Bombay High Court
Madhavrao Yeshwantrao Naik And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 7 March, 2025
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:6720-DB
1 FA2158/08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.2158 OF 2008
Sumitrabai w/o. Madhavrao Naik,
Deceased - Her LRs :
1/1. Madhavrao s/o. Yeshwant Naik
Age : 80 years, Occu : Agril,
1/2. Vijay Madhavrao Naik
Age : 46 years, Occu : Agril,
1/3. Hemant s/o. Madhavrao Naik,
Age : 46 years, Occu : Agril,
1/4. Yeshwant s/o. Madhavrao Naik
Age : 44 years, Occu : Agril,
2. Hemant s/o. Madhavrao Naik,
Age : 46 years, Occu : Agril,
All R/o. Nilanga, Tal. Nilanga, .. Appellants
Dist. Latur (Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through : Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
(P.W.D.) Latur
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(P.T.I.T.), Latur
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Dist. Latur ... Respondents
......
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.2159 OF 2008
Yeshwant Madhavrao Naik,
Age : 44 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, ... Appellant
Dist. Latur (Original Claimant)
Versus
2 FA2158/08
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
[P.W.D.], Latur
3. The Deputy Collector and
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Udgir
4. The Superintendent of Police,
District - Latur. ... Respondents
......
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.2161 OF 2008
Madhavrao Yeshwantrao Naik,
Since Died - Through LRs :
1A. Vijay s/o. Madhavrao Naik
Age : 63 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o. Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur
1B. Hemant s/o. Madhavrao Naik
Age : 60 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o. Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur
1C. Yeshwant S/o. Madhavrao Naik,
Age : 55 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o. 01, Station View, Plot -19,
Sector - 30, Vashi, Thane.
2. Hemant s/o. Madhavrao Naik,
Age : 46 years, Occu : Service and Agriculture,
R/o. Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur ... Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
(P.W.D.) ... Respondents
......
In all the matters :
Shri. Sharad V. Natu, Shri. Navin Shah a/w. Shri. Ashwin Thool,
Shri. Ayesh Singh, Shri. Jaymangal Dhanraj, Shri. Archishmati, Advocate
for the Appellants
Dr. Smt. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent /
State.
3 FA2158/08
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 07.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.03.2025
COMMON JUDGMENT [ PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ] :
1. As the acquired lands are from the same Survey / Gat
Number situated at village Dapaka, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur, the
evidence led before the learned Reference Court is common and
common submissions are made by both the sides in all these three (3)
Appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the LA Act), they are decided by this common
Judgment.
1A] In First Appeal No.2158 of 2008, the impugned Judgment
and Order / Award is dated 05.03.2008, passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in Land Acquisition
Reference (LAR) No.505/2002, partly allowing the Appellants' claim for
enhanced compensation.
1B] In First Appeal No.2159 of 2008, the Judgment and Order /
Award is dated 05.03.2008, passed by the learned III Jt. Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in Land Acquisition Reference
(LAR) No.1/2004, partly allowing the Appellant's claim for enhanced
compensation.
4 FA2158/08
1C] In First Appeal No.2161 of 2008, the Judgment and Order /
Award is dated 28.03.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)
No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/1999), partly allowing the Appellants'
claim for enhanced compensation.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeals are as under :
2.1. In First Appeal No.2158 of 2008 :-
I) The Appellants were the owners and possessors of land
admeasuring 2 Hector, 2 R from Gat No.86 located in village Dapaka,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. The said land was acquired by the Respondents
/ Acquiring Body for construction of the residential colony / quarters
and other facilities for the police personnel. For the said acquisition,
the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) issued the Notifications under the
relevant provisions of the LA Act. The Appellants raised their claim in
response to the notice received under the LA Act and claimed
compensation @ Rs.350/- (Rs. Three Hundred Fifty) per Sq. Ft. The
LAO, by considering all the aspects passed the Award and granted
compensation @ Rs.14 to 15 /- (Rupees Fourteen to Fifteen) per Sq. Ft.
(Rs.145/- [Rupees One Hundred Fourty Five] per Sq. Meter) to the
Appellants.
5 FA2158/08
II) The Appellants preferred the Reference under Section 18 of the LA
Act, contending that the acquired land is situated in the developed area
and adjacent to the Municipal limits of Nilanga. The acquired land was
having Non-agricultural (NA) potentiality. The LAO did not consider the
documents submitted in support of claim for enhanced compensation.
