Bombay High Court
Vikas Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 March, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.794 OF 2015
Prakash s/o Damu Shingare
Age 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Newli, Tq. & District Latur ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Latur,
Tq. & District Latur
2) The Special Land Acquisition
Officer and S.D.O., Latur,
Tq. and District Latur
3) Vikas Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,
through the Managing Director,
Newali, Tq. & District Latur. ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Shri Milind Patil, Advocate for appellant
Shri A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2
Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel with
Shri A.V. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.3.
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.3000 OF 2008
Vikas Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd.,
At Vaishalinagar, Post Nivli,
Tq. and District Latur,
through its Managing Director,
Sadashiv Deorao Bokhare,
Age 52 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Vaishalinagar, post Nivli,
Tq. and District Latur. ... APPELLANT
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:06:55 :::
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 2 ::
VERSUS
1) Ramling s/o Shankar Vibhute,
Age 84 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Nivli, Tq. and District Latur.
2) The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur. ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel with
Shri A.V. Hon, Advocate for appellant
Shri A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondent No.2
.......
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11617 OF 2010 WITH
CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.22551 OF 2010 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.3000 OF 2008
Shri Ramling s/o Shankar Vibhute
Age 58 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Nivli, Tq. and Dist. Latur. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1) Vikas Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd.,
at Vaishali Nagar, Post Nivli,
Tq. and District Latur.
Through its Managing Director,
Sadashiv s/o Deorao Bokhare
Age 55 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Vaishali Nagar, Post Nivli,
Tq. and District Latur.
2) The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Latur,
Tq. and District Latur
(Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader,
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:06:55 :::
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 3 ::
.......
Shri A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for appellant
Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel with
Shri A.V. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondent No.2
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.3053 OF 2015
Vikas Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,
At Vaishalinagar, Post Niwli,
Tq. and District Latur,
through its Managing Director ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur,
District Latur
2) The Special Land Acquisition
Officer and the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Latur, District Latur
3) Prakash Damu Shingare,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Niwli, Tq. and District Latur ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel with
Shri A.V. Hon, Advocate for appellant
Shri A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2
Shri Milind Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3
.......
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
Date of reserving judgment : 25th October, 2021.
Date of pronouncing judgment : 15th March, 2022.
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:06:55 :::
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 4 ::
JUDGMENT:
Civil Application No.11617/2010 for condonation
of delay in filing Objection Stamp No.22551/2010 is allowed.
These appeals along with Cross-Objection in one
of them (First Appeal No.3000/2008) are being decided by
this common judgment since common questions of fact and
law arise therein.
2. First Appeal No.3000/2008 and 3053/2015 have
been filed by Vikas Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (for short sugar
factory) taking exception to the judgments and award dated
25/4/2008 and 19/12/2014, passed by Jt. Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Latur in L.A.R. No.174/2004 and L.A.R. No.175/2004
respectively. While the First Appeal No.794/2015 has been
filed for enhancement of compensation awarded under
judgment and award dated 19/12/2014, passed by Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Latur in L.A.R. No.175/2004.
Moreover, the original land owner has preferred Cross-
Objection in First Appeal No.3000/2008 for enhancement of
compensation awarded under the impugned judgment and
award dated 25/4/2008 passed in L.A.R. No.174/2004.
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 5 ::
3. The details of the lands acquired and the
compensation awarded therefor are as under :
First Appeal Land Gut No. & Amount of Amount of
No. area compensatio compensation
n awarded by awarded by
SLAO Reference
Court.
3000/2008 658, admeasuring Rs.150,000/-
6 Hectors 65 R per acre with all
consequential
benefits.
794/2015 655, admeasuring Rs. 46,500/- Rs.83,200/-
2 Hectors 88 R
4. Learned counsel for the appellants in First Appeal
No.794/2015 and the petitioner in Cross-Objection in First
Appeal No.3000/2008 would submit that, the lands acquired
had non-agricultural potential. The lands were acquired for
establishment of sugar factory. Two sale instances namely
Exhs.24 and 25 were relied on to show that the owners
thereof had laid residential lay-out in his land Gut No.48.
Under these sale instances dated 16/11/2000, two plots/
house sites admeasuring 33 x 24 each were sold for
Rs.37,500/-. The rate per sq.ft. of the plots sold is Rs.45/-.
The acquired lands have been in the close vicinity of the land
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 6 ::
Gut No.48. The Reference Court, therefore, ought to have
relied on these two sale exemplars for grant of compensation.
5. The learned counsel for the Cross Objectionist in
First Appeal No.3000/2008 would submit that, the entire land
of the Objectionist has been acquired. He has thus become
landless. The sale instances relied on in this Land Acquisition
Reference (Exhs.22 and 23), dated 8/3/2002 and 31/7/2001
respectively would indicate that the lands comprised therein
were sold for Rs.3,25,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively.
The learned Reference Court ought to have relied on the sale
exemplars of highest value to grant the compensation. The
learned counsel ultimately urged for allowing the appeals,
granting compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre or Rs.45/-
per sq.ft.
6. The learned A.G.P. for the State and the learned
Senior Counsel for the sugar factory would, on the other
hand, submit that, the amount of compensation offered by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer was just and reasonable.
According to him, the owner of the land Gut No.658 has sold
his 3 acres of land to the sugar factory itself @ Rs.25,000/-
per acre. This suggests the market value of the land acquired
was not more than Rs.25,000/- per acre on the date of
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 7 ::
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The learned counsel, therefore, urged for dismissal of the
appeal and Cross Objection, and allowing the Appeals filed by
the sugar factory.
7. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused
the evidence relied on. Gone through the impugned
judgments and awards.
The lands in Gut Nos.655 and 658 belonging to
the appellant in First Appeal No.794/2015 and respondent in
First Appeal No.3000/2008 were acquired for establishment of
the sugar factory way back in the year 2003. Notification
under Section 4 of the Act was published on 23/9/2002 while
the award came to be passed in December 2003. The
Reference Court in L.A.R. No.175/2004 (First Appeal
No.794/2015) has observed that the appellant had admitted
in no uncertain terms that in the days of acquisition, he was
cultivating the land, and crops like hybrid and Tur were raised
therein. The Reference Court, therefore, found the land to be
unirrigated. The Reference Court did not rely on the sale
instances Exhs.24 and 25, dated 16/11/2000 for the reason
that the owner of the agricultural land Gut No.48 sold the
plots therein without converting the said land to non-
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 8 ::
agricultural assessment. The Reference Court found that the
Special Land Acquisition Officer had referred not less than 8
sale instances. One of them was for Rs.71,408/-. It was a
case of sale of land in Gut No.15. 1 Hector of land was sold
for Rs.71,408 on 21/3/2001. Since the notification under
Section 4 was dated 23/9/2002, the Reference Court granted
10% appreciation therein and worked out the compensation
at Rs.83,200/- per hector.
8. While in case of First Appeal No.3000/2008, the
Reference Court found that since the entire land of the
respondent was acquired for the sugar factory, the respondent
thus became landless. Although he has sold his 3 acres of
land to the sugar factory on private negotiations @
Rs.25,000/- per acre, the said rate did not depict true price of
the land sold. The Reference Court relied on the case of the
respondent/ land owner that the promoter of the sugar
factory was the son of the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra.
The land owner was promised a job for at least one of the
members of his family. The promise was not kept. Be that as
it may. The Reference Court found the rate of Rs.25,000/-
per acre to be grossly inadequate. The Reference Court also
held the compensation offered by the Special Land Acquisition
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 9 ::
Officer to be grossly inadequate. It, therefore, enhanced the
same to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre with all consequential
benefits.
9. True, the owner of the land Gut No.46 sold the
said land piecemeal. He appears to have laid a lay-out in the
said land on his own. The sale exemplars Exhs.25 and 26,
dated 16/11/2000 indicate that the two plots admeasuring 33
x 24 were sold for consideration of Rs.37,500/- each. The
recitals of both the sale deeds indicate that the vendor
received Rs.25,000/- per plot and acknowledged to have
received Rs.12,500/- each as earnest money in the past. No
details thereof have been given. This Court, therefore, holds
it to have sold the plots for Rs.25,000/- each.
10. Whereas the sale instances Exhs.22 and 23 relied
on in L.A.R. No.174/2004 would indicate that the sale deed
Exh.22 was dated 8/3/2002. The ready reckoner value of the
land comprised therein was Rs.15,000/-. Only 1 acre of land
was sold thereunder for Rs.3,25,000/-. The recitals thereof
indicate that the vendor simply acknowledged to have
received a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as earnest money in the
past. No details thereof have been given. He received
Rs.50,000/- in cash before the Sub-Registrar. While the sale
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 10 ::
exemplar Exh.23 indicates it to be dated 31/7/2001. 1 acre
of land was sold for Rs.2,00,000/-. The recitals thereof
indicate that, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was received before the
Sub-Registrar while equal amount of money is acknowledged
to have been received in the past. Admittedly, owners of the
land in the said vicinity were in the know that the lands were
to be acquired for the sugar factory. Some of the land owners
had, therefore, filed a Writ petition in the year 2000 itself to
ensure that no lands are acquired. The sale instances
Exhs.23 and 24, therefore, do not depict the true market
value of the land sold. The Tribunal observed that the lands
comprised therein were acquired for laying of plots and sale
thereof for residential purpose. This Court too finds the sale
exemplars Exhs.23 and 24 not to be relied on since the hefty
amount of consideration is acknowledged to have been
received long back without there being details in proof of the
same.
11. Considering the entire evidence on record and in
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that
the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre granted by the Reference
Court to owner of the land of Gut No.658 would depict a true
market value of the land, specially considering (to limited
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 11 ::
extent) the two sale instances of Rs.2,00,000/- and
Rs.3,25,000/- respectively. This Court, therefore, finds no
reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed in
L.A.R No.174/2004, granting compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/-
per acre.
12. The land Gut no.655 has been acquired for the
very purpose pursuant to one and the same acquisition
proceedings. The land is in the nearby of the land which is
subject matter of L.A.R. No.174/2004. The owner of this
land, on the principle of parity is, therefore, entitled to have a
compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. In view of this, the
First Appeals and Cross Objection are disposed of in terms of
the following order :-
ORDER
(i) First Appeal No.3000/2008 along with Cross-
Objection Stamp No.22551/2010 and First Appeal
No.3053/2015 are dismissed.
(ii) First Appeal No.794/2015 is allowed, enhancing the
amount of compensation to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.
Rest of the terms of the award in L.A.R.
No.175/2004 to stand unaltered, except the interest
F.A. No.794/2015 with
F.A. No.3053/2015 & 3008/08
:: 12 ::
be paid from the date of award and not from the
date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
(iii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
( R. G. AVACHAT )
JUDGE
fmp/-
