Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Nagpur Bench)
H.D. Patel M.S. Deshpande, JJ.
State of Maharashtra another...... Appellants.
Versus
Nanabhai Rathod others...... Respondents.
First Appeal No. 209 of 1984, decided on 8-2-1988.
Advocates appeared :
M.M. Gadkari, A.G.P., for appellant.
M.C. Bhangde (for Nos. 1 to 7) S.C. Mehadia (for No. 8), for respondents.
Considering the section as it stands, Courts finds that it cannot have any application to the situation where possession has been taken by the acquiring authority even before the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, and having regard to the express language of the provision in the event of losing the possession before the notification the claimants would be entitled to ask for the benefit up to the period of the award by the Collector. Court therefore, finds that in the present case the claimants would be entitled in addition to the enhanced rate of interest and solatium, also to the addition of 12 per cent of the market value from the date of the notification until the date of the award by the Collector.
Section 23-Determination of market value of acquired and-Large area of land with non-agricultural potential acquired -Land sold in vicinity or acquired land for agricultural purposes Land sold as its retention would create nuisance and loss to the seller-Other land in vicinity sold being small plot of laud-Held, such sale instances are not proper to determine market value of acquired land.
He was not aware of the prices of the adjoining lands. The land so purchased came to be converted later for non-agricultural purposes. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on this sale instance for fixing the price of the acquired land. But once it is obvious that the seller was not aware of the non-agricultural potential and felt that retaining the land would create a nuisance and loss to him, he would obviously agree to sell the land for a lower price and this may not represent the true market price. Reliance on this sale instance, therefore, for fixing the market price of the acquired land would be improper.
Section 30 (2).
See Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 23 (2) and 28.
2. In Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1978, 4.97 acres (2,15.622 sq. ft.) of land and in Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1978, 4.55 acres (1,99,134 sq. ft.) of land belonging respectively to Bhadupotes and Rathods came to be acquired. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 25th July, 1974 in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1978, and notification under section 4 of the Act was issued in respect of the land acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1978 on 25th July, 1975. The notification under section 6 of the Act in both the cases was issued on 18th September 1976. The whole of the land was divided into three belts by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation awarded for the road-side belt, middle belt and the rear belt was respectively Rupees 25,000/-, 13,000 and10,000/- per acre. All these lands were contiguous situated within the municipal limits of Gondia town and had access from the highway from Gondia to Balaghat. The frontage of Bhadupotes' land on Balaghat road was 300 feet while that of Rathod s' land was 50 to 60 feet. On the northern and southern sides of the property acquired were lands belonging to different individuals. To the southwest was located Muslim burial ground and a portion to the west was bounded by a lane beyond which was situate Christian cemetary. The lands were acquired for the purposes of a bus stand and a depot to be opened by one of the respondents Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 16-5-1978 awarding to Rathods Rupees 66,677.29 p. and to Bhadupotes Rs. 77,614.78 p. including the solatium at 15 per cent.
3. The main contention of the claimants was that the land which was acquired, had non-agricultural potential, highlighted by its being situated within the municipal limits of Gondia, adjacent to Gondia-Balaghat highway and its vicinity to the residential locality. The site was of much importance for commercial as well as residential purposes and had a great potential value. They claimed compensation at Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. Rathods additionally claimed compensation in respect of the value of the trees while Bhadupotes claimed compensation also for the house and well. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 2900/- for the trees and Rs. 1285/- for the house and Rs. 680/- for the well. No claim was made while making reference to the Court for the value of the trees. Bhadupotes, however, claimed Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- respectively for the house and the well, in addition to compensation at Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, granted compensation at Rs. 3/- per sq. ft., Rs. 3750/- for the trees and Rs. 4000/- for the well and Rs. 10,000/- for the house. Before us it was conceded by Shri Bhangde, the learned Counsel for the claimants that no additional compensation should have been awarded by the Court for trees because no such claim was made at the time of the reference. Shri Mehadia, the learned Counsel for the acquiring body, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation did not dispute the amount of compensation which was awarded by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in respect of the well and the trees. The only dispute before us is with regard to the rate awarded for the land.
4. Several witnesses were examined before the trial Court. Chimandas (A.W. 1) stated that he had sold a small plot 90' x 60' at Rs. 3/- per sq.ft. for Rs. 16,270/- on 21-4-1975, the distance
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