The Appellants led evidence in support of their claim before the learned
Reference Court. The Appellants' examined Witness No.1 - Hemant
Madhavrao Naik [Appellant No.1/3] at Exh.21, Witness No.2 - Vasant
s/o. Govindrao Naik at Exh.23 [Survey No.7/A, Sale deed dated
25.08.1997], Witness No.3 - Ravishankar Sitarampant Sabnis at Exh.25
[Survey No.86/B, Sale deed dated 21.04.1999], Witness No.4 - Achyut
Wamanrao Talikhede at Exh.27 [Survey No.292 Sale deed dated
14.03.1996], and Witness No.5 - Sidramappa Bhimannappa Solapure at
Exh.29 [Survey No.292, Sale deed dated 14.03.1996] and brought the
sale instances on record.
III) The Respondents / Acquiring Body placed on record
certified copies of Index II and the sale-deed and submitted pursis that
they do not want to examine any witness.
IV) Considering the evidence available on record and after
hearing both the sides, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the
6 FA2158/08
Reference by accepting the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq. Ft. and deducting @
25% towards development charges and held the Appellants entitled to
receive the compensation @ Rs.75/- per Sq. Ft. The operative Order of
the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)
No.505/2002, reads as under :
"1. Reference is hereby partly allowed.
2. Claimants namely - Hemant s/o Madhavrao Naik, Vijay
s/o. Madhavrao Naik, Madhavrao s/o. Yeshwantrao Naik,
Yeshwantrao s/o. Madhavrao Naik, L.Rs. Of deceased original
claimant namely - Sumitrabai w/o. Madhavrao Naik, all R/o.
Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur in LAR No.505/2002 do
recover excessive enhanced amount of compensation of
Rs.1,83,90,699/- from the respondents, with interest @ 9% p.a.
for one year from the date of notification u/Section 4 of the L.A.
Act i.e. 2/08/1999 till 1/08/2000 and @ 15% p.a. for the
subsequent years till depositing the amount by the respondents,
in the court.
3. Respondents do bear their own costs and pay the cost to
the claimants.
4. Deficit court fee be recovered from the claimants, if any.
5. Decree be drawn accordingly."
2.2. In First Appeal No. 2159 of 2008 :-
I) The Appellant was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring
1 Hector, 60 R from Gat No.86 located in village Dapaka, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. The said land was acquired by the Respondents / Acquiring
Body for construction of the residential colony / quarters and other
facilities for the police personnel. For the said acquisition, the Land
Acquisition Officer (LAO) issued the Notifications under the relevant
provisions of the LA Act. The Appellant raised his claim in response to
the notice received under the LA Act and claimed compensation
7 FA2158/08
@ Rs.400/- (Rs. Four Hundred) per Sq. Ft. The LAO, by considering all
the aspects passed the Award and granted compensation @ Rs.17/-
(Rupees Seventeen) per Sq. Ft. (Rs.178/- [Rupees One Hundred Seventy
Eight] per Sq. Meter).
II) The Appellant preferred the Reference under Section 18 of the LA
Act, contending that the acquired land is situated in the developed area
and adjacent to the Municipal limits of Nilanga. The acquired land was
having Non-agricultural (NA) potentiality. The LAO did not consider the
documents submitted in support of claim for enhanced compensation.
The Appellant led evidence in support of his claim before the learned
Reference Court. The Appellant examined himself as Witness No.1 -
Yashwant s/o. Madhavrao Naik at Exh.18, and also examined Witness
No.2 - Vasant s/o. Govindrao Naik at Exh.20, [Survey No.7/A, Sale deed
dated 25.08.1997], Witness No.3 - Ravishankar Sitarampant Sabnis at
Exh.22 [Survey No.86/B, Sale deed dated 21.04.1999], Witness No.4 -
Achyut Wamanrao Talikhede at Exh.24 [Survey No.292 Sale deed dated
14.03.1996], and Witness No.5 - Sidramappa Bhimannappa Solapure at
Exh.26 [Survey No.292, Sale deed dated 14.03.1996] and brought the
sale instances on record.
8 FA2158/08
III) The Respondents / Acquiring Body placed on record
certified copies of Index II and the sale-deed and submitted pursis that
they do not want to examine any witness.
