Bombay High Court
Mohansingh Rajesingh Girase vs The Special Land Acquisition ... on 31 January, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.7 OF 2014 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5644 OF 2014
1. Daga Suka Patil, through L.Rs.
A) Bhatabai w/o Daga Khandekar,
Age 75 years, Occu. Household
B) Sau. Sayankabai Sukdeo Halor
Age 53 years, Occu. Household
C) Sau. Ginyabai Umaji Masule,
Age 51 years, Occu. Household
D) Sau. Sindhubai Raghunath Bagul
Age 49 years, Occu. Household
E) Shri Lotan Daya Khandekar,
Age 47 years, Occu. Agriculture
All R/o village Satmane, Post Balsane,
Tal, Sakri, District Dhule
2. Shri Digambar Suka Patil,
Age 64 years, Occu. Agriculture
3. Shri Bhagwan Suka Patil,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agriculture
4. Shri Nanabhau Suka patil,
Age 65 years, Occu. Agriculture
All are residing at Satmane,
Tal. Sakri, District Dhule ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2022 05:49:38 :::
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 2 ::
2. The Executive Engineer-1,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
3. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Dhule ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for appellants
Mr. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 3
Mr. A.D. Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
.......
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7359 OF 2021 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.7 OF 2014
The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Daga Suka Patil,
Age 75 years, Occu. Agri.
2. Digambar Suka Patil,
Age 69 years, Occu. Agri.
3. Bhagwan Suka Patil,
Age 59 years, Occu. Agri.
4. Nanabhau Suka Patil,
Age 54 years, Occu. Agri.
All R/o Satmane,
Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule
5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
6. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector,
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2022 05:49:38 :::
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 3 ::
District Dhule ... RESPONDENTSS
.....
Shri A.D. Pawar, Advocate for applicant
Shri M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4
Shri K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents No.5 and 6
.....
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.83 OF 2014 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5642 OF 2014
Shri Indrasingh Rajesingh Girase,
Age major, Occu. Agriculture
R/o Divi, Tal. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
2. The Executive Engineer-1,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
3. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Dhule ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for appellant
Mr. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 3
Mr. A.D. Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.84 OF 2014 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5646 OF 2014
1. Shri Rohidas Vana Girase
Age major, Occu. Agriculture
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2022 05:49:38 :::
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 4 ::
2. Shri Chindha Vana Girase,
Age major, Occu. Agriculture
3. Shri Ravindra Vana Girase,
Age majnor, Occu. Agriculture
4. Shri Bhimkor Vana Girase
Age major, Occu. Agriculture
All R/o Divi, Tal. Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
2. The Executive Engineer-1,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
3. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Dhule ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for appellant
Mr. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 3
Mr. A.D. Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.85 OF 2014 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5645 OF 2014
Shri Mohansingh Rajesingh Girase,
Age major, Occu. Agriculture
R/o Divi, Tal. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2022 05:49:38 :::
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 5 ::
2. The Executive Engineer-1,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
3. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Dhule ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for appellant
Mr. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 3
Mr. A.D. Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.86 OF 2014 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5643 OF 2014
1. Shri Pramodsingh Subhash Girase,
Age major, Occu. Agriculture
2. Mangalabai Subhash Girase,
Age major, Occu. Agriculture
Both R/o Divi, Tal. Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
2. The Executive Engineer-1,
Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule
3. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Dhule ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for appellants
Mr. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 3
Mr. A.D. Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2022 05:49:38 :::
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 6 ::
.......
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
Date of reserving judgment : 10th August 2021
Date of pronouncing judgment : 31st January, 2022
JUDGMENT:
This group of five appeals is being decided by this
common judgment since common questions of facts and law
arise therein. Moreover, all the appeals in the group arise
from the judgments and awards passed by the Court of 3 rd Jt.
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in respective Land
Acquisition References, L.A.R. Nos.15/2020, 21/2020,
23/2020, 22/2020 and 24/2020 respectively.
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeals are as
follows :-
The appellants were the owners, in possession of
agricultural lands, specifically described in paragraph No.1 of
the memorandums of respective appeals. These lands came
to be acquired for resettlement of project affected persons.
In short, the lands came to be acquired for establishment of a
new gaothan of the village, "Divi", Taluka Sindkheda, District
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 7 ::
Dhule. Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act came to be published in the month of December 2005.
The Land Acquisition Officer/s passed the award/s in October
2008. The appellants herein felt to have not been paid
adequate compensation for the agricultural lands compulsorily
acquired and, therefore, preferred Land Acquisition
References. The learned Reference Court, vide her judgments
and awards dated 2/1/2012 and 22/12/2011, allowed all the
References, granting compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- per
hector for jirayat land and Rs.1,25,000/- per hector for Pot
Kharab land with all the consequential benefits. Still, feeling
to have not been granted adequate enhancement in the
amount of compensation, the appellants have preferred the
present appeals.
