Bombay High Court
Padmaraj Dulichand Surana Died Thr Lrs ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:9668
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.548 OF 2017
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad
Through its Authorized Officer, ... Appellant
Aurangabad (Original Respondent No.1)
Versus
1. Padmaraj s/o. Dulichand Surana
Died Through LRs
1/1. Kushal s/o. Padmaraj Surana,
Age : 44 years, Occu : Business,
1/2. Ajeet s/o. Padmaraj Surana,
Age : 42 Years, occu : Business,
1/3. Kaushik s/o. Padmaraj Surana
Age : 39 years, Occu : Business,
1/4. Shobha wd/o. Padmaraj Surana,
Age : 63 Years, Occu : Household,
Above all R/o. Rangal Galli,
Kushal Niwas, Aurangabad.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit) Aurangabad ... Respondents
.....
Shri. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri. Shaikh Kayyum Najir, Advocate for the Respondents No.1/1 to 1/4.
Shri. D. J. Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.2 / Sate.
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1333 OF 2017
Padmaraj s/o. Dulichand Surana (Died)
Through LRs :-
A. Kushal s/o. Padmaraj Surana,
2
Age : 44 years, Occu : Business,
B. Ajeet s/o. Padmaraj Surana,
Age : 42 Years, Occu : Business,
C. Kaushik s/o. Padmaraj Surana
Age : 39 years, Occu : Business,
D. Shobha wd/o. Padmaraj Surana,
Age : 63 Years, Occu : Household,
All above R/o. Rangar Galli, ... Appellants
Kushal Niwas, Aurangabad. (Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
2. The Commissioner, ... Respondents
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. (Orig. Respondents)
....
Shri. Shaikh Kayyum Najir, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri. D. J. Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.1 / State.
Shri. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for the Respondent No.2
.....
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
RESERVED ON : 18.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2025
COMMON JUDGMENT :-
1. Both the Appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act') are directed
against the Judgment and Order / Award passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division (Corporation Court), Aurangabad in
Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter for short, 'LAR') No.88/2010
3
(Old LAR No.152/06). The said Reference was filed by the Original
Claimant, namely, Padmaraj s/o. Dulichand Surana (Appellant in First
Appeal No. 1333 of 2017) wherein State of Maharashtra was
Respondent No.1 and Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad (Acquiring
Body) was Respondent No.2.
2. The facts, giving rise to the present Appeals, are as under :
2A. The Land Acquisition Proceedings were initiated for the purpose
of broadening the road connecting City Police Station and Kumbharwad
corner (Rangar Galli), Aurangabad pursuant to the Development Plan.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (in short, 'Spl. LAO') issued
Notification under Section 6 of the LA Act by publication on 08.10.1998.
The land of the Claimant admeasuring 15.10 Sq. Meters out of total area
admeasuring 106.3 Sq. Meters from C.T.S. No.4096 came to be acquired
for the said purpose. The Spl. LAO declared the Award under Section 11
of the LA Act on 07.03.2006 and granted compensation @ Rs.7000/-
(Rs. Seven Thousand) per Sq. Meter to the Claimant.
2B. The Claimant, being not satisfied with the compensation granted
by the Spl. LAO, preferred the Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act
for enhanced compensation. According to the Claimant, the Award
passed by the Spl. LAO was passed without following principles of law
4
and undervalued the acquired land and granted inadequate
compensation. The acquired land was situated in the heart of the city.
The Claimant was running the shop of selling Tobacco and Jarda under
the name and style as 'A-1 ZARDA STORE'. The sale transaction, which
took place in respect of the land situated in the vicinity of the acquired
land, was not considered and the Claimant was liable for enhanced
compensation @ Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) per Sq. Meter
and consequently was entitled to receive Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakh)
as the compensation towards the acquired land. In support of the
reference, the Claimant relied on the sale instance in respect of the
house property situated at City Chowk, Aurangabad.
2C. The reference was resisted by the Acquiring Body / State
by filing Written-statement at Exh.5. The claim for enhanced
compensation was denied. It was contended that the Spl. LAO followed
all the procedure laid down in the LA Act while acquiring the land of the
Claimant. The Award was passed by the Spl. LAO after taking into
consideration the sale instances of the locality and after considering
topography of the acquired land and appropriate compensation was
granted to the Claimant.
