq. mtr.) (Exh.19).
15. Apart from the aforesaid sale deeds, there is
absolutely no other material brought on record by the claimants
justifying the rate of Rs.1200 per sq.mtr. A careful perusal of the
impugned judgment to find out as to what inspired the learned
Reference Court to adjudicate the rate at Rs.1200 per sq.mtr., I
11 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
am at loss to find out any convincing material in support of the
said rates. Learned reference Court in paras 15 & 16 of the
judgment observed that the SLAO has failed to consider the
position of increase in Government value of N.A. land while
determining compensation amount. It is further observed that
Mouza Mhasala is at a distance of around 2 to 3 K.M. from
Wardha City and it is known as part and parcel of the Wardha.
It is further observed that it is clear from the evidence of
claimants that, Wardha city, Sewagram Railway Station and Bus
Stand are adjoining to Mhasala and it is further observed that
prestigious persons of Wardha city are residing at Masala. Paras
15 & 16 from the impugned judgment is reproduced below :
"15. Thus, from above referred sale transactions it
is clear that Govt. value of N.A. land is increasing day by
day. As against this SLAO failed to consider this position of
increase in Govt. value of N.A land while determining
compensation amount. In my opinion mouza Masala is only
at a distance of 2 to 3 K.M. from Wardha city and presently
it is known as part and parcel of Wardha. It is clear from
evidence of petitioners that, Wardha city, Sewagram Railway
Station and Bus Stand are adjoining to Masala. It is further
deposed that prestigious persons of Wardha city are residing
12 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
at Masala. Similarly, M.I.D.C. area, Civil Court, Government
Offices, Medical College, Engineering College, Market etc.
are at a short distance of 2 to 3 K.M. from Masala.
Therefore, in my view after considering above facts and
circumstances it is clear that market value of property
located at Masala is increasing day by day.
16. It is pertinent to note that all the sale deeds
filed on record at Exh.16 to Exh.21 are relating to N.A.
property and from alleged sale deeds it is clear that,
Government value of N.A property has increased day by day.
On the basis of above referred sale deeds market value and
importance of plots located at Masala can be easily gathered.
Considering above reasons I am of the opinion that
petitioners are certainly entitled to get enhanced market
value at Rs.1200 per square meter for their acquired land
admeasuring 7100 square meter. Why SLAO refused to grant
market value to acquired property on the basis of per square
meter no valid reasons are given either in the affidavit
evidence Exh.31 or in the written statement. So also on
which basis SLAO refused valuation of acquired property on
the basis of per square meter nothing is explained. Therefore
I have no reasons to disbelieve and to discard the case made
out by petitioners on the basis of bulky documentary
evidence."
13 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
16. The aforesaid observations regarding development
are made on the basis of evidence on affidavit of the claimants'
witness as if it is a gospel truth. There is absolutely no material
to justify the rate at Rs. 1200/- sq. mtr. There was no reason for
the learned Court below to enhance the rate directly at the rate
of 1200/- per sq. mtr. The claimants claimed Rs. 1200/- per sq.
mtr. and the same rates has been awarded by the Reference
Court without any demure and any supporting material.
17. Interestingly, just prior to one month of the
publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in
the present case, the claimants had sold some portion of their
lands from the aforesaid survey numbers on 16.12.1999 at the
rate of Rs. 470 per sq.mtr. Even the claimants have brought on
record two sale deeds of their lands which were sold post-
notification period, i.e., 07.11.2000 and 22.03.2001, at the rate
of Rs.500 per sq.mt. and Rs.550 per sq.mt. respectively, which
indicates that even after publication of notification for the
acquisition of the lands from Masala village, there is no
considerable increase in prizes of the lands.
14 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
18. The claimants have produced the sale instances
which are just prior to the issuance of notification under Section
4 (1) of the Act, that too for the non-agricultural land which is
part of the same survey numbers owned by the claimants. In
the opinion of this Court the sale instance of 16.12.1999 is the
best sale instance depicting the true market value of the
acquired property at the time of issuance of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act. The learned reference Court, without
any concrete material on record and only because the claimants
in their affidavit have stated about development in the vicinity
of Village Masala, the rate of Rs. 1200 per sq.mt., came to be
fixed as against Rs.59 per sq.mt. which was granted by the
learned SLAO. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
learned reference Court has failed to appreciate the comparable
sale instance which has been brought on record by the
claimants, which, according to me, is the most comparable sale
instance to determine the market price of the acquired land at
the time of issuance of Section 4 (1) of the notification.
19. For the reasons aforestated, the rates fixed by the
learned Reference Court in the impugned judgment cannot be
15 29-A. FA.1007-2014 JUDGMENT.odt
sustained and deserves to be modified. Hence, I pass the
following order :
ORDER
(1) The Appeal is partly allowed.
(2) The appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and
severally directed to pay the compensation at the
rate of Rs.470/- per sq.mt. for the land 0.71 H.R.
out of survey Nos. 33 and 34, Village Masala,
Taluqa and District Wardha with statutory benefits
and interest.
(3) It is informed that the decree has already been
satisfied before the Execution Court in R.D. No.
141/2012. The respondents claimants are directed
to refund the excess amount over and above the
decretal amount in terms of this order with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
withdrawal till the date of this judgment within a
period of three months, and thereafter, at the rate
of 9% per annum till the date of deposit. No costs.
JUDGE
S.D.Bhimte
