Full Judgment Text
2007:BHC-AS:19071-DB
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2673 OF 2006
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
(The Special Land Acquisition Officer, )
Scarcity No.1, Nashik) )
2. The Executive Engineer, )
Nandur Madhameshwar Project Division, )
Nashik )..Appellants
versus
I. Shri Namdeo Shankar Govardhane, )
(deceased) through legal heirs )
1. Santosh Namdeo Govardhane )
2. Dhananjay Namdeo Govardhane, age 25, )
Occ. Agri. )
3. Devidas Namdeo Govardhane, age 21 )
Occ. Agri. )
4. Smt. Laxmibai Namdeo Govardhane, )
Age 62, Occ. Agri. )
All r/o Sanjegaon, Tal. Igatpuri, )
Dist. Nashik )
II. The Godawari Marathwada Irrigation )
Development Corporation, through the )
Executive Engineer, Nandur, Madhmeshwar )
Project Division, Near Ved Mandir, Trimbak )
Road, Nashik-2. )..Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NOS. 2674 TO 2714 OF 2006
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-2-
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 4709 OF 2006 TO 4750 OF 2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 4536 AND 4537 OF 2007
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION ST. NO. 20108 OF 2007
Mr. K.K. Tated, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellants in FA
Nos.2673 to 2695 of 2006.
Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellants in
FA Nos.2696 to 2703 of 2006.
Mr. B.H. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellants in
FA Nos.2704 to 2708 of 2006.
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellants in
FA Nos.2709 to 2714 of 2006.
Mr. P.L. Bhujbal for respondent Nos. I (1 to 4).
Mr. K.B. Sonwalkar for respondent No.2.
CORAM SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.
: &
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
Judgment reserved on : October 05 , 2007
Judgment delivered on: October 11, 2007
JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.):
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, acting on behalf of the
rd
State Government, issued a notification dated 3 March, 1994 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”) intending to acquire the lands from village Sanjegaon, Tal.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-3-
Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik, for Mukne Dam project. The declaration under
th
section 6 of the Act was issued on 10 June, 1994. After complying with
the provisions of the Act and after opportunity being given to the
claimants, the Special Land Acquisition Officer pronounced the Award
th
on 14 July, 1995 and awarded compensation to the claimants ranging
from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.55,000/- per hectare depending upon the nature
of the acquired lands.
2. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the
st
Special Land Acquisition Officer, on 31 August, 1995, the claimants
preferred References under Section 18 of the Act.
3. The parties led oral and documentary evidence before the
Reference Court. The learned IInd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge,
th
Nashik, vide his judgment and Award dated 24 March, 2006,
enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants ranging from
Rs.84,616/- per hecatare for potkharab land, Rs.1,69,231/- per hectare
for jirayat land to Rs.2,11,439/- per hectare for Bagayat land. The
claims of different claimants were disposed of by the same judgment.
4. Aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation by the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-4-
Reference Court, the State has filed in all 42 First Appeals. In one of
the First Appeals, i.e. First Appeal No.2689 of 2006, Cross-objection
bearing (Stamp) No.20108 of 2007 has been filed. However, the only
objection raised in this cross-objection is that the Reference Court has
fallen in error on facts and in appreciation of the evidence inasmuch as
the lands admeasuring about 2.26 hectares, which was Bagayat land
belonging to the claimants in that appeal, has been treated as Jirayat
land. The total land belonging to this claimant is stated to be 3.58
hectares. Resultantly, by this judgment we will be disposing of all the
above mentioned 42 appeals as also the cross-objections.
5. The claimants had prayed for enhancement of compensation
on various grounds before the Reference Court. It is their contention
that the SLAO classified the lands on the basis of assessment of land
revenue and ignored the comparative sale instances as well as the
location and potentiality of the acquired land viz. industrial potential and
proximity to Mumbai-Agra Road. Thus, according to the claimants, they
were entitled to much higher compensation than what had been
awarded to them by the SLAO. Obviously, according to the State, the
amount awarded by the SLAO was sufficient and there was no scope
for enhancement of the awarded compensation. The Reference Court,
while dealing with the respective contentions, computed the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-5-
compensation payable to the claimants and recorded the following
reasons:-
“18. The claimants relied on the evidence of P.W.5
Muktabai. She deposed about the sale instance Exh. 125.