IV) Considering the evidence available on record and after
hearing both the sides, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the
Reference by accepting the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq. Ft. and deducting @
25% towards development charges and held the Appellant entitled to
receive the compensation @ Rs.75/- per Sq. Ft. The operative Order of
the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)
No.1/2004 reads as under :
"1. Reference is hereby partly allowed.
2. Claimant namely - Yeshwant s/o. Madhavrao Naik,
R/o. Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, District - Latur in L.A.R. No.1/2004
do recover excessive enhanced amount of compensation of
Rs.1,39,19,905/- from the respondents, with interest @ 9%
p.a. for one year from the date of notification u / Section 4 of
the L.A. Act i.e. 22-6-2001 till 21-6-2002 and @ 15% p.a. for
the subsequent years till depositing the amount by the
respondents, in the court.
3. Respondents do bear their own costs and pay the cost
to the claimant.
4. Deficit court-fee be recovered from the claimant, if any.
5. Decree be drawn accordingly."
2.3. In First Appeal No.2161 of 2008 :-
I) The Appellants were the owners and possessors of land
admeasuring 1 Hector, 51 R and 49 R from Gat No.86 located in village
Dapaka, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. The said land was acquired by the
9 FA2158/08
Respondents / Acquiring Body for construction of the quarters for
Officers and staff members of Civil Court at Nilanga. For the said
acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) issued the Notifications
under the relevant provisions of the LA Act. The Appellants raised their
claim in response to the notice received under the LA Act and claimed
compensation @ Rs.300/- (Rs. Three Hundred) per Sq. Ft. The LAO,
by considering all the aspects passed the Award and granted
compensation @ Rs.14/- (Rupees Fourteen) per Sq. Ft. (Rs.145/-
[Rupees One Hundred Fourty Five] per Sq. Meter).
II) The Appellants preferred the Reference under Section 18 of the LA
Act, contending that the acquired land is situated in the developed area
and adjacent to the Municipal limits of Nilanga. The acquired land was
having Non-agricultural (NA) potentiality. The LAO did not consider the
documents submitted in support of claim for enhanced compensation.
The Appellants led evidence in support of their claim before the learned
Reference Court. The Appellants' examined Witness No.1 - Hemant
Madhavrao Naik at Exh.19, Witness No.2 - Vasant Govindrao Naik at
Exh.22 [Survey No.7/A, Sale deed dated 25.08.1997], and Witness No.3
- Achyut Wamanrao Talikhede at Exh.23 [Survey No.292, Sale deed
dated 14.03.1996].
10 FA2158/08
III) The Respondents / Acquiring Body placed on record
certified copies of Index II and the sale-deed and submitted pursis that
they do not want to examine any witness.
IV) Considering the evidence available on record and after
hearing both the sides, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the
Reference by accepting the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq. Ft. and deducting @
25% towards development charges and held the Appellants entitled to
receive the compensation @ Rs.75/- per Sq. Ft. The operative Order of
the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)
No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/1999) reads as under :
"1. Reference is hereby partly allowed.
2. Claimants namely - Madhavrao s/o. Yeshwantrao Naik
and Hemant s/o. Madhavrao Naik, R/o. Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur in L. A R. No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/99) do
recover excessive enhanced amount of compensation of
Rs.1,80,84,873/- from the respondents, with interest @ 9%
p.a. for one year from the date of notification u/section 4 of
the L.A. Act i.e. 21-7-1998 till 20-7-1999 and @ 15% p.a. for
the subsequent years till depositing the amount by the
respondents, in the court.
3. Respondents do bear their own costs and pay the cost
to the claimants.
4. Deficit court-fee be recovered from the claimants, if any.
5. Decree be drawn accordingly."
3. It is submitted by learned Advocates for the Appellants that
the sale instances at Exhs.26/23/12 in the respective Land Acquisition
11 FA2158/08
References dated 21.04.1999, wherein transaction took place for
Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred) per Sq. Ft. cannot be the sole criteria for
determining the market value of the acquired lands. There were other
sale instances brought on record with higher market value and having
close proximity with the acquired lands. The potentiality of the acquired
lands were not considered. The learned Reference Court ought to have
considered the highest sale instance and per year increase in the value of
land and allowed the References. The rejection of other sale instances
on the ground that they were not within the reasonable proximity of the
acquired lands, was against the legal position. The Court can award
higher compensation than claimed in the light of the settled legal
position. In support of the submissions, they relied on the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which would be considered in the
later part of the Judgment. They submitted that the Appeals be allowed
by considering and granting the rate as per the highest sale instance.
