Bombay High Court
Goaus Mehtab Bagwan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 1 July, 2024
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
2024:BHC-AUG:12707-DB
1 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1668 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
2. The Principal,
Police Training School,
Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ... Appellants
[Orig. Respondents]
Versus
Digambar Manik Kalyankar,
Age: 48 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Vivekanand Chowk, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ... Respondent
[Orig. Claimant]
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1669 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
2. The Principal,
Police Training School,
Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ... Appellants
[Orig. Respondents]
Versus
1. Bashir Kondaji Bagwan
Age: 52 years
2. Chandpasha Kondaji Bagwan
Age: 55 years
Both Occu: Business
R/o. Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur ... Respondents
[Orig. Claimants]
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1670 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
2. The Principal,
Police Training School,
2 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ... Appellants
[Orig. Respondents]
Versus
Goaus Mahtab Bagwan
Age: 57 years, Occu; Business
R/o. Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur ... Respondent
[Orig. Claimant]
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1671 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
2. The Principal,
Police Training School,
Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ... Appellants
[Orig. Respondents]
Versus
Narsingrao s/o. Rangnathrao Deshmukh,
Age: 43 years, Occu: Agri.,
R/o: Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ... Respondent
[Orig. Claimant]
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.742 OF 2019
Digambar s/o Manikrao Kalyankar
Age: 52 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Vivekanand Chowk, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ... Appellant
[Orig. Claimant]
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.743 OF 2019
Goaus Mahtab Bagwan
Age: 60 years, Occu: Business,
R/o Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur ...Appellant
[Orig. Claimant]
Versus
3 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.744 OF 2019
Narsing s/o Rangnathrao Deshmukh
Age: 47 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o: Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ... Appellant
[Orig. Claimant]
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.745 OF 2019
1. Bashir Kondaji Bagwan
Age: 56 years, Occu: Business
2. Chandpasha Kondaji Bagwan
Age: 55 years, Occu: Business,
Both R/o Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur .... Appellants
[Orig. Claimants]
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
.....
Appearance :-
Mr. Amit S. Deshpande, Advocate for the Appellants in First
Appeal Nos.742/2019, 743/2019, 744/2019 and 745/2019
Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Appellants / State in First Appeal
Nos.1668/2014, 1669/2014, 1670/2014 and 1671/2014 and AGP
for Respondents / State in First Appeal Nos.742/2019,
743/2019, 744/2019 and 745/2019
.....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Reserved on : 17th April, 2024
Pronounced On : 1st July, 2024
4 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
JUDGMENT :
[ PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
1. These are the Appeals under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act']
against the Judgment and Decree / Award dated 08/04/2013,
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur
[hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court'] in group of
references arising out of the Land Acquisition Proceedings
under the said Act initiated by the Land Acquisition Offcer
[hereinafter referred to as 'the LAO'] for the purpose of Police
Training School at Babhalgaon, Taluka and District Latur vide
No.2006/LNQ/CR-1.
2. The Claimants preferred the Appeal Nos.742/2019,
743/2019, 744/2019 and 745/2019 and the State also preferred
the Appeal Nos.1668/2014, 1669/2014, 1670/2014 and
1671/2014 against the impugned Judgment and Award passed
by the learned Reference Court. Since all the Appeals arise out
of the one and the same Judgment and Decree/Award of the
Reference Court, they are being disposed of by this common
Judgment.
3. The factual aspects of the subject matter, as seen from the
papers on record, are as follows :
(a) For the aforementioned purpose, the LAO issued the
preliminary notifcation under Section 4(1) of the said Act on
17/05/2006. Thereafter, he issued the notifcation under
Section 6 of the said Act on 12/09/2006. The following lands of
the Claimants, who were the owners and possessors of the
lands, were the subject matter of acquisition for the aforesaid
purpose and following rates were offered by the LAO :-
5 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
Sr. LAR No. Block No. Acquired area. Rate per sq. meter
No. given by LAO
1 664/2009 34 11,100 sq. mtrs. 88/- sq. mtr.
2 663/2009 28 8,300 sq. mtrs. 88/- sq. mtr.
3 665/2009 29 6,700 sq. mtrs. 88/- sq. mtr.
4 666/2009 29 7,400 sq. mtrs. 88/- sq. mtr.
(b) The LAO passed the Award on 06/08/2007 in the said
acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 12 of the said Act.
Being not satisfed with the compensation awarded by the LAO,
the Claimants preferred References under Section 18 of the said
Act and claimed the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. ft. without any
deduction. The Claimants led their evidence before the
Reference Court. The learned Reference Court, vide common
Judgment and Decree/Award dated 08/04/2013, partly allowed
the references and enhanced the compensation to Rs.220/- per
sq. ft. with statutory beneft of 30% solatium under Section 23
(2) of the said Act, 12% third component from the date of
notifcation under Section 4 of the said Act till the date of
Award, along with interest @ 9% p.a. for the frst year and the
interest @ 15% p.a. for the subsequent years till realization of
the entire amount.