Her evidence reveal that she purchased 13R land from field
Gat No. 810 for Rs. 15,000/-. As per her evidence, the
price was fixed as per the market value at the time of the
transaction. She deposed that the land is Jirayat land. Her
evidence also disclose that her field is at the distance of
half kilometer from the acquired lands. She deposed that
the quality of the acquired lands was superior as compared
to the quality of the lands purchased by her. During her
cross-examination, it is brought on record that she was
summoned as witness and her sale deed was produced in
few more cases of acquisition of lands. She deposed that
her field was paddy crop land. She denied all the
suggestions put to her during the cross examination. The
counsel for the claimants argued that the Mukane Dam
Project, lands of most of the cultivators of the village
Sanjegaon are acquired by different notifications. So, most
of the land acquisition cases are in respect of the fields at
village Sanjegaon. Muktabai is examined as a witness in
the cases pertaining to village Sanjegaon as her sale deed
is comparable sale instance to the acquired properties. He,
therefore, submitted that only on the ground of examination
of Muktabai in the land acquisition cases it cannot be said
that the transaction in the sale deed Exh. 125 is not bona
fide.
19. Evidence of Muktabai and contents of the sale deed
Exh. 125 reveal that it is the bona fide transaction. The
transactions was entered in the year 1989 i.e. much before
the notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, for
acquiring the lands at village Sanjegaon. As discussed in
the foregoing paras most of the acquired fields are paddy
crop lands. The land purchased by Muktabai is also
paddy crop land. As discussed above the land purchased
by Muktabai is in the vicinity of the acquired lands.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-6-
Considering these reasons, I come to the conclusion that
the sale instances between Laxman and Muktabai is
comparable sale instance to determine the market values
of the acquired lands.
20. In view of the above discussion, I come to the
conclusion that the sale instance Exh. 125 is the
comparative sale instance to determine the market value of
the acquired lands. The sale instance is dated 4/7/1989,
whereas the date of notification under Section 4 in the
present case is 3/3/1994. Contents of the sale deed Exh.
125 reveal that the land was purchased by Muktabai at
the rate of Rs. 115385/- per hector on 4/7/1989. There is a
gap of 56 months in between the sale instance and the
date of notification. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Special Land Acquisition Officer Mohamad Hanif
vs. (AIR
2002 SC 1558) held that the market value of the acquired
property can reasonably be determined by taking the price
fixed in old comparative sale transaction as a base value
and granting appreciation in the value of land at 10% per
annum for every subsequent year. So, considering these
observations appreciation at the rate of 10% p.a. For 56
months which comes to Rs. 53,846/- is to be added in the
above market rate of Rs. 115385/- per hector. Hence, the
market price of the acquired land on the date of notification
under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act comes to Rs.
169231/- per hector for Jirayat land.
21. As discussed above, fields Gat No. 109, 114, 102
and 250 are Bagayat lands. In the case of Kantaben
Manibhai Amin and another vs. The Special Land
Acquisition Baroda, AIR 1990 SC 103) Their Lordships
come to the conclusion that when there is no evidence
about the extent of superiority of the Bagayat land to
Jirayat land, some excess compensation over and above
the market value to the Jirayat land should be provided to
the Bagayat land. Hon'ble Apex Court awarded 25%
excess compensation over and above the market value of
the Jirayat land for the Bagayat land. I, therefore, come to
the conclusion that the market value of the Bagayat land at
Village Sanjegaon, on the date of notification under Sec. 4
of L.A. Act by giving 25% excess compensation over and
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-7-
above that market value of Jirayat land, comes to rs.
211539/- per hector.”
6. As is evident from the above discussion, the Reference Court
considered various sale instances placed before it and while
differentiating between three kinds of lands awarded comparatively
higher compensation to the bagayat land. In the light of the evidence
led by the parties, it can hardly be disputed that the acquired land was
agricultural land at the time of acquisition. Paddy crop was there in
some part of the land whereas in other parts different crops were grown
and some of the land was not even cultivated. In Exhibit No. 22 (LR
No. 29/98), the claimant Digambar Runjaji Govardhan had stated that
he used to get double crop from the acquired land and used to get
nearly 40 to 50 quintals per acre the price of which used to be Rs. 800
to Rs. 850/- per quintal. According to this witness, office of the
Gram Panchayat is located in the village and there are Banks and
Primary Schools, and S.T. Stand at Sanjegaon. The lands located in
Sanjegaon village are nearly 27 kilometres from Nashik. Mumbai-Agra
Highway is at a distance of 3 to 4 kilometres from the acquired land. It
must be noticed that according to this witness, the revenue
assessment of the agricultural land is same since last many years and it
was not increased even though the yielding capacity of the acquired
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-8-
land got increased. In support of his claim, he produced on record 7/12
extracts at Exhibits 25 to 32.
