Bombay High Court
Prakesh Gurappa Asture vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Collector, ... on 10 January, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:2234
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1535 OF 2022
Jayraj s/o Chandrakant Belure
Age 40 years, Occu. Agriculture
R/o Deoni, Taluka Deoni,
District Latur ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Latur.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Nilanga, Taluka Nilanga,
District Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division, Nilanga ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. A.D. Sonkawade, Advocate for appellant
Mr. N.S. Tekale, A.G.P. for respondents
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2022
Vijaynath Nagnathappa Dengale
Age 70 years, Occu. Agriculture
R/o Deoni, Taluka Deoni,
District Latur ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 2 ::
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Nilanga
3. The Registrar,
District Court, Latur,
Main Road, Latur.
4. Civil Judge, J.D., Deoni,
Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. A.D. Sonkawade, Advocate for appellant
Mr. N.S. Tekale, A.G.P. for respondents
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2022
Prakash Gurappa Asture
Age 45 years, Occu. Agriculture
R/o Deoni, Taluka Deoni,
District Latur ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Nilanga
3. The Registrar,
District Court, Latur,
Main Road, Latur.
4. Civil Judge, J.D., Deoni,
Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur ... RESPONDENTS
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 3 ::
.......
Mr. A.D. Sonkawade, Advocate for appellant
Mr. N.S. Tekale, A.G.P. for respondents
.......
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : 10th January, 2025
J U D G M E N T (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :
These are the appeals under Section 56 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act of 1894). Since
common question of facts and law arise therein, the appeals
are taken up together for hearing.
2. The necessary details are as follows :
The lands of the appellants have been acquired for
construction of Court building. A notification under Section 4 of
the Act of 1894 was issued on 9/9/2010. The award under
section 11 of the said Act was passed on 20/8/2011. The Land
Acquisition Officer (LAO) offered compensation at the rate of
Rs.7330/- per R. (Rs.7,33,000/- pr Hector). The appellants/
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 4 ::
land owners, therefore, preferred respective Land Acquisition
References (L.A.Rs.), being 201 of 2011 and No.10 & 11 of
2015.
2. The Reference Court decided the L.A.Rs. vide its
judgment and award dated 18/2/2021. It relied on a sale
exemplar (Exh.12), whereunder the land was sold at the rate of
Rs.200/- per sq.ft. The Reference Court then preferred to
make deductions of 60% towards development charges. Thus,
the rate awarded by the Reference Court was Rs.80/- per sq.ft.
in addition to statutory benefits.
3. Learned Advocate for the appellants would submit
that, the lands were situated in the heart of Deoni Town. It is a
Taluka place with all the facilities. In the vicinity of the acquired
lands, there are Shopping Complexes, Petrol Pump, Hotels,
Bus Stand, A.P.M.C. Market and Government Offices as well.
He would further submit that, Tahsil Office is just in front of the
acquired land. State Highway namely Nilanga-Udgir pass from
one side of the acquired land. According to learned Advocate,
the Reference Court considered the sale instance which was
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 5 ::
not on record. It did not consider the sale deed which was just
prior to the publication of notification under Section 4 (Exh.40).
The said sale deed was dated 11/1/2010. He would further
submit that, the lands acquired were converted into Non-
Agricultural assessment vide order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Nilanga. A copy of the order to that effect
was placed on record. It was dated 26/3/2009. The sale deed
(Exh.11) indicates that the land was sold for Rs.315.92 per
sq.ft. The said land was from the very Survey Number. He
would further submit that, Exh.13 was another sale instance,
whereunder the land was sold at the rate of Rs.266.66 per
sq.ft. This land was in the vicinity of the land acquired. He
would further submit that, the State has neither examined any
witness nor adduced any documentary evidence. The
Reference Court made deduction of 60%, which was very
much on higher side. It also did not give reasons therefor.
Normally deduction should range between 20-25%. He also
relied on the observations in the judgment of this Court in
Appeal No.1668/2014. The observations are are follows :-
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 6 ::
"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."
4. The learned A.G.P. would, on the other hand,
submit that, the sale instances relied on pertain to very small
pieces of land. The one on which the appellants are harping
upon was relating to the abutting land sold by the appellant
from the very Survey Number from which the acquired lands
are. The learned A.G.P. meant to say that the appellants
having been aware of the acquisition proceedings, created an
evidence by selling a very small portion of land at the rate of
Rs.315/- per sq.ft. the said land also abuts road. According to
learned A.G.P., the Reference Court has rightly made
deduction of 60% towards development charges. He relied on
the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Shankarrao
Bhagwantrao Patil etc. Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Civil
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 7 ::
Appeal Nos.5712-5713 of 2021, decided on 20/9/2021.
According to learned A.G.P., the sale instance pertaining to
small piece of land could not form the basis for determination
of compensation in respect of a large track of land. He
therefore urged for dismissal of the appeals.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced.