4. Heard the learned Advocate Mr. Deshpande for the
Claimants and the learned AGP for the State.
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimants
that the Claimants relied on four (4) sale instances in support
of their claim for enhanced compensation. However, the learned
Reference Court ignored the highest sale instance without
assigning any reason. He submits that it is settled position
under the law that the highest sale instance is required to be
6 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
considered. He submitted that the sale deeds, which were relied
upon by the Claimants, were of three (3) years and seven (7)
months prior to the Notifcation under Section 4 of the said Act.
The learned Reference Court without there being any positive
evidence and without considering the purpose of the
acquisition, deducted 25% towards development charges, which
is contrary to law. He submitted that only 10% ought to have
been deducted towards development charges by considering the
purpose for which the lands were acquired. Therefore, the
Appeals be allowed and the amount claimed by the Claimants be
awarded.
6. In support of his submission, he relied on the following
Judgments:
(i) M Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Vs.
Collector; MANU/SC/0309/1963: (1969) 1 MLJ 45
(SC)
(ii) Anjani Molu Desai Vs. State of Goa & Ors.;
(2010) 13 SCC 710
(iii) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Panjab;
(2012) 5 SCC 432
(iv) General Manager Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd.
Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate; (2008) 14 SCC 745
(v) Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.;
(2008) 2 SCC 568
7. It is submitted by the learned AGP that the LAO,
considering all the aspects such as quality, fertility, utility,
amenities available, development, location etc. awarded
appropriate compensation for the acquired lands. He submitted
that the learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of
7 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
compensation on higher side though the witness in cross-
examination admitted that the land was of medium quality and
rock land. The learned Reference Court did not consider the
sale instances of village Sarola. The statutory benefts are also
not granted as per law and ought to have dismissed the claim. It
is submitted that the Appeals fled by the State be allowed.
8. In support of his contention, he relied on the following
Judgments;
(i) State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari;
2016 AIR (Bom.) 141
(ii) State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Digamber
Bhimashankar Tandale and Ors.; (1996) 2 SCC 583 -
MANU/SC/1090/1996
(iii) Ranvir Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI);
AIR 2005 SC 3467 - MANU/SC/0554/2005
9. Having heard both the sides and perusing the evidence on
record, we proceed to examine the contentions on merit.
Admittedly, the Claimants' lands are acquired for the Police
Training School. The Claimants led the evidence of one witness
and brought on record the documentary evidence in the nature
of sale instances below Exhibits - 21 to 24. The State / LAO did
not lead any evidence though they placed on record the
certifed copies of sale instances of village Sarola below Exhibits
- 33 to 38. The non-agricultural potentiality of the acquired
land is not in dispute. The sale instance relied upon by the
State / LAO is of different village which, as seen from the
impugned Judgment and Award, was situated in an interior
area. There cannot be any dispute that the sale instances have
to be comparable with the acquired lands. There is no reason,
8 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
as seen from the relevant papers, by the LAO to consider the
sale instances of different village and not of the village where
the acquired lands were situated. This aspect is considered by
the learned Reference Court.
10. The observations made by the learned Reference Court in
the impugned Judgment and Decree / Award that the LAO has
further observed in his Award that the land under acquisition
and the land under sale instances at village Babhalgaon were
identical and the transactions of the sale instances from Gat
No.28 of the Babhalgaon were worth consideration, is based on
the observations in the Award. The Award show that the LAO
has referred to in all nine (9) sale instances from village
Babhalgaon and Sarola in the tabular chart. No fault can be
found that the observations made by the learned Reference
Court that as per law, the LAO ought to have considered the sale
instances, frstly from village Babhalgaon [where the acquired
lands are situated] and if the sale instances from the same
village were not available, the sale instances from adjoining
village could have been considered.
11. The Claimants relied on the sale instances, as referred
above in support of their claim for enhancement of
compensation. The area and the rates mentioned in the sale
instances are referred below :
Sr. Dates of sale Plot area Gat No. Village Consideration
No. instances in Rupees
1 30/12/2002 1400 sq. ft. 28 Babhalgaon 300,000/-
2 07/10/2002 1619.50 sq. ft. 28 Babhalgaon 3,68,000/-
3 01/11/2002 1400 sq. ft. 28 Babhalgaon 3,33,000/-
4 29/10/2002 1400 sq. ft. 28 Babhalgaon 4,00,000/-
9 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
12. The learned Reference Court arrived at the conclusion
that the above referred sale instances relied upon by the
Claimants were identical and similar to that of the acquired
lands and concluded that the sale instances can be considered
for determining the exact market price of the acquired lands.