7. According to Muktabai Vithoba Medhane, Witness No.5 (Exh.
124), she had purchased land Gat No. 810 from village Sanjegaon
somewhere 16 years back for Rs. 15,000/-. The quality of the acquired
land was much superior than the quality of the land purchased by her.
Certified copy of sale deed is placed on record at Exh. 125.
8. In terms of location and potentiality there is not much
differentiation. However, the lands being agricultural lands at the time
of acquisition were correctly divided by the Reference Court into three
categories i.e. Irrigated land, non-irrigated land and potkharab land and
computed the market value accordingly. This approach of the
Reference Court can hardly be faulted with. The main argument raised
on behalf of the State is that even if the Reference Court was to rely
upon the sale instances, then a high scale of deduction was necessary
on different counts including development, huge acquisition and small
pieces of land involved in the sale instances relied upon by the
Claimants. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader,
the Reference Court has erred in law in relying upon sale deed Exh.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-9-
125 and in granting 10 per cent increase per year for the intervening
period and thereafter computing compensation at the rate of Rs.
1,69,231/- for jirayat land and 25 per cent increase in the case of
bagayat and 50 per cent decrease in the case of potkharab land. This
method of computation is faulted on the ground that at least deduction
of 20 to 30 per cent ought to have been applied and resultantly the
amounts should have been reduced. On the contrary, the learned
counsel appearing for the claimants, while relying upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others
vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another , [ (2001) 9 SCC 584], argued
that the compensation should be determined with reference to the
holding of each landholder in the acquired area and as each
landholder was holder of a small chunk of land, the impact of larger or
huge acquisition should not be permitted to the prejudice of the
claimants.
9. Exhibits 23, 24, 109 and 125 are the sale instances produced
and proved by the claimants while Exhibits 119 and 120 were proved by
the State. Exhibit-24 relates to a sale transaction of village Rayambe
while rest of the sale instances relate to the revenue estate of village
Sanjegaon. Exhibits 118, 119 and 120 relate to Sanjegaon. The
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-10-
Reference Court, while relying upon Exh. 125 which is a sale instance
of land admeasuring about 13 acres in village Sanjegaon of which the
th
sale took place on 4 July, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 1,15,385/- per
hector, rejected the other sale instances on the ground that they were
of small pieces of land or related to other villages. As far as evidence
produced by the State, the sale consideration reflected in all such
instances were even lower to the price given by the SLAO and as such
were of no consequence.
10. While granting the benefit of 10 per cent increase per annum
and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
SLAO, Bagalkot Mohd. Hanif
vs. , AIR 2002 SC 1558, the Reference
Court awarded the aforestated compensation to the claimants. The
only question that arises for consideration in the present case is
whether element of deduction should have been applied or not in the
facts and circumstances of the case. This question need not detain us
any further inasmuch as in a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra vs. Smt. Fulyabai Kisan
Govardhane (First Appeal No. 1171 of 2007 and others) where the lands
from the same village i.e. Sanjegaon were acquired for the same
nd
project and the notification was issued on 2 February,1994 i.e. just a
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-11-
few days before the notification in question in the present case, the
Bench after discussing all the relevant evidence as well as the law on
the subject partially accepted the State Appeals and passed the
following order.
“In view of the above discussion, while allowing the appeals
of the State partially, we hold and award the following
compensation to the Claimants depending upon the nature
of the lands which they own:
Jirayat land
: Compensation payable in terms of Exhibit 42
Rs. 1,15,385/- per hectare plus Rs. 53,846/- (10 per
cent annual increase on this value for the intervening
period 4-7-1989 to 2-2-1994) = Rs. 1,69,231/-
minus Rs. 42,307/- (25 per cent aggregate deduction
for small piece of land). Thus the total comes to
Rs. 1,26,924 per hectare for Jirayat land.
Bagayat land : Rs. 1,26,924/- (market value of Jirayat land) plus Rs.
31,731/- (25 per cent of market value of Jirayat land)
= Rs. 1,58,655/- . Thus the total market value for
Bagayat land comes to Rs. 1,58,655/- per hectare.