3. Heard. Shri M.M. Bhokarikar, learned counsel for
the appellants would submit that, the lands have been
acquired for establishment of a village (i.e. non-agricultural
purpose). Surrounding the land acquired, is a residential
area. The appellants herein had placed on record comparable
sale instances. The Reference Court ought to have considered
those sale deeds for grant of compensation. The learned
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 8 ::
counsel has relied on a bunch of authorities as under :-
(1) State of Maharashtra Vs. Prashram Jagannath Aute
[2007 (5) AIR Bom R. 94]
Law must state reasons and reasons should have
reasonable nexus to facts of case. There is no straitjacket
formula to resolve all controversies uniformly, parties have to
lead evidence to show that lands have greater potential and
value. In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to
corelate the market value reflected in the most comparable
instance which provides the index of market value.
(2) Goa Housing Board Vs. Rameshchandra Govind
Pawaskar & anr. [ AIR 2012 SC 193 ]
If the land is used only for the agricultural
purposes, it may not be possible to arrive at the market value
thereof with reference to the market value of nearby
residential plots.
(3) Chanabasappa Vs. Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.
[2020 (2) Scale 289]
Interest to be awarded from the date of
possession. Onus to prove entitlement to higher compensation
is upon claimants - Parties have to lead evidence to show that
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 9 ::
lands have greater potential and value.
(4) U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Ganga Saran (Dead)
Thr. L.Rs. & ors. [ AIR 2019 SC (Supp) 1. ]
Sale Deeds of comparable sales of small area can
be considered by making suitable deduction for fixing market
value.
(5) Kamalabai Etc. Vs. Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land
Acquisition Officer, Bijapur, Karnataka & ors. Etc.
[ AIR 2017 SC (Supp) 777 ]
Determination of compensation.
(6) Ali Mohammad Beigh Vs. State of J. and K.
[ AIR 2017 SC 1518 ]
Acquired lands situated nearby, identical and
similar, and for same purpose, it would not be proper to
discriminate between the landowners unless there are strong
reasons.
(7) Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana
[ AIR 2016 SC 1341 ]
Rate is awarded as compensation in respect of
land situated in adjoining having same potentiality as that of
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 10 ::
land in question. Not granting same land value to questioned
land is not proper.
(8) Digambar & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
[ AIR 2013 SC 3532 ]
Acquired land was in near proximity of residential
lay-out and there is possibility of township of getting
development in future for enhancing market value of acquired
land cannot be said to be wrong.
(9) Trishila Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal
[ AIR 2011 SC 2458 ]
Determination of market value and deduction
towards development charges.
(10) Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb
[ AIR 2011 SC 3178 ]
Acquired land is situated in residential locality and
in midst of highly developed industrial locality, it is to be
considered as non-agricultural land for determination of
compensation. Sale instances of small piece of land can be
relied in certain circumstances.
(11) Thakur Kuldeep Singh Vs. Union of India
[ AIR 2010 SC 1272 ]
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 11 ::
Factors to be considered for determination of
compensation. Acquired land located within developed
commercial hub of locality.
(12) Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujrat Vs. Madhubhai
Gobarbhai [ AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2566 ]
Distinction between agricultural land and non-
agricultural land should be taken into consideration. Only
because land is situated within jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat
by itself would not go to show that value of lands. There may
be case where lands situated on one side of the road was
within Gaon Sabha and other side within municipality.
(13) Sharadamma Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
[ 2007 AIR SCW 1109 ]
Acquired land was surrounded by factories, having
industrial potential, situated adjoining to national highway and
near corporation.
(14) Trishila Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal
[ AIR 2011 SC 2458 ]
High Court should have allowed application
particularly when entire evidence sought to be produced by
way of additional evidence challenged by the very basis of
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 12 ::
judgment of High Court. Held, facts stated in that application
can be examined by Supreme Court as they were already part
of judicial record in C.A. which had been listed for hearing.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants ultimately
urged for grant of substantial enhancement in the amount of
compensation.
5. Shri A.D. Pawar, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 acquiring body would, on the other hand,
submit that, on the date of notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act), all the lands
were agricultural lands. The lands were jirayat as well.
Relying on the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex
Court, he would submit that, future development and
potential, prospective use of the acquisition, cannot be taken
into consideration. Section 24 of the Act expressly prohibits
and puts an embargo on the Court in taking the factum
therein as relevant in determining the market value, under
which future development and potential respective use, is not
relevant. According to learned counsel, the Reference Court
has granted enhancement more than five times of the amount
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 13 ::
of compensation offered by the Collector. He, therefore,
urged for dismissal of the appeals. Learned counsel has relied
on the following authorities.
(3) Tarlochan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
[ 1995 (2) SCC 424 ]
(4) Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru Vs. Jasti Rohini
[ 1995 (1) SCC 717 ]
(5) Rajashekar Sankappa Taradandi Vs. Asstt.
