Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
K.J.ROHEE AND R.C.CHAVAN, JJ.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Appellant
Versus
Shaikh Khatinabi wd/o.Abdul Gaffar Shaikh Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO.444 OF 2007.
L.A.C.NO. 55 OF 1997.
Decided on: 06.12.2007.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Sections 32 and 34 - Acquisition of land - Claim of compensation - Determination of - Sale instance of land situated nearby - Can be relied upon with necessary adjustments - Land acquired beyond municipal limits - Two kmts. away from land which was sold earlier and relied on - After making proper deductions, claimants entitled to Rs. 60,000/- per hectare as against Rs. 75,000/- awarded by Reference Court. - There can be no doubt as contended by the Advocate for the appellant that higher compensation to lands in the neighbourhood cannot be a ground to claim higher compensation even for the land in question. All the same the fact that higher compensation had been awarded for lands acquired in the neighbourhood would not become totally irrelevant. The Advocate for the appellant submitted that while the Judge of the reference Court has relied on the instance of sale of Shri Ladekar’s land he has not given any reason as to why he came to fix the price of land acquired @ Rs. 75,000/- per hectare. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.V. Saraf v. New Education Institute, reported at AIR 1986 SC 2015, the Advocate submitted that the Judge of the reference Court was obliged to pass speaking order by giving relevant reasons. Absence of reasons as to how that he reached the figure of Rs. 75,000/- makes the judgment vulnerable to attack that inference drawn is arbitrary.
As already observed by us in the foregoing discussion, there cannot be an exactly identical instance which would be just guide for fixing the price for land under acquisition. Some guess work and some adjustments would be inevitable. It would also be improper to expect a land owner to tender evidence about instances unfavourable to him. In order to obtain higher compensation he would obviously tender evidence about the instances of sale which favoured such higher compensation. The acquiring body too could have tendered evidence to show as to which was the most appropriate instance of sale which can provide a good guide for arriving at the price of the land acquired. In the absence of any material indicating any other sale instance it may not be appropriate to reject the instance evidence by Exh. 32.
The Advocate for the appellant objected to reliance on this sale instance first because the land happened to be within the municipal limits of Umrer and was from village Belgaon as against the acquired land which was in village Dhurkheda out side the municipal limits of Umrer. Secondly the acquired land was about 2 kms. away from the land sale whereof was evidenced by Exh. 32. Thirdly, while the land ac quired was 5.28 hectares and the land sold vide Exh. 32 was just 1.25 hectares, a small piece as compared to the land acquired. Lastly he submitted that map at Exh. 40 would show that the land under sale instance at Exh. 32 hearing Survey No. 152 of village Belgaon has full frontage on a state highway whereas the land under acquisition has only a small frontage with major portion of the land being behind Survey No. 75 which has full frontage of the road.
In view of the foregoing we hold that the reference before the District Judge was within limitation and therefore was rightly entertained by him. But he was not justified in awarding compensation @ Rs. 75,000/- per hectare. Instead the compensation should have been awarded @ Rs. 60,000/- per hectare.
Respondent No. 1 would be entitled to receive compensation calculated @ Rs. 60,000/- per hectare plus statutory additives like solatium component interest etc. Respondent No. 1 would be entitled to receive the amount so calculated from the amount in deposit in this Court. Balance be refused to the appellant.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Sections 32 and 34 - Acquisition of land - Compensation for - Determination of - Deductions for development charges - Value of land acquired computed on per sq. mts. or per sq. ft. basis - Deduction for development charges should be made - Computation of value of land acquired per hectare basis warrants no deduction for development charges. - In Court’s view the judgment does not lay down the proposition that a deduction of 30 to 40% should be made for the development charge in all cases. When price of the land acquired is calculated on per square meter or per square foot basis (or on the basis of a smaller unit of area like a bigha) it may be appropriate to make deduction towards development charges. But when price is calculated per hectare i.e. for a large chunk, deduction of development charges may not be warranted. This is so because when the price of a large chunk of land is calculated on per square feet basis without making any deduction for the land occupied by the roads or other utilities the price would be unreal. Therefore we do not find it necessary to make any further deduction on account of the development charges.
1. This appeal by the acquiring body is directed against the judgment of 9th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case No.55 of 1997, whereby the learned Judge granted enhanced compensation to respondent No.1 for 5.28 hectares of respondent No.1's land bearing Gut No.72 in village Dhurkheda, Tahsil : Umred, District : Nagpur.
2. The appellant Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation is a statutory Corporation established under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as .MID Act.). The MID Act provides for acquisition of lands for industrial development of undeveloped areas. Clause (2) of Section 32 of the Act provides for publication of a notice which corresponds to notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In respect of the land in question such notice under clause (2) of section 32 of the MID Act was issued on 16.08.1989 and published in the official gazette on 14.09.1989. A further notice to be published by the State Government under Clause (1) of Section 32 corresponds to notice under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 32(1) of the Act was published on 24.05.1990. By an award dated 13.05.1996 the _ Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the land owner @ Rs.19,000/- per hectare, amounting to Rs.1,02,960/- for 5.28 hectares of the land. According to the land owner on 06.07.1996 notice Exh.20 in respect of this award was sent by the Land Acquisition Officer which was received by him on 17.07.1996. The land owner sought compensation of Rs.16,27,700/- by applying on 17.08.1996 under Section 34 of the Act for reference to Court.
3. The appellant Corporation objected to the tenability of reference, first on the ground that it was barred by limitation, prescribed under Section 34 of the MIDC Act and secondly because the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper.
4. Upon considering th1e evidence tendered before him in light of the issues which he has framed, the learned Judge held against the Corporation and proceeded to hold that the land owner was entitled to compensation @ Rs.75,000/- per hectare minus amount, if any, already received. The claimant had also sought compensation for trees etc. which the Court did not grant and about which no grievance has been made by the claimant in the present appeal. _
5. We have heard learned Advocate Shri Agnihotri for the appellant acquiring body and learned Advocate Shri Parsodkar for respondent No.1 claimant.
6. The learned Advocate for the appellant/ Corporation submitted that though the Corporation had specifically raised question of limitation prescribed under Section 34 of the Act, the learned Judge of the reference Court misdirected himself by framing an issue as to whether the reference was barred under Section 18(2)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Advocate Shri Agnihotri, further submitted that the entire discussion by the learned Judge of the reference Court proceeded on the foundation that limitation as prescribed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was applicable resulting in the learned Judge rendering negative finding on the issue framed.
7. According to learned Advocate Shri Agnihotri provisions of Section 18 would apply to the proceedings only after an application for reference is made. He stated that the phraseology used in Section 34 of the Act is very clear and there cannot be any other interpretation.
8. In order to comprehend the contentions raised in this behalf by the learned Advocate for the appellant it may be useful to reproduce _ the provisions of Section 34 of the MID Act, as under : .
(1) : Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector determining the amount of compensation may, within sixty days from the date of such decision, in so far as it affects him, by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by him for determination of
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