Pot kharab land Rs. 1,26,924/- (market value of Jirayat land) minus
Rs. 19,038/- (15% market value of jirayat land)
=Rs. 1,07,886/-. Thus, market value of Pot Kharab
land is Rs. 1,07,886/- per hectare.
Claimants would also be entitled to statutory benefits of Section 23
(2) and 23 (1A) of the Act. The claimants shall also be
entitled to interest on the enhanced amount in terms of
Section 28 of the Act.”
11. The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Smt.
Fulyabai Kisan Govardhane (supra) is squarely applicable on fact and
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-12-
law to the present case and for the reasons stated in the said judgment,
we find no reason as to why similar deduction should not be applied to
the facts of the present case. It may be noticed that the entire evidence
with the exception of oral evidence of claimant in this case was duly
considered by the Reference Court as well as by the High Court. We
have no reason to take any different view either in law or on evidence
on record.
12. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the State are partially
allowed. The Claimants would be entitled to the relief granted in First
Appeal No. 1171 of 2007 and the consequential benefits granted in that
case. There is no distinguishing evidence led by the parties in the
present case which can persuade the Court to take any different view.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-13-
12. The cross objections filed by one of the claimants being Cross
Objection (St.) No. 20108 of 2007 is allowed in view of the conceded
position on behalf of the State that the Claimants in that case would be
entitled to compensation awarded to the bagayat land to the extent of 2
acres and 26 ares and for remaining area of 1 acre 32 ares as Jirayat
land. To that extent, the cross objection is allowed. No other point has
been raised in the cross objection and as such no further orders are
called for.
13. Civil Application No. 4536 of 2007 for bringing the heirs of the
original claimant is allowed subject to just exceptions. Civil Application
No. 4537 of 2007 taken out by the cross objectors for condoning the
delay in filing the cross objection is also allowed.
13. In view of the above discussion, the State Appeals as well as
the Cross Objection are allowed to the limited extent stated
hereinabove, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14. In view of the disposal of the main appeals filed by the State,
no orders on the Civil Application Nos. 4709 to 4750 of 2006 taken out
by the State and the same are accordingly disposed of.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-14-
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2673 OF 2006
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
(The Special Land Acquisition Officer, )
Scarcity No.1, Nashik) )
2. The Executive Engineer, )
Nandur Madhameshwar Project Division, )
Nashik )..Appellants
versus
I. Shri Namdeo Shankar Govardhane, )
(deceased) through legal heirs )
1. Santosh Namdeo Govardhane )
2. Dhananjay Namdeo Govardhane, age 25, )
Occ. Agri. )
3. Devidas Namdeo Govardhane, age 21 )
Occ. Agri. )
4. Smt. Laxmibai Namdeo Govardhane, )
Age 62, Occ. Agri. )
All r/o Sanjegaon, Tal. Igatpuri, )
Dist. Nashik )
II. The Godawari Marathwada Irrigation )
Development Corporation, through the )
Executive Engineer, Nandur, Madhmeshwar )
Project Division, Near Ved Mandir, Trimbak )
Road, Nashik-2. )..Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NOS. 2674 TO 2714 OF 2006
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-2-
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 4709 OF 2006 TO 4750 OF 2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 4536 AND 4537 OF 2007
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION ST. NO. 20108 OF 2007
Mr. K.K. Tated, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellants in FA
Nos.2673 to 2695 of 2006.
Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellants in
FA Nos.2696 to 2703 of 2006.
Mr. B.H. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellants in
FA Nos.2704 to 2708 of 2006.
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellants in
FA Nos.2709 to 2714 of 2006.
Mr. P.L. Bhujbal for respondent Nos. I (1 to 4).
Mr. K.B. Sonwalkar for respondent No.2.
CORAM SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.
: &
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
Judgment reserved on : October 05 , 2007
Judgment delivered on: October 11, 2007
JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.):
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, acting on behalf of the
rd
State Government, issued a notification dated 3 March, 1994 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”) intending to acquire the lands from village Sanjegaon, Tal.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-3-
Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik, for Mukne Dam project. The declaration under
th
section 6 of the Act was issued on 10 June, 1994. After complying with
the provisions of the Act and after opportunity being given to the
claimants, the Special Land Acquisition Officer pronounced the Award
th
on 14 July, 1995 and awarded compensation to the claimants ranging
from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.55,000/- per hectare depending upon the nature
of the acquired lands.
2. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the
st
Special Land Acquisition Officer, on 31 August, 1995, the claimants
preferred References under Section 18 of the Act.
3. The parties led oral and documentary evidence before the
Reference Court. The learned IInd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge,
th
Nashik, vide his judgment and Award dated 24 March, 2006,
enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants ranging from
Rs.84,616/- per hecatare for potkharab land, Rs.1,69,231/- per hectare
for jirayat land to Rs.2,11,439/- per hectare for Bagayat land. The
claims of different claimants were disposed of by the same judgment.
4. Aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation by the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-4-
Reference Court, the State has filed in all 42 First Appeals. In one of
the First Appeals, i.e. First Appeal No.2689 of 2006, Cross-objection
bearing (Stamp) No.20108 of 2007 has been filed. However, the only
objection raised in this cross-objection is that the Reference Court has
fallen in error on facts and in appreciation of the evidence inasmuch as
the lands admeasuring about 2.26 hectares, which was Bagayat land
belonging to the claimants in that appeal, has been treated as Jirayat
land. The total land belonging to this claimant is stated to be 3.58
hectares. Resultantly, by this judgment we will be disposing of all the
above mentioned 42 appeals as also the cross-objections.
5. The claimants had prayed for enhancement of compensation
on various grounds before the Reference Court. It is their contention
that the SLAO classified the lands on the basis of assessment of land
revenue and ignored the comparative sale instances as well as the
location and potentiality of the acquired land viz. industrial potential and
proximity to Mumbai-Agra Road. Thus, according to the claimants, they
were entitled to much higher compensation than what had been
awarded to them by the SLAO. Obviously, according to the State, the
amount awarded by the SLAO was sufficient and there was no scope
for enhancement of the awarded compensation. The Reference Court,
while dealing with the respective contentions, computed the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-5-
compensation payable to the claimants and recorded the following
reasons:-
“18. The claimants relied on the evidence of P.W.5
Muktabai. She deposed about the sale instance Exh. 125.
Her evidence reveal that she purchased 13R land from field
Gat No. 810 for Rs. 15,000/-. As per her evidence, the
price was fixed as per the market value at the time of the
transaction. She deposed that the land is Jirayat land. Her
evidence also disclose that her field is at the distance of
half kilometer from the acquired lands. She deposed that
the quality of the acquired lands was superior as compared
to the quality of the lands purchased by her. During her
cross-examination, it is brought on record that she was
summoned as witness and her sale deed was produced in
few more cases of acquisition of lands. She deposed that
her field was paddy crop land. She denied all the
suggestions put to her during the cross examination. The
counsel for the claimants argued that the Mukane Dam
Project, lands of most of the cultivators of the village
Sanjegaon are acquired by different notifications. So, most
of the land acquisition cases are in respect of the fields at
village Sanjegaon. Muktabai is examined as a witness in
the cases pertaining to village Sanjegaon as her sale deed
is comparable sale instance to the acquired properties. He,
therefore, submitted that only on the ground of examination
of Muktabai in the land acquisition cases it cannot be said
that the transaction in the sale deed Exh. 125 is not bona
fide.
19. Evidence of Muktabai and contents of the sale deed
Exh. 125 reveal that it is the bona fide transaction. The
transactions was entered in the year 1989 i.e. much before
the notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, for
acquiring the lands at village Sanjegaon. As discussed in
the foregoing paras most of the acquired fields are paddy
crop lands. The land purchased by Muktabai is also
paddy crop land. As discussed above the land purchased
by Muktabai is in the vicinity of the acquired lands.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-6-
Considering these reasons, I come to the conclusion that
the sale instances between Laxman and Muktabai is
comparable sale instance to determine the market values
of the acquired lands.
20. In view of the above discussion, I come to the
conclusion that the sale instance Exh. 125 is the
comparative sale instance to determine the market value of
the acquired lands. The sale instance is dated 4/7/1989,
whereas the date of notification under Section 4 in the
present case is 3/3/1994. Contents of the sale deed Exh.