Commissioner and Land Acquisition officer
[ 1996 AIR (SC) 3222 ]
(6) Basant Kumar Vs. Union of India
[ 1996 (11) SCC 542 ]
(7) Chandrashekar (D) by L.Rs. & ors. Vs. Land Acquisition
Officer & anr. [ 2012 AIR (SC) 446 ]
(8) State of Maharashtra Vs. Hitesh Deoraj Gosar & ors.
[ 2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 748 ]
(9) Maya Devi (Dead) through L.Rs. & ors. Vs. State of
Haryana & anr. [ 2018 AIR (SC) 645 ]
(10) State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari
[ 2016 AIR (Bom.) 141 ]
6. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused
the impugned judgments and awards. The Reference Court
has observed the appellants to have not produced the
evidence to show that the lands in question were situated in
close proximity of the lands covered by the sale instances
relied on. It also observed that, there is no direct evidence to
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 14 ::
prove that the quality of land in question is not same as of the
lands sold under the respective sale instances. It, therefore,
did not place reliance on the sale deeds relied on. It also
found that, all the lands acquired were unirrigated (jirayat)
lands.
7. This Court finds no reason to take a different view.
Admittedly, the acquired lands were agricultural lands, larger
in area. Notifications under Section 4 of the Act were
published in the month of December 2005. It is not in the
oral evidence of the appellants that no sale deed of the month
or year of publication of notification under Section 4 was
available to rely upon. The appellants relied on the two sale
deeds dated 14/12/2001 and 4/1/2002 (Exh "A" of Civil
Application No.5644/2014), whereunder a house site
(Bakhal), admeasuring not more than 72 sq.ft. came to be
sold for Rs.10,000/-. It is reiterated that, the piece of land
comprised under these two sale deeds admeasured not more
than 72 sq.ft. whereas the lands acquired are not less than 1
or 2 Hectors. No reasons are required to be given to state
that these sale deeds can in no way be termed to be the
comparable sale deeds relevant to be relied on for grant of
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 15 ::
compensation.
Another sale deed relied on is dated 31/7/2008
(Exh.A of Civil Application No.5644/2014) i.e. two and half
years after publication of the notification under Section 4 of
the Act. The lands comprised therein are irrigated lands.
Under the said sale deed, the sugar factory (Unique Sugars
Ltd.) purchased the land admeasuring little over 6 acres for
Rs.1,12,24,000/-. The sale deed can also not be termed to be
the comparable sale instance. At the cost of repetition, it is
observed that, the appellants have not produced the sale
deed executed in respect of the agricultural land in the year
2005. It appears that, considering the potential of the lands
acquired, the Reference Court has granted enhancement in
compensation.
8. Both the learned counsel for the appellants and
respondent acquiring body have filed Civil Applications
seeking production of certain documentary evidence. The
Civil Applications are allowed.
9. The appellants have placed on record copies of the
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 16 ::
very sale deeds which were relied on before the Reference
Court as a comparable sale instances. A village map has also
been placed on record. Whereas the learned counsel for the
respondent acquiring body has placed on record five sale
deeds executed some time before publication of notification
under Section 4 of the Act. Those sale deeds are, therefore,
very much relevant to be looked into. The details thereof are
as under :
Sr. Names of buyer (B) & Date of Name Total Area Value
No. Seller (S) Sale of consider under per
Deed Village ation sale Hector
1 (B) Madhukar Ratan 5/5/05 Devi 1,12,500 2 H 47,268
Masule 38 R
(S) Jaidev Naga Patil &
ors.
2 (B) Nilabai Rupsing 15/4/05 Rudane 92,000 1H 63,888
Girase 44 R
(S) Bhagwan Rajaram
Patil
3 (B) Vimalbai Gotesing 8/6/05 Rudane 32,500 57 R 57,017
Girase
(S) Kevalsing
Narayansing Rajput
4 Bhatabai Jaising Girase 8/6/05 Rudane 63,500 1H 57,727
(S) Kevalbai 10 R
Narayasing Girase
5 (B) Himmatsing 15/4/05 Rudane 92,000 1H 63,448
Rupsing Girase 45 R
(B) Bhagwan Rajaram
Patil
First Appeal No.7/2014 with
connected First Appeals
:: 17 ::
10. From the aforesaid sale deeds, it does appear that
the Reference Court has granted more compensation. In view
of this Court, the said compensation is adequate one. The
acquiring body has also placed on record the details to have
been spending over Rs.14 Crores for resettlement of the
village Divi. It has been specifically stated on affidavit that
the work of development is still under way/ progress. As
such, the acquired lands would not have fetched market price
more than what has been awarded by the Reference Court. As
such, the appellants have failed to make out a case for
enhancement of compensation. The appeals, therefore, fail.
The same are dismissed.
( R. G. AVACHAT )
JUDGE
fmp/-