Considering the date of notifcation under Section 4 of the said
Act and the date of sale instances relied upon by the Claimants,
the learned Reference Court observed that it was highly
impossible that the sale instances were mala fed. The learned
Trial Court concluded that the above sale instances were bona
fed without any mala fed intention. It is nobodies case that the
said observations made by the learned Reference Court were
incorrect or perverse.
13. Though the learned Reference Court arrived at the above
referred conclusions and fndings and was of the view as seen
from the observations made in Paragraph No.29 of the
impugned Judgment and Decree / Award that the sale instances
below Exhibits 21 to 24 took place in the year 2002 and
notifcation under Section 4 of the said Act has been published
on 17/05/2006 and considered 10% increase per year for three
years, then the said price comes to Rs.278/-, Rs.295/-, Rs.309/-
and Rs.371/- per sq. ft. respectively as per the the sale
instances [referred by the Claimants] and though the sale
instances referred by the LAO in the Award at Sr. Nos.1 and 2,
then also by considering 10% increase per annum, the sale price
comes to Rs.230/- and Rs.270/- per sq. ft., held that it would
consider the average of the sale instances placed before it and
considered the sale instance below Exhibit - 22 [Rs.295/-] for
determining the market price by considering it as more
reasonable and comparable sale instance. Ratio of the above
10 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
referred Judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the
Claimants cited [Supra] show that, in the event of several
exemplar, usually the highest exemplar is to be considered.
14. According to the learned Reference Court as seen from the
observations made in Paragraph No.30 of the impugned
Judgment and Decree / Award that the highest comparable sale
instance comes to Rs.371/- per sq. ft. and lowest price comes to
Rs.278/- per sq. ft., it considered the comparable sale instance
below Exhibit - 22 and held that it would be just and proper to
award the compensation at rate of Rs.295/- per sq. ft. to the
Claimants. Once the learned Reference Court held that the sale
instances relied upon by the Claimants were identical and
similar to that of acquired lands and can be considered to
determine the exact market price, the highest sale instance
amongst the sale instances relied upon by the Claimants ought
to have been considered, in the light of the above referred
position under the law. In the light of the above discussion, we
hold that the compensation awarded by the learned Reference
Court to the Claimants is required to be modifed to that of the
sale instances at Exhibit - 24 relied upon by the Claimants and
held to be identical with the acquired land by the learned
Reference Court.
15. Though one of the contention of the Claimants is to grant
10% escalation in the rates per year, the rate Rs. 371/- per sq.
ft. calculated by the learned Reference Court for sale instances
at Exhibit - 24, is inclusive of 10% increase per year for three
years. Therefore, there is no question of recalculating the
amount per sq. ft. by adding 10% hike per year.
11 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
16. As regards the deduction towards development charges is
concerned, it is observed in Paragraph No.34 of the impugned
Judgment and Decree / Award that admittedly, in the present
reference the acquired lands of the Claimants in all the
reference petitions were large, therefore, 25% deduction is
made towards development charges from the compensation
amount. On the point of deduction towards development
charges, reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the
Claimants on the Judgment in the case of Atma Singh Vs. State
of Haryana and Ors. [Supra] in support of the contention that
deduction towards development charges be only 10%. On this
very point, the learned AGP placed reliance on the Judgments
cited [Supra]. On the point of deduction towards development
charges, useful reference can be made to the Judgment / Order
dated 21/09/2017 in Jag Mahender and Another Vs. State of
Haryana and Ors.; 2017 SCC Online SC 2160, wherein, following
is observed :
"5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our
opinion, the High Court has erred in law in not applying the cut
for the development, and in giving the 15% appreciation and
that too on a cumulative basis. The area has to be deducted for
the purpose of development, as has been laid down by this
court, while considering a plethora of decisions, in Major
General Kapil Mehra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2015) 2
SC 262] in which this court has considered this question thus:
"33. In Haryana State Agricultural Market Board vs. Krishan
Kumar, (2011) 15 SCC 297, it was held as under:
"10. It is now well settled that if the value of small
developed plots should be the basis, appropriate
deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the
area to be used for roads, drains, and common facilities
like park, open space, etc. Thereafter, further deduction
will have to be made towards the cost of development,
that is, the cost of leveling the land, cost of laying roads
and drains, and the cost of drawing electrical, water and
sewer lines."
12 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
35. Reiterating the rule of one-third deduction towards
development, in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla
vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595, this
Court in paragraph 19 held as under:-
"19. In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which
is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have
generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value
towards development cost except when no development is
required to be made for implementation of the public
purpose for which land in acquired. In Kasturi vs. State of
Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354) the Court held: (SCC pp. 359-
60, para 7)
"7... It is well settled that in respect of agricultural
land or undeveloped land which has potential value
for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd
amount of compensation has to be deducted out of
the amount of compensation payable on the
acquired land subject to certain variations
depending on its nature, location, extent of
expenditure involved for development and the area
required for road and other civic amenities to
develop the land so as to make the plots for
residential or commercial purposes. A land may be
plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or
hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of
making construction; may be the land is situated in
the midst of a developed area all around but that
land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may
be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses
that may be incurred in developing the area also
varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully
developed and nothing more is required to be done
for developmental purposes must show on the basis
of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located.