4. It is submitted by the learned Addl. G.P. appearing for the
Respondents / State that, one of the sale instance which was relied upon
by the Claimants before the LAO and the learned Reference Court was
from the same survey number which was the subject matter of
acquisition and therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly
considered and accepted the said sale instance. The other sale instances
were in respect of the lands having different survey numbers and those
12 FA2158/08
lands were located away from the acquired lands. All the relevant
aspects have been considered by the learned Reference Court i.e. NA
potentiality, proximity of the acquired land etc. The deduction towards
development charges by the learned Reference Court should have been
on the higher side by taking into consideration the purpose for which
the lands are acquired. In support of her submissions, she cited the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mala Etc. Etc. vs. State of
Punjab and Others in Civil Appeal Nos.3992-4000/2011, 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 663. She submitted that the Judgments and Orders / Awards of
the learned Reference Court require no interference and the Appeals be
dismissed.
5. Heard both the sides. Scrutinized the evidence available on
record. The learned Advocates for the Appellants placed reliance on the
Judgments in the case of :-
(a) U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad vs. Asha Ram
(Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others,
(2021) 17 SCC 289
(b) Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana and Others (2010)
12 SCC 51
(c) Pehlad Ram and Others vs. Haryana Urban
Development Authority and Others, (2014) 14 SCC
778
(d) V. Subrahmanya Rao vs. Land Acquisition Zone
Officer, (2004) 10 SCC 640
(e) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and
Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2012) 5
SCC 432
13 FA2158/08
(f) Himmat Singh and Others vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Another, (2013) 16 SCC 392
(g) Kasturi and Others vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 1
SCC 354
(h) Ashok Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and
Others, (2015) 15 SCC 200
(i) Major General Kapil Mehra and Others vs. Union of
India and Another, (2015) 2 SCC 262
(j) Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, (1988) 3
SCC 751
(k) Bhag Singh and Others vs. Union Territory of
Chandigarh Through The Land Acquisition Collector,
Chandigarh, (1985) 3 SCC 737
(l) Bhimasha vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and
Another, (2008) 10 SCC 797
(m) Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and Others vs.
State of Haryana and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2990
(n) Special Land Acquisition Officer (North Goa),
Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Anr. vs.
Dr. Edgar Silveira, 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1570.
(o) Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda and
Others, (2010) 5 SCC 708.
6. The aforesaid Judgments reiterate the following legal
principles in respect of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :-
(i) The potentiality of the acquired land is one of the primary factors
to be taken into consideration to determine the market value of
the land. The market value of a property has to be determined
while having due regard to its existing conditions with all the
existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in
its most advantageous manner. The existing amenities like water,
electricity as well as the possibility of their further extension, for
instance whether nearby town is developing or has prospects of
development have to be taken into consideration. It alsodepends
upon the connectivity and the overall development of the
area.
14 FA2158/08
(ii) Comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighbourhood
at or about the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the LA
Act are the best guide for determination of the market value of
the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of
compensation payable to a landowner.
(iii) A cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in the market value
of the land may be accepted unless the State agencies or acquiring
authority prove otherwise.
(iv) The best evidence of market value would be the sale transactions
in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a
party; the time at which the property came to be sold; the
purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration and the
manner in which the transaction came to be brought out, these
are the relevant factors. If those are not available, then the sale
transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of
the acquired land have to be taken into consideration.
(v) When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands,
it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is
satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered
and accepted.
(vi) In respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has
potential value for housing commercial purposes, normally 1/3
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 roads and
other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots
for the residential or commercial purposes. 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 1/3
and in some cases less than 1/3.
(vii) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding
before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of
the material produced before it.
(viii) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have
to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity
from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle.
15 FA2158/08
7. Coming to the cases in hand, there is no dispute on the
following aspects :-
(A) The Appellants were the respective owners and possessors of the
acquired lands situated at village Dapaka, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.
(B) The aforesaid lands of the Appellants were acquired for the
purposes of construction of facilities for the police personnel and
Officers and staff of Civil Court.
(C) The Notifications under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act were
published in the Government Gazette on :-
(a) 02.08.1999 in First Appeal No.2158 of 2008,
(b) 14.06.2001 in First Appeal No.2159 of 2008, and
(c) 21.07.1998 in First Appeal No.2161 of 2008.