125 reveal that the land was purchased by Muktabai at
the rate of Rs. 115385/- per hector on 4/7/1989. There is a
gap of 56 months in between the sale instance and the
date of notification. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Special Land Acquisition Officer Mohamad Hanif
vs. (AIR
2002 SC 1558) held that the market value of the acquired
property can reasonably be determined by taking the price
fixed in old comparative sale transaction as a base value
and granting appreciation in the value of land at 10% per
annum for every subsequent year. So, considering these
observations appreciation at the rate of 10% p.a. For 56
months which comes to Rs. 53,846/- is to be added in the
above market rate of Rs. 115385/- per hector. Hence, the
market price of the acquired land on the date of notification
under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act comes to Rs.
169231/- per hector for Jirayat land.
21. As discussed above, fields Gat No. 109, 114, 102
and 250 are Bagayat lands. In the case of Kantaben
Manibhai Amin and another vs. The Special Land
Acquisition Baroda, AIR 1990 SC 103) Their Lordships
come to the conclusion that when there is no evidence
about the extent of superiority of the Bagayat land to
Jirayat land, some excess compensation over and above
the market value to the Jirayat land should be provided to
the Bagayat land. Hon'ble Apex Court awarded 25%
excess compensation over and above the market value of
the Jirayat land for the Bagayat land. I, therefore, come to
the conclusion that the market value of the Bagayat land at
Village Sanjegaon, on the date of notification under Sec. 4
of L.A. Act by giving 25% excess compensation over and
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-7-
above that market value of Jirayat land, comes to rs.
211539/- per hector.”
6. As is evident from the above discussion, the Reference Court
considered various sale instances placed before it and while
differentiating between three kinds of lands awarded comparatively
higher compensation to the bagayat land. In the light of the evidence
led by the parties, it can hardly be disputed that the acquired land was
agricultural land at the time of acquisition. Paddy crop was there in
some part of the land whereas in other parts different crops were grown
and some of the land was not even cultivated. In Exhibit No. 22 (LR
No. 29/98), the claimant Digambar Runjaji Govardhan had stated that
he used to get double crop from the acquired land and used to get
nearly 40 to 50 quintals per acre the price of which used to be Rs. 800
to Rs. 850/- per quintal. According to this witness, office of the
Gram Panchayat is located in the village and there are Banks and
Primary Schools, and S.T. Stand at Sanjegaon. The lands located in
Sanjegaon village are nearly 27 kilometres from Nashik. Mumbai-Agra
Highway is at a distance of 3 to 4 kilometres from the acquired land. It
must be noticed that according to this witness, the revenue
assessment of the agricultural land is same since last many years and it
was not increased even though the yielding capacity of the acquired
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-8-
land got increased. In support of his claim, he produced on record 7/12
extracts at Exhibits 25 to 32.
7. According to Muktabai Vithoba Medhane, Witness No.5 (Exh.
124), she had purchased land Gat No. 810 from village Sanjegaon
somewhere 16 years back for Rs. 15,000/-. The quality of the acquired
land was much superior than the quality of the land purchased by her.
Certified copy of sale deed is placed on record at Exh. 125.
8. In terms of location and potentiality there is not much
differentiation. However, the lands being agricultural lands at the time
of acquisition were correctly divided by the Reference Court into three
categories i.e. Irrigated land, non-irrigated land and potkharab land and
computed the market value accordingly. This approach of the
Reference Court can hardly be faulted with. The main argument raised
on behalf of the State is that even if the Reference Court was to rely
upon the sale instances, then a high scale of deduction was necessary
on different counts including development, huge acquisition and small
pieces of land involved in the sale instances relied upon by the
Claimants. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader,
the Reference Court has erred in law in relying upon sale deed Exh.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-9-
125 and in granting 10 per cent increase per year for the intervening
period and thereafter computing compensation at the rate of Rs.
1,69,231/- for jirayat land and 25 per cent increase in the case of
bagayat and 50 per cent decrease in the case of potkharab land. This
method of computation is faulted on the ground that at least deduction
of 20 to 30 per cent ought to have been applied and resultantly the
amounts should have been reduced. On the contrary, the learned
counsel appearing for the claimants, while relying upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others
vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another , [ (2001) 9 SCC 584], argued
that the compensation should be determined with reference to the
holding of each landholder in the acquired area and as each
landholder was holder of a small chunk of land, the impact of larger or
huge acquisition should not be permitted to the prejudice of the
claimants.