In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that
the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is
not enough, particularly when the extent of the
acquired land is large and even if a small portion of
the land is abutting the main road in the developed
area, does not give the land the character or a
developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if
one portion on one side abuts the main road, the
remaining large area where planned development is
required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage,
sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic
amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land
where there are certain advantages by virtue of the
developed area around, it may help in reducing the
percentage of cut to be applied, as the
developmental charges required may be less on that
13 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
account. There may be various factual factors which
may have to be taken into consideration while
applying the cut in payment of compensation
towards developmental charges, may be in some
cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less
than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is
difference between a developed area and an area
having potential value, which is yet to be developed.
The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a
developed area will not ipso facto make every land
situated in the area also developed to be valued as a
building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts
are acquired, as in this case, for development
purpose."
The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tejumal
Bhojwani v. State of U.P. ((2003)10 SCC 525, V.
Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2003) 12
SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2
SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development
Authority (2004)10 SCC 745"
36. While determining the market value of the acquired land,
normally one-third deduction i.e. 33 1/3% towards development
charges is allowed. One-third deduction towards development
was Land in Tehsildar(L.A.) vs. A. Mangala Gowri, (1991) 4 SCC
218; Gulzara Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 SCC 245;
Santosh Kumari vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 10 SCC 631;
Revenue Divisional Officer & L.A.O. vs. Sk. Azam Saheb, (2009)
4 SCC 395; A.P. Housing Board vs. K. Manohar Reddy, (2010)12
SCC 707; Ashrafi vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 5 SCC 527 and
Kashmir Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 165.
37. Depending on nature and location of the acquired land,
extent of land required to be set apart and expenses involved
for development, 30% to 50% deduction towards development
was allowed in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board vs.
Krishan Kumar (2011) 15 SCC 297; Director, Land Acquisition
vs. Malla Atchinaidua 2006 (12) SCC 87; Mummidi Apparao vs.
Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 1506; and
Lal Chand vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769.
38. In few other cases, deduction of more than 50% was
upheld. In the facts and circumstances of the case in Basavva v.
Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC 640, this Court upheld
the deduction of 65%. In Kanta Devi vs. State of Haryana
(2008) 15 SCC 201, deduction of 60% towards development
charges was held to be legal. This Court in Subh Ram vs. State
of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, held that deduction of 67%
amount was not improper. Similarly, in Chandrasekhar vs. Land
Acquisition Officer, (2012) 1 SCC 390, deduction of 70% was
upheld.
14 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
39. We have referred to various decisions of this Court on
deduction towards development to stress upon the point that
deduction towards development depends upon the nature and
location of the acquired land. The deduction includes
components of land required to be set apart under the building
rules for roads, sewage, electricity, parks and other common
facilities and also deduction towards development charges like
laying of roads, construction of sewerage."
17. The acquisition, in the present matter, is for Police
Training School. As observed by the learned Reference Court,
the lands are large in size. There is no evidence or it is nobody's
case that the acquired lands are developed to suit the purpose
of acquisition. It is needless to state that for Police Training
School also, necessary development such as sewage, roads,
electricity, etc. would be necessary. Thus, in view of these and
admitted factual aspects as can be seen from the observations
made in the impugned Judgment and Decree / Award of the
Reference Court and principles as observed in the above case,
the deductions towards development charges ought to have
been one-third deduction i.e. 33 1/3 %. We, accordingly, modify
the percentage [%] towards development charges considered by
the learned Reference Court and the amount per sq. ft. will have
to be accordingly modifed.
18. In view of the above discussions, we proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
(a) The Appeal Nos.742/2019, 743/2019, 744/2019 and
745/2019 fled by the Claimants are partly allowed.
(b) The Claimants would be entitled for compensation towards
acquired lands @ Rs.371/- per sq. ft. (Inclusive of 10% hike
per year for three years).
(c) The Appeal Nos.1668/2014, 1669/2014, 1670/2014 and
1671/2014 fled by the State are partly allowed.
15 FA-1668-2014 and Ors.odt
(d) Deduction towards development charges be calculated at
the rate of one-third i.e. 33 1/3 % from the amount of
compensation.
(e) The impugned Judgment and Decree / Award stands
modifed to the above extent.
(f) Rest of the impugned Judgment and Decree / Award
stands unaltered.
(g) Decree be drawn-up accordingly.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)
Sameer
Signed by: Md. Sameer Q.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/07/2024 11:01:56