(D) The LAO granted the compensation :-
(a) @ Rs.14 to 15/- (Rupees Fourteen to Fifteen) per Sq. Ft.
(Rs.145 [Rupees One Hundred Fourty Five] per Sq. Meter)
in Land Acquisition Reference No. 505/2002,
(b) @ Rs.17/- (Rupees Seventeen) per Sq. Ft. (Rs.178/-
[Rupees One Hundred Seventy Eight] per Sq. Meter) in
Land Acquisition Reference No. 1/2004, and
(c) @ Rs.14 /- (Rupees Fourteen) per Sq. Ft. (Rs.145/- [Rupees
One Hundred Fourty Five] per Sq. Meter) in Land
Acquisition Reference No.1/2008.
16 FA2158/08
(E) The Appellants in First Appeal No.2158 of 2008 claimed the
enhanced compensation @ Rs.350/- (Rupees Three Hundred
Fifty) per Sq. Ft., the Appellant in First Appeal No.2159 of 2008
claimed the enhanced compensation @ Rs.400/- (Rupees Four
Hundred) per Sq. Ft. and the Appellants in First Appeal No.2161
of 2008 claimed the enhanced compensation @ Rs.300/- (Rupees
Three Hundred) per Sq. Ft., with statutory benefits.
(F) The Respondents resisted the claims of the Appellants before the
learned Reference Court by filing Written-statements in the
respective References.
8. The learned Reference Court framed the following issues in
Land Acquisition Reference No.505/2002 at Exh.11 and recorded the
findings on the issues as under :-
"ISSUES FINDINGS
1) Whether claimant proves that the In the Affirmative.
compensation awarded by the
Special L.A.O. is inadequate ?
2) Whether claimant proves that the In the Affirmative, to
market price of the acquired land the extent of Rs.75/-
was @ Rs. 350/- per sq. ft. at the per sq. after deducting
relevant time ? 25% form awarded
compensation.
3) Whether claimant is entitled for In the affirmative,
enhanced amount of compensation above.
? If yes, at what rate ?
4) What order and decree? As per final order."
17 FA2158/08
9. The learned Reference Court framed the following issues in
Land Acquisition Reference No.1/2004 at Exh.8 and recorded the
findings on the issues as under :-
"ISSUES FINDINGS
1) Whether claimant proves that the In the Affirmative.
compensation awarded by the
Special L.A.O. is inadequate?
2) Whether claimant proves that the In the affirmative, to
market price of the acquired land the the extent of
was @ Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. at the Rs. 75/- per sq. ft.
relevant time? after deducting 25%
awarded compensation
3) Whether claimant is entitled for In the affirmative, as
enhanced amount of above.
compensation? If yes, at what
rate ?
4) What order and decree? As per final order."
10. The learned Reference Court framed the following issues in
Land Acquisition Reference No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/1999) at
Exh.8 and recorded the findings on the issues as under :-
"ISSUES FINDINGS
1) Does the claimant prove that the In the Affirmative.
land acquisition officer has awarded
inadequate compensation to the
acquired land?
2) If yes, what will be the reasonable @ Rs.75/- per sq. ft. after
compensation to the claimant in deducting 25% awarded
respect of the land ? compensation.
3) Does the claimant is entitled to get In the affirmative, as per
30% solatium, 12% increase and calculation Sheet.
interest in the compensation
amount ?
4) What order ? As per final order."
18 FA2158/08
11. Before the Reference Court, the Appellants examined the
witnesses and brought on record the sale instances in support of their
claims for enhanced compensation.
12. The following Chart in respect of the sale instances in Land
Acquisition Reference No.1/2004 would give clear picture in respect of
the necessary details.
Sr. Survey Area Place Sale Deed Amount of consideration
Exh.
No No. date and Rate
1. 7/A 60x50 ft Dapaka 25.08.1997 Rs.2,10,000/-,
21
(Rs.70/- per Sq. Ft.)
2. 86/B 40x40 ft Dapaka 21.04.1999 Rs.1,60,000/-
23
(Rs. 100/- per Sq. Ft.)
3. 292 60x40 ft. Nilanga 14.03.1996 Rs.2,70,000/- 25 &
(Rs.112.50 Ps. Per Sq. Ft.) 27
4. 297 22x20 ft. Nilanga 17.03.1998 Rs.66,000/-
40
(Rs. 175/- per Sq. Ft.)
