Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Swatanter Kumar, C.J. and S.C. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra -Appellant
VERSUS
Shri Trimbak Joma Thakur, deceased, through his legal representatives Dasharath Trimbak Thakur and others –Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 646, 781 to 783, 785 to 790, 808 to 815, 838, 847 of 1995 with Cross Objection (Stamp) No. 27839, 31303, 27912, 27864, 27918, 27840, 27907, 27838, 27910, 27859, 27916, 27842, 27913, 27854, 27865, 31301,27853,27874 of 1996, 32928 of 1995, 18882 of 2002 decided on 21-62007.
Decided on: June 21, 2007
Advocates appeared :
Mr. A.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for the Appellants
Mr. Uday Lalit, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, P.S. Dani for the Respondents.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23 - Acquisition of land - Market value of land - Determination of - Relevant factors for consideration - No sale instance produced by claimant for relevant period - Produced lease deeds - Lease deeds to be treated as evidence admissible in law - Relevant for determining question in dispute. - The lands for the first time were acquired in the year 1970 and the acquisition, of course, was permitted to lapse and fresh notification was issued in the year 1986. In other words, the lands all throughout this long period, remained the subject-matter of notification under Section 4 of the Act, thus necessarily debarring transfer of lands. The claimants cannot be blamed for not producing on record the sale instances for the relevant period. They have produced their own best evidence which was available to them in the form of lease-deeds, vide which CIDCO has transferred the lands to the companies or individuals for different amounts. They have to be treated as evidence admissible in law and relevant for determining the question in controversy.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23 - Acquisition of land - Market value of land - Determination of - Relevant consideration for - Potential of acquired land - To be determined on basis of factors available and existing as on date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of Act - Future potential of land not relevant - Location of land - Stepping stone for examining potential of land. - The potential has to be determined on the basis of factors available and existing as on the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The future potential of lands i.e. what the land price would be after a lapse of one year or more, would hardly be a relevant consideration. The potential cannot be treated as a mere expectation of future, but should be close to reality at site at the time of acquisition of the lands. The potential itself has to be on the basis of the existing evidence which will reflect the potential and scope of development of the area with reference to the surrounding area.
Location and potential of an acquired land are two features of mode of acquisition which go hand-in-hand. The location of a land is the stepping stone for examining the potential of the land.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23 - Acquisition of land - Determination of market value - Sale instances of lands fully developed referred - Acquired land neither developed nor close to National Highway - Average of two sale instances taken by Court - Determined amount of compensation by deducting 25%. - The lands in question were acquired 7 years later i.e. in the year 1984. Merely three instances referred to by the claimants as well as a petrol pump instance can hardly form the basis for determination of the compensation. Since Court has found that the instances referred to are of the lands which are fully developed they cannot be taken into consideration and therefore, Court has taken the average of two instances referred to in paragraph 23 above; and have computed the amount of compensation by deducting 25%.
1. In furtherance to the Notification dated 24th September, 1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the lands belonging to the Claimants were subjected to compulsory acquisition by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The lands were part of the Revenue Estate of Village Roadpali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, admeasuring about 8040 square metres and forming part of Gats No. 118/0, 128/0 and 170/0. These lands were acquired for a public purpose, viz., for completion of the project for New Bombay in terms of the Notification issued by the Government. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, vide his Award made under Section 11 of the Act in year 1989, awarded to the Claimants compensation for acquisition of their lands at the rate of Rs.200/- to Rs.230/- per square metre. Dissatisfied by the awarded compensation, the land-owners preferred References under Section 18 of the Act. All the 22 References were dealt with and decided together by the learned District Judge, Raigad. Vide judgment dated 23rd December, 1993, the Reference Court granted the following reliefs to the Claimants;-
"The Opponent shall pay to the Claimants Rs.16,88,440/- by way of market value plus Rs.5,06,520/- by way of solatium at 30% plus Rs.5,45,098.78 ps. as additional amount payable on the market value under Sec. 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, in all Rs.27,40,018.78 awarded and paid to the Claimants as per the Award of the Opponent, that is to say, that the Opponent shall pay to the claimants Rs.26,68,819.45 ps. additionally together with interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment on the said amount and proportionate costs of this reference. " The State Government is aggrieved by the judgment and preferred the First Appeals praying for modification of the judgment and claiming that the Award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer should be restored and the learned Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation payable to the Claimants, while the Claimants felt that they were entitled to the grant of higher rate of compensation for their lands and thus, they preferred the cross-objections against the said judgment, praying for enhancing the compensation awarded to them by the learned Reference Court. Thus, the above 40 appeals and crossobjections arise from one and the same judgment and would necessarily have to be disposed of by a common judgment. First Appeal No. 646 of 1995 was taken up as the lead case, and thus, we would refer to the facts in that appeal.
2. The lands belonging to the Claimants were acquired for a purpose - to relieve congestion existing in Bombay proper in respect of industrial, commercial and residential purposes, and to establish a self-sufficient township, popularly known as "the New Bombay Project". The Government had issued Notification for acquiring the lands. This Notification, as already noticed, was issued in the year 1986. It may be noticed here that earlier a Notification was issued in the year 1970 under Section 4 of the Act; but the lands were not acquired. The provisions of the Act were amended in the year 1984. Resultantly, the Notification issued under Section 4 lapsed, rendering the land acquisition proceedings initiated earlier ineffective and whereafter a fresh Notification under Section 4 was issued on 24th September, 1986, resulting in the present proceedings.
3. Before the learned Reference Court, parties led documentary and oral evidence. The Claimants examined experts, as well as placed on record and proved lease-deeds, allotment letters, etc., and on the strength of the expert evidence, had prayed for further enhancement. On behalf of the State Government, a plea was taken that the claim of the Claimants is exorbitant, unprecedented and based on instances which are neither comparable, nor ha
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