2D. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Reference Court framed
the Issues at Exh.9, which reads as under :
5
" ISSUES
1] Whether claimant prove that market value of the
land acquired by the SLAO is incorrect and
improper ?
2] Whether claimant entitled for enhanced
compensation as prayed along with solatium and
interest as prayed ?
3] Whether reference is within limitation ?
4] What order ?"
2E. The Claimant examined himself by filing evidence Affidavit
at Exh.13. The copy of Sale-deed, the copy of notice issued under
Section 12 (2) of the LA Act and the copy of the Objection Receipt by
the Claimant during the acquisition proceedings were brought on
record vide Exhs.21, 22 and 23, respectively. The Claimant was
cross-examined on behalf of the Respondents. The final Award passed
by the Spl. LAO was brought on record at Exh.29. The learned
Reference Court on considering the evidence available on record passed
the impugned Judgment and Award. The Claimant challenged the same
for enhanced compensation and the Acquiring Body challenged the same
for enhancing the compensation by the learned Reference Court.
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Claimants, the learned
Advocate for the Acquiring Body and the learned AGP for the State.
Scrutinized the evidence available on record.
6
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimants
that Section 6 Notification was issued on 08.10.1998 and the possession
of the land was taken on 06.05.2006. The sale instance, which was of
pre-notification date in respect of the land situated within the vicinity of
the acquired land, was brought on record and therefore, the Claimant
was entitled for the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/-
(Rs. Fifteen Thousand) and more per Square Meter. The learned
Reference Court did not consider the evidence available on record and
granted the compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten
Thousand) per Sq. Meter which was inadequate in the light of the
Judgments in the case of Major General Kapil Mehra and Others vs.
Union of India and another, [2015 (4) Mh.L.J.] and in the case of
Administrator, City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO),
Aurangabad vs. Padmakar s/o. Haribhau Muley and Others, [2020 (3)
Mh.L.J.]. The Claimant's Appeal be allowed and the Appeal filed by the
Acquiring Body be dismissed.
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring
Body that, though the Claimants claimed enhanced compensation due to
loss of business, no independent evidence was placed before the learned
Reference Court in support of the claim for enhanced compensation. The
sale instance, which was relied by the Claimants before the learned
Reference Court was in respect of constructed house and the property
7
acquired in the case at hand was the open land. The Spl. LAO has
granted appropriate compensation which was increased by the learned
Reference Court. The Appeal of the acquiring body be allowed and the
compensation awarded towards loss of business be set aside. In support
of his contention, he cited the Judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr, AIR 1988 SC 1652.
6. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) which were the Appeals
pertaining to the land acquisition proceedings and the controversy was
in respect of the valuation of the lands under acquisition. Certain
factors are enumerated to be kept on the mental screen while dealing
with the matters in respect of the valuation and compensation in the
land acquisition proceedings. To refer the same, in short, they are,
Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act is not an Appeal against the
Award, the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is merely an offer, the
Reference is to be treated as the original proceedings and the market
value has to be determined afresh on the basis of material available on
record, the Claimant was in the position of the plaintiff who has to show
that the price offered for his land in the Award was inadequate on the
basis of materials available before the Court, the market value of land
under Acquisition has to be determined as on the date of publication of
the Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, the determination of
valuation is to be worked out as if the valuer is hypothetical purchaser
8
willing to purchase the land from the open market and prepared to pay
a reasonable price as on that day and it has to be assumed that the
vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price, the Court has to
correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance
which provides index of market value, only genuine instances have to be
taken into account, even post notification instances can be taken into
account, if they are very proximate, genuine and the acquisition itself
has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the
resultant improvement in development prospects, the most comparable
instances are to be identified on two aspects: (i) Proximity from time
angle, (ii) Proximity from situation angle, the balance sheet of plus
and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant
factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent
purchaser would do, the market value of the land under acquisition has
thereafter to be deducted by loading the price reflected in the instance
taken as the norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors,
the exercise has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a
prudent man of the world of business would do, there cannot be any
hard and fast or rigid rule and the evaluation of such factors depends on
the facts of each case, every case must be dealt with on its facts pattern
bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which
position the Judge must place himself.