13. The following Chart in respect of sale instances in Land
Acquisition Reference No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/1999) would give
clear picture in respect of the necessary details.
Sr. Survey Area Place Sale Deed Amount of consideration Exh.
No No. date and Rate
1. 86/B 40x40 ft Dapaka 21.04.1999 Rs.1,60,000/- 12
(Rs. 100/- per Sq. Ft.)
2. 7/A 60x50 ft Dapaka 25.08.1997 Rs.2,10,000/-, 13
(Rs.70/- per Sq. Ft.)
3. 297 22x20 ft. Nilanga 17.03.1998 Rs.66,000/- 14
(Rs. 175/- per Sq. Ft.)
14.03.1996 Rs.2,70,000/- 15 & 16
4. 292 60x40 ft. Nilanga (Exh.15) (Rs.112.50 Ps. Per Sq.
04.04.1996 Ft.)
(Exh.16)
19 FA2158/08
14. The following Chart in respect of the sale instances in Land
Acquisition Reference No.505/2002 would give clear picture in respect
of the necessary details.
Sr. Survey Area Place Sale Deed Amount of consideration Exh.
No No. date and Rate
1. 7/A 60x50 ft Dapaka 25.08.1997 Rs.2,10,000/-, 24
(Rs.70/- per Sq. Ft.)
2. 86/B 40x40 ft Dapaka 21.04.1999 Rs.1,60,000/- 26
(Rs. 100/- per Sq. Ft.)
3. 292 60x40 ft. Nilanga 14.03.1996 Rs.2,70,000/- 28 & 30
(Rs.112.50 Ps. Per Sq. Ft.)
4. 297 22x20 ft. Nilanga 17.03.1998 Rs.66,000/- 45
(Rs. 175/- per Sq. Ft.)
15. The provisions of Section 23 of the LA Act provide for
matters to be considered in determining the compensation. From the
above Charts, which are based on the evidence available on record, it is
clear that the sale instance dated 21.04.1999 was the latest in point of
time. It was from the very survey number, from which the lands were
acquired. The evidence goes to show that the other three (3) sale
instances, referred above, were from the different survey numbers and
at some distance from the acquired lands ranging from 400 (four
hundred) feet to 1,000/1,500 (one thousand to one thousand five
hundred) feet.
16. There is no dispute that the said sale instances were
genuine. Out of the aforesaid sale instances, the sale instances at
20 FA2158/08
Exhs.26, 23, 12 dated 21.04.1999 in First Appeal Nos. 2158 of 2008,
2159 of 2008 and 2161 of 2008 respectively, is the best sale instance to
be considered to determine the compensation to the Appellants, as it is
from the same survey numbers from which the lands were acquired. No
other sale instance, except the above, can form the basis to determine
the market price of the acquired lands. True it is, that in one of the
Judgments relied by the learned Advocate for the Appellants, referred
above, the market rate of the land situated in the adjoining village and
the land at the distance of 1 (one) kilometer was considered to
determine the compensation, however, the said decision was on the
facts, circumstances and the evidence in that cases. When the sale-deed
from the very survey number from which the lands are acquired is
available, discarding it and considering the sale instances from the other
survey numbers situated at some distance, though no far, would not be
in consonance with the legal position. Considering the length of time
between the said sale instance at Exhs.26 and 23 and the Notification
under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act, 10% increase per year in the market
value of the acquired lands can conveniently be considered in First
Appeal Nos.2158 of 2008 and 2159 of 2008, respectively, keeping in
view the material on record that the acquired lands were surrounded by
developments and were having N.A. potential.
21 FA2158/08
17. As far as First Appeal No.2161 of 2008 is concerned,
Section 4 (1) Notification is dated 21.07.1998 and the sale instance
(Exh.12) relied upon by the learned Reference Court is dated
21.04.1999 which is post Notification. The learned Reference Court
while relying on the said sale instance at Exh.12 which is from the same
survey number has observed thus:
"27. The learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance
in the case of Chindha Vithal Sonawane -vs- Special Land
Acquisition Officer, reported in 1975 Mah.L.J. 468, wherein
it has been held that:
Land Acquisition Act [1 of 1894], SS. 23 and 24 -
Post notification sale - They are not irrelevant and
cannot be discarded merely because they are
effected two or three years after relevant date."
