Bombay High Court
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Thr ... vs Mukund Purushottam Tapasvi (Dead) Thr ... on 12 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:14732
FA-641-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2018
1. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad,
Through its Authorized Ofcer,
Aurangabad. ....Appellant
[Original Respondent No.3]
VERSUS
1. Mukund S/o Purushottam Tapasvi [Dead],
Through L. Rs.
1-A Sushma Wd/o Mukund Tapasvi,
Age : 57 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: 3, Akshay Residency,
Chetna Nagar, Aurangabad.
1-B Yogesh S/o Mukund Tapasvi,
Age: 43 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: D - 3, Akshay Residence,
Behind Chetna Nagar,
Aurangabad.
1-C Mrs. Amruta W/o Hemant Paturkar,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: M.I.D.C Area, Railway Station,
Paturkar Steel and Wooden Furniture Works,
Aurangabad.
2. Sadanand S/o Purushottam Tapasvi,
Age: 70 years, Occu: Retired,
R/o : Tilak Peth, Aurangabad,
[Deceased] Through his L.Rs.
2-A Smt. Usha Wd/o Sadanand Tapasvi,
Age: 74 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: B-1, Akshay Residency,
Behind Chetna Nagar,
Aurangabad.
2-B Jayesh S/o Sadanand Tapasvi,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Insurance Agency,
R/o: B-1, Akshay Residency,
Behind Chetna Nagar,
Aurangabad.
1
FA-641-2018.odt
2-C Gauri W/o Harshal Mhaisalkar,
Age: 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: B-1, Akshay Residency,
Behind Chetna Nagar,
Aurangabad.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Ofcer,
[Special Unit] Aurangabad. .....Respondents
[Original Respondent]
Appearance :
Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. S. R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1-A to 1-C and 2-A
to 2-C.
Mr. Rajdeep D. Raut, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
Reserved On : 21st April, 2025
Pronounced On : 12th June, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an Appeal fled under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as the 'L. A. Act'] against
the Judgment and Award dated 27/09/2016, passed by the learned
Civil Judge, Senior Division, [Corporation Court], Aurangabad, in Land
Acquisition Reference [LAR] No.607/1997, partly allowing the
Reference in the following terms :-
"1. Land Reference is partly allowed with proportionate costs.
2. The claimant is entitled to get enhance compensation of Rs.15,91,332/-
(Rs. Fifteen Lacks Ninety One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty
Two Only) for the acquisition of this land.
FA-641-2018.odt
3. The Claimant is entitled to get additional compensation @ 12% interest
p.a. from the date of notification i.e. 26/02/1995 till the date of award.
4. The claimant is entitled @ 30% solatium on the enhance compensation
as contemplated under Section 32(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. The claimant is also entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year
from the date of award i.e. 25/02/1994 till 24/02/1995 and thereafter @
15% p.a. till the amount is deposited in the Court or paid to the claimant
on a enhance compensation and the amount of solatium under Section
28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
6. The claimant is directed to pay additional Court Fees as per law.
7. The respondent shall bear the proportionate costs.
8. Award be drown-up accordingly.
9. Dictated and pronounced in open Court. "
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present Appeal are as under :-
[I] The Mukund Purushottam Tapasvi and Sadanand Purushottam
Tapasvi [hereinafter referred to as the 'Deceased Original Claimants']
were the Owners and Occupants of the land / building bearing C.T.S
No.14406, situated at Tilak-path, Aurangabad. The portion to the
extent of 375.20 square meters [sq. mtrs.] of the said property was
acquired for widening of road from Kranti Chowk to Paithan Gate,
Aurangabad. A Notifcation under Section 6 of the L. A. Act came to be
published in the daily news paper on 21/08/1990 and Corrigendum was
published in the daily news paper on 02/11/1990. The Final Award
came to be passed / declared on 25/02/1994. The compensation @
Rs.1000/- per sq. mtrs. was awarded to the Deceased Original
Claimants. They received the sum of Rs.8,58,530/- as the
compensation.
FA-641-2018.odt
[II] The Deceased Original Claimants fled a Reference Application
under Section 18 of the L. A. Act for enhanced compensation and
claimed Rs.64,50,000/-, as the entire compensation towards the price
of open space and building, loss of business, charges towards fencing
and protection of property and costs of doors, windows and other
wooden structure etc. They also claimed the statutory benefts under
the L. A. Act on the amount of compensation as claimed.
[III] The Reference Application was resisted / contested by the State
by fling Written Statement below Exhibit - 14. They denied the Claim
and contended that, the acquired property was properly valued and
proper compensation was granted.
[IV] In the meanwhile, due to the death of Claimant No.1 [Mukund
Purushottam Tapasvi], his Legal Representatives were brought on
record. The Reference Application came to be amended and the
Acquiring Body was impleaded as Respondent No.3. The Written
Statement came to be fled below Exhibit - 51, after the Reference
Application was amended. The learned Reference Court framed the
following issues below Exhibit - 51[a] :-
ISSUES
"01. Whether claimant prove that market value of land acquired by Land
Acquisition Officer, is incorrect & improper.
02. Whether claimant entitled for enhanced compensation as prayed alongwith
solatium & interest as prayed ?
03. Whether reference is within limitation ?
04. What order."
FA-641-2018.odt
[V] The Deceased Original Claimants led their evidence in support of
the contention and brought on record the relevant documentary
evidence. The Appellant - Acquiring Body did not led any evidence.
The learned Reference Court, on appreciating the evidence available
on record, passed the impugned Judgment and order and the
compensation came to be enhanced by granting the rate of Rs.4,593/-
per sq. mtrs. along with statutory benefts on the enhanced amount of
compensation.