Before the Reference Court, the State did not lead evidence
nor produced any document for perusal of the Court. The
record indicates that the lands acquired were converted into
Non-Agricultural assessment way back in 2009. The purpose
of acquisition is for construction of Court Building at Deoni.
Deoni is a Taluka place. The Tahsil Office is situated just
opposite the acquired lands. There is further evidence to
indicate that, public offices and commercial complexes have
come up in the vicinity in which the acquired lands are
situated. The Reference Court, therefore, was right in granting
compensation on per sq.ft. basis.
6. Needless to mention, each case has to be decided
on the facts and circumstances appearing therein.
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 8 ::
7. In case of Subh Ram and others Vs. State of
Haryana and anr., (2010)1 SCC 444;, it has been observed
thus:-
Therefore, in the hypothetical layout method of
determination of market value, as a first step, the
areas that will be used up for roads, drains, parks/
playgrounds and community areas, will have to be
excluded from the total extent of the acquired
land. The standard deduction in this behalf is one-
third (33%).
8. In case of Shankarrao Patil (supra), the Apex Court
observed :-
14. In the judgment reported as Lal Chand v. Union
of India and Anr.(2009) 15 SCC 769, this Court held
that deduction for development is to be made to
arrive at the market value of large tracts of
undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for
development) the deduction variesfrom 20% to 75%
of the price of such developed plots. This Court held
as under:
"13. The percentage of "deduction for
development" to be made to arrive at the
market value of large tracts of undeveloped
agricultural land (with potential for
development), with reference to the sale
price of small developed plots, varies
between 20% to 75% of the price of
such developed plots, the percentage
depending upon the nature of development
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 9 ::
of the layout in which the exemplar plotsare
situated.
14. The "deduction for development"
consists of two components. The first is with
reference to the area required to beutilised
for developmental works and the second is
the cost ofthe development works. For
example, if a residential layout is formed by
DDA or similar statutory authority, it may
utilise around 40% of the land area in the
layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds
and civic amenities (community facilities),
etc.
15. The development authority will also
incur considerable expenditure for
development of undeveloped land into a
developed layout, which includes the cost of
levelling the land, cost of providing roads,
underground drainage and sewage facilities,
laying water lines, electricity lines and
developing parks and civil amenities, which
would be about 35% of the value of the
developed plot. The two factors taken
together would be the "deduction for
development" and can account for
as much as 75% of the cost of the developed
plot.
xxx xxx xxx
22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory
development authorities may have large areas
earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water
tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the
usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks,
playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The
purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to
show that the "deduction for development" factor is
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 10 ::
a variable percentage and the range of percentage
itself being very wide from 20% to 75%."
While in paragraph No.15, it has been observed
thus :
5. This Court in the judgment reported as Kasturi
and Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354, held
that 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, maybe in some cases it is
more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd.
This Court held as under:
"7 ........ 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 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, maybe 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."
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 11 ::
9. The facts of the case relied on by the learned
A.G.P. indicate that the sale deed was executed after 11 years
of possession of rocky land and Murum soil was excavated
from the land. The Court, therefore, found deductions towards
development costs at the rate of 50% was warranted (in the
facts and circumstances of the said case).
10. In the case in hand, the lands acquired had already
been permitted to be used for Non-Agricultural purpose. The
lands have been situated at a hub of the town Deoni. The
acquisition was for construction of Court building. The sale
instance pertaining to the rate of 315 per sq.ft. is not relied on
although it was just before the publication of notification under
Section 4, because it was a sale deed executed pertaining to
the land from the very Survey Number might have been
executed to create evidence. In respect of the another sale
instance, whereunder land was sold for a rate more than 300
per sq.ft., there is no evidence about its location. We,
therefore, agree with the Reference Court in placing reliance
on a sale instance (Exh.12), whereunder the land was sold at
the rate of Rs.200/- per sq.ft. on 4/5/2009 (referred by the
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 12 ::
claimant in paragraph No.5 of his examination-in-chief) since
the sale deed was executed a year prior to the issuance of
notification under Section 4, we make addition thereto, of 10%
on account of hike in market price of the land. Thus, we grant
the compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of
Rs.220/- per sq.ft. Since the lands acquired required some
development, in our considered view, the expenses towards
the same would be within the limits of one third of the rate of
compensation. The Reference Court appears to have erred in
deducting 60% towards development charges. We do not find
that 60% of the amount would be required for construction of
drainage, laying of roads, electricity polls etc. It is reiterated
that, deduction towards development shall be one third of the
amount of Rs.220/- per sq.ft. With this, we allow the appeals.
ORDER
(i) The appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs.220/- per
sq.ft. minus 33% thereof towards development charges.
First Appeal No.1535/2022 with
1537 & 1538/2022
:: 13 ::
(iii) Necessary statutory benefits as has been awarded by
the Reference Court to stand unaltered. The enhanced
amount of compensation be paid to the appellants within a
period of six months from the date of this order.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)
fmp/-