Having going through the ratio laid down in the
above citation, it reflects that Their Lordships held that post
notification sale cannot be discarded merely because they
are effected two or three years after the relevant date.
Herein the case, date of notification under section 4 of the
L.A. Act is 15-12-1998 and date of sale-instance under
Exh.12 is 21-4-1999. Thus, considering the facts in hand
and ratio laid down in the above citation, I find substance in
the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
claimants that post notification sale, which is within period
of five months of relevant date of notification under section
4 of the L.A. Act cannot be discarded merely because it is a
post notification sale.
32. The learned counsel for the claimants further
pointed out that the sale-instance Exh.12, on which
respondents also relied under Index-II vide Exh.40. Having
look to the Index-II vide Exh.40, it reflects that respondents
have placed reliance on the said sale-instance dated 21-4-
1999, on which claimants also placed reliance on the same
sale-instance Exh.12. Admittedly, plot under sale-instance
Exh.12 is out of same Sy. No.86, from which land of the
claimants has been acquired. The price estimated under the
above sale-instance for a plot area 40'x40' ft. for a
consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-, which comes to Rs.100/- per
sq. ft. I have already discussed in detail and hold that the
22 FA2158/08
learned counsel for the claimants have rightly pointed out
that though sale -instance Exh.12 is post notification sale, it
can be considered as a good guide, so as to determine the
prevailing market rate of the acquired portion. He also
further rightly pointed out that the said sale-instance is after
four months of the relevant date. The ratio laid down in
1975 Mh.L.J. 868 (supra) reflects that there was post
notification sale of 2 or 3 years and Their Lordships in the
foresaid citation held that post notification sale cannot be
discarded merely because they are effected after 2 or 3 years
of the relevant date. Thus considering the ratio laid down in
the above citation, facts in hand that plot under sale-
instance Exh.123 is out of same. Sy. No.86, from which land
of the claimants has been acquired and respondents also
placed reliance on same sale-instance under Index-II vide
Exh.40 and, therefore, in the above back-drop, I find
substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel
for the claimants that the aforesaid sale-instance can be
considered as a good guide, so as to determine the
prevailing market price of the acquired portion.
36. .................... It is pertinent to note that on western
side of his purchased plot, acquired portion is shown located
in the name of claimant - Hemant. Having look to the
western side boundary mentioned in the sale-instance
Exh.12, it supports the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the claimants that acquired portion is located
just adjacent to western side of the purchased plot under
sale-instance Exh.12. Thus, after due consideration of the
location, situation of the purchased plot and acquired
portion, I find substance in the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the claimants that purchased plot is just
adjacent to the acquired portion and it is from the same Sly.
No.86, from which land of the claimants has been acquired."
18. The learned Reference Court has passed the impugned
Judgments and Orders / Awards on the basis of the evidence available
on record and after considering the Judgments relied upon by the
learned Advocate for the Claimants. We see no merit in the submissions
of the learned Advocate for the Appellants that the learned Reference
Court misread the Judgments cited by all the Claimants. The impugned
Judgments and Orders / Awards do no call for interference, except for
23 FA2158/08
granting 10% increase per year in the market value of the acquired
lands from the date of sale instance i.e. 21.04.1999 till the date of
Notification under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act in First Appeal Nos.2158
of 2008 and 2159 of 2008.
19. Though it is the contention of the learned Additional
Government Pleader that the learned Reference Court has granted
deduction towards development charges @ 25% from the compensation
amount was at lower side, admittedly there is no challenge to the
impugned Judgments and Orders / Awards by the State or the Acquiring
Body and, therefore, the said submission cannot be considered and dealt
with.
20. In the light of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
1(i) First Appeal Nos.2158 of 2008 and 2159 of 2008 are partly
allowed.
(ii) The Appellants in First Appeal Nos.2158 of 2008 and 2159
of 2008 shall be entitled to increase @ 10% per year in the market
value of the acquired lands from the date of sale instance dated
21.04.1999 at Exhs.26 and 23 in Land Acquisition Reference
Nos.505/2002 and 1/2004, respectively, till the date of the
Notifications issued therein under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act.
(iii) Rest of the operative Orders of the learned Reference Court in
Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) Nos.505/2002 and 1/2004
shall stand as it is.
2 (i) First Appeal No.2161 of 2008 is dismissed.
(ii) Parties shall bear their own costs.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R. G. AVACHAT, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/03/2025 18:36:25