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant - Acquiring
Body, learned Advocate for the Claimants and the learned AGP for
Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant -
Acquiring Body that, the Claimants relied on four [4] Sale Instances in
support of the Reference. The Claimants were the party to one of the
Sale Instance and they had knowledge of the Acquisition Proceedings.
There was no evidence brought on record by the Claimants to show the
loss of business. The Appellant denied the contentions of the
Reference Application by fling Written Statement. In Reference
Application, the Claimants fled Evidence Afdavit after a long period
of seventeen [17] years and, therefore, the interest for the said period
should not have been given by the learned Reference Court. He fairly
submitted that, in connected First Appeal No.2959/2018, this Court has
FA-641-2018.odt
considered the issue arising out of the same Acquisition and dismissed
the Appeal of Corporation. He submits that, the Appeal may be
allowed.
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimants
that, initially, the Reference Application was before the Regular Civil
Court and after the Corporation was impleaded as the party
Respondent, the matter was transferred to the Corporation Court [the
Court assigned with the matters of Corporation] and there is nothing
to show that, the Claimants dragged the matter for so many years. As
the property of the Claimants was acquired, they would be the last
person to delay the matter. This Court, in the above referred First
Appeal arising out of the same Acquisition, has upheld the rate and
compensation granted by the learned Reference Court. He submits
that, there is no merit in the Appeal and the same may be dismissed.
6. In support of the Reference Application, the Claimants
examined - Sadanand Purushottam Tapasvi, who is Claimant No.2 in
Land Acquisition Reference No.607/1997. His Evidence Afdavit shows
that, his evidence recorded in Land Acquisition Reference No.607/1997
was also be considered in Land Acquisition Reference No.610/1997,
which was in respect of the acquisition of adjacent property bearing
CTS No.14407. He deposed in the line of the averments made in the
Reference. He deposed that, the acquired property was centrally
FA-641-2018.odt
situated and was near to the Railway Station, Court, Schools, Medical
Centers [the word 'Aids' is used] and all other essential service. In his
cross-examination, it has come that, the acquired property was
situated at Tilak-path, near Telephone Bhavan and Tilak-path connects
Gulmandi and the statue of Tilak. The Barabhai Taj is the square
adjacent to Gulmandi. Ten [10] to ffteen [15] minutes are required to
reach from Gulmandi to the acquired property. There was construction
on CTS No.11460. It has further come that, Valuation Certifcate of the
acquired property as existing at the time of Notifcation under Section
4 of the L. A. Act was submitted by him and it was below Exhibit - 24.
7. In support of the Claim for compensation, the Claimants
brought on record the Sale Instances at Exhibits - 57, 68, 69 and 70,
which are dated 01/08/1991, 16/04/1994, 06/10/1990 and 14/06/1994,
respectively. Section 4 Notifcation was published on 21/08/1990. The
witness of Claimants denied the suggestion that, the Sale Deeds fled
on record were not of the property in the vicinity of the acquired
property. He denied that, the Sale Instances were not relevant. This
shows that, it was in respect of property situated on Tilak Road,
Ajabnagar within the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The Sale
Deed at Exhibit - 69 is relied by the learned Reference Court by
observing that, it was material piece of evidence, as it was in respect of
property within the same vicinity of the acquired property.
Considering the dates of Sale Instances and the date of publication of
FA-641-2018.odt
Section 4 Notifcation, the Sale Deed at Exhibit - 69 considered by the
learned Reference Court is proper. There is no issue of the
genuineness of the said Sale Deed. Based on the said Sale Deed, the
rate of Rs.4,593/- per sq. mtrs. is considered by the learned Reference
Court and for area 375.20 sq. mtrs., the amount of Rs.17,23,293/- is
computed. After deducting the amount awarded by the Special Land
Acquisition Ofcer [hereinafter referred to as 'the SLAO'], it is
computed as Rs.15,41,332/-. Nothing is brought by the Appellant in the
evidence so as to discard the said material documentary evidence.
Therefore, there is no question of any interference in the rate per sq.
mtrs. considered by the learned Reference Court for the acquired
property.
8. The Claimants are also granted Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
business. True it is that, no documentary evidence was brought in the
evidence by the Claimants before the learned Reference Court in
support of Claim for the loss of business. As seen from the evidence of
the witness examined by the Claimants, the suit property was located
in the market area. The Award passed by the SLAO shows that, the
business was run by three [3] Tenants in CTS No.14406. This
corroborates the Claimants' version that, there was business in the
acquired property and due to the acquisition, there was loss of
business. Thus, consideration of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand]
towards loss of business by the learned Reference Court against the
FA-641-2018.odt
demand of Rs.5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs] under the head of loss of
business appears reasonable.
9. In light of the above discussion, which is based on the
evidence available on record, no fault can be found with the
compensation computed and the Award passed by the learned
Reference Court towards the acquisition of property of Claimants and
consequently, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. As regards the
contention not to grant the interest to the Claimants for delayed
adjudication of the Reference Application, in absence of anything to
show that, the Appellant took the steps for expeditious disposal of the
Reference Application, the said contention has no merits. Hence, the
following order :
ORDER
[i] The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[ii] The Claimants are allowed to withdraw the amount of
compensation deposited, if any, in this Court.
[iii] The excess amount, if any after withdrawal by the Claimants,
shall be returned to the Appellant.
[iv] Record and Proceedings be sent to the learned Reference Court.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
Sameer/-
Signed by: Md. Sameer Q.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