9
7. In Major General Kapil Mehra (supra), the factors to be kept
in mind while fixing the market value of the acquired land are stated to
be (a) existing geographical situation of the land; (b) existing use of the
land; (c) available advantages, like proximity to National or State
Highway or road and/or developed area, and (d) market value of other
land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near
to the acquired land. It is further observed that, while checking
comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market
value of the acquired land, the factors which are to be borne in mind
were (1) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of
notification under Section 4(1), (2) It should be a bona fide transaction,
(3) It should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land
acquired; and it should possess similar advantages.
8. In Administrator, City and Industrial Development
Corporation (CIDCO), Aurangabad (supra), the aforesaid principles are
reiterated.
9. Coming to the case on hand, there is no controversy in
respect of the acquisition proceedings under which the extent of
Claimant's land acquired and the acquired land was situated within the
city having commercial value.
10
10. The Claimant, who was granted compensation @ Rs.7000/-
(Rs. Seven Thousand) per Sq. Meter by the Spl. L.A.O, claimed
enhanced compensation on the basis of the sale instance brought on
record at Exh.21. The said sale instance was executed between the
respective parties on 29.06.1998 in respect of CTS No.4025
admeasuring 21.9 Sq. Meters having dwelling house, situated at City
Chowk, Aurangabad. The total sale consideration in the sale deed is
shown as Rs.3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lakh Fifty Thousand) which shows
that the rate was Rs.15,982/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred
Eighty Two) per Sq. Meter. Undoutedly, the said sale instance was also
considered by the Spl. LAO as seen from the observations made in the
impugned Judgment and the contents in paragraph no.5 of the Award.
The said sale instance was in respect of the land having dwelling house.
It is nobodies case that the said sale instance was from the same land
which was the subject matter at hand or of the adjacent land. From the
evidence on record, it is seen that the said land which was the subject
matter of Sale-deed at Exh.21 was around 1000 (one thousand) feet
away from the land which is the subject matter of the present case and it
was situated at City Chowk. So, it cannot be said that the said sale
instance at Exh.21 was of comparable land. Therefore, not enhancing
the compensation @ Rs.15,982/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred
Eighty Two) per Sq. Meter by the learned Reference Court cannot be
faulted. Considering all the relevant factors, enhanced compensation @
11
Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) per Sq. Meter granted by the learned
Reference Court appears just and proper.
11. As regards the compensation awarded by the learned
Reference Court towards loss of business to the tune of Rs.28,200/- (Rs.
Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred), the same also does not call for
any interference for more than one reasons. Admittedly, as seen from
the evidence of the Claimant, no documentary evidence was brought on
record in respect of his business of Jarda on the land, the part of which
was acquired. Undoubtedly, in the reference submitted by the Claimant
he made necessary averments in that regard i.e. running of the Tobacco
and Jarda shop on the land, he claimed Rs.20,200/- towards loss of
business. Though the Written-statement was submitted by the State at
Exh.5, the same was to the extent that the Spl. L.A.O. has followed the
necessary procedure and law laid down under the LA Act and
considered all the aspects and awarded appropriate compensation to the
Claimant, the said Written-statement nowhere denied the contentions
raised by the Claimant in the Reference. By virtue of provisions of
Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 are made applicable to all the proceedings before
the Court under the LA Act. The learned Reference Court has rightly
observed that the oral as well as documentary evidence of the Claimant
remained unchallenged. There is no controversy between both sides
12
that commercial activity was being carried by the Claimant on the part
of the CTS No.4096 of the Claimant. Under such circumstances, grant
of compensation towards business loss by the learned Reference Court
cannot be faulted.
12. On evaluation of the evidence and material available on
record, it is clear that the impugned Judgment and Award is passed on
the basis of the evidence available on record. In the backdrop of the
above observations, no interference is warranted in the impugned
Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court on any
count. Thus, both Appeals deserve dismissal and hence the following
order :-
ORDER
(i) First Appeal No.548 of 2017 is dismissed.
(ii) First Appeal No.1333 of 2017 is dismissed.
(iii) Record and Proceedings be sent back.
(iv) The amount deposited by the Acquiring Body be disbursed
to the Claimant with interest accrued thereon, if not
withdrawn by the Claimant earlier.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/04/2025 17:46:54