9. Exhibits 23, 24, 109 and 125 are the sale instances produced
and proved by the claimants while Exhibits 119 and 120 were proved by
the State. Exhibit-24 relates to a sale transaction of village Rayambe
while rest of the sale instances relate to the revenue estate of village
Sanjegaon. Exhibits 118, 119 and 120 relate to Sanjegaon. The
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-10-
Reference Court, while relying upon Exh. 125 which is a sale instance
of land admeasuring about 13 acres in village Sanjegaon of which the
th
sale took place on 4 July, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 1,15,385/- per
hector, rejected the other sale instances on the ground that they were
of small pieces of land or related to other villages. As far as evidence
produced by the State, the sale consideration reflected in all such
instances were even lower to the price given by the SLAO and as such
were of no consequence.
10. While granting the benefit of 10 per cent increase per annum
and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
SLAO, Bagalkot Mohd. Hanif
vs. , AIR 2002 SC 1558, the Reference
Court awarded the aforestated compensation to the claimants. The
only question that arises for consideration in the present case is
whether element of deduction should have been applied or not in the
facts and circumstances of the case. This question need not detain us
any further inasmuch as in a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra vs. Smt. Fulyabai Kisan
Govardhane (First Appeal No. 1171 of 2007 and others) where the lands
from the same village i.e. Sanjegaon were acquired for the same
nd
project and the notification was issued on 2 February,1994 i.e. just a
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-11-
few days before the notification in question in the present case, the
Bench after discussing all the relevant evidence as well as the law on
the subject partially accepted the State Appeals and passed the
following order.
“In view of the above discussion, while allowing the appeals
of the State partially, we hold and award the following
compensation to the Claimants depending upon the nature
of the lands which they own:
Jirayat land
: Compensation payable in terms of Exhibit 42
Rs. 1,15,385/- per hectare plus Rs. 53,846/- (10 per
cent annual increase on this value for the intervening
period 4-7-1989 to 2-2-1994) = Rs. 1,69,231/-
minus Rs. 42,307/- (25 per cent aggregate deduction
for small piece of land). Thus the total comes to
Rs. 1,26,924 per hectare for Jirayat land.
Bagayat land : Rs. 1,26,924/- (market value of Jirayat land) plus Rs.
31,731/- (25 per cent of market value of Jirayat land)
= Rs. 1,58,655/- . Thus the total market value for
Bagayat land comes to Rs. 1,58,655/- per hectare.
Pot kharab land Rs. 1,26,924/- (market value of Jirayat land) minus
Rs. 19,038/- (15% market value of jirayat land)
=Rs. 1,07,886/-. Thus, market value of Pot Kharab
land is Rs. 1,07,886/- per hectare.
Claimants would also be entitled to statutory benefits of Section 23
(2) and 23 (1A) of the Act. The claimants shall also be
entitled to interest on the enhanced amount in terms of
Section 28 of the Act.”
11. The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Smt.
Fulyabai Kisan Govardhane (supra) is squarely applicable on fact and
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-12-
law to the present case and for the reasons stated in the said judgment,
we find no reason as to why similar deduction should not be applied to
the facts of the present case. It may be noticed that the entire evidence
with the exception of oral evidence of claimant in this case was duly
considered by the Reference Court as well as by the High Court. We
have no reason to take any different view either in law or on evidence
on record.
12. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the State are partially
allowed. The Claimants would be entitled to the relief granted in First
Appeal No. 1171 of 2007 and the consequential benefits granted in that
case. There is no distinguishing evidence led by the parties in the
present case which can persuade the Court to take any different view.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-13-
12. The cross objections filed by one of the claimants being Cross
Objection (St.) No. 20108 of 2007 is allowed in view of the conceded
position on behalf of the State that the Claimants in that case would be
entitled to compensation awarded to the bagayat land to the extent of 2
acres and 26 ares and for remaining area of 1 acre 32 ares as Jirayat
land. To that extent, the cross objection is allowed. No other point has
been raised in the cross objection and as such no further orders are
called for.
13. Civil Application No. 4536 of 2007 for bringing the heirs of the
original claimant is allowed subject to just exceptions. Civil Application
No. 4537 of 2007 taken out by the cross objectors for condoning the
delay in filing the cross objection is also allowed.
13. In view of the above discussion, the State Appeals as well as
the Cross Objection are allowed to the limited extent stated
hereinabove, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14. In view of the disposal of the main appeals filed by the State,
no orders on the Civil Application Nos. 4709 to 4750 of 2006 taken out
by the State and the same are accordingly disposed of.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::
-14-
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:44:57 :::