Back
2008 Supreme(Bom) 150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Swatanter Kumar, C. J. and J. P. Devadhar, J.
GENU BHIVAJI RAO - Appellant.
vs.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER GODAVARI, NASHIK and another - Respondents.
Decided On: 31-01-2008
First Appeal Nos. 2526 to 2534, 2537 to 2539, 2541, 2545, 2547 to 2554 to 2568,2570,2572 to 2576, 2578, 2580 to 2587, 2589 to 2601, 2603 to 2605, 2607 to 2608, 2610 to 2615, 2618, 2619, 2622, 2625 to 2626 of 2006, 2462 to 2525, 2535, 2542 to 2544, 2546, 2566, 2569, 2571, 2577, 2579, 2588, 2602, 2606, 2616, 2617, 2620, 2621, 2623, 2624, 2397, 2536, 2398, 2540, 2399, 2609 of 2006,1717 of 2003 to 1719 of 2003, 1383 to 1455 of 2007 with Cross Objection Stamp Nos. 25241, 8274, 2430, 2435, 2453, 2520,2521,2522,2524,2526,2527,2454,2455,2528,2529,2530,2531,2532,2533,2534,5876,5877,2535,5865, 878,5879,5867,5868,2536,5870,5863,2537,5889,2538,2539,2540,2541, 2542, 2543, 13139, 8270, 13141, 8273, 2544 and 5891 of 2007 with Civil Application Nos. 3034 of 2004,4437,4405 to 4413, 4416 to 4418, 4420, 4424, 4426 to 4433, 4438 to 4443, 4434 to 44p6, 4444, 4447, 4449, 4451 to 4455, 4457, 4459 to 4466, 4468 to 4480, 4482 to 4487, 4489 to 4494, 4504, 5405, 4497, 4498, 4501, 4347, 4350, 4353 to 4358, 4394, 4395, 4398, 4400, 4402, 4414, 4421 to 4423, 4425, 4445, 4448, 4450, 4456, 4458, 4464, 4481, 4485, 4495,4496,4499, to 4500, 4502,4503,4415,4419,4488 of 2006 , 6402, 6406,6407,6408,6409,6410,6411,6412,6413,6423,6378,6379,6381,6382,6394,6395,6399,6430,6431,643,6434,6436 to 6438, 6440 6441, 6442, 6444, 6445, 6446, 6448 to 6450, 6451, 6452, 6479, 6480, 6453, 6455, 6383, 6358, 6388 to 6391, 6393, 6458 to 6465, 6467to6478,5927,6429,6488,6427,6481,6492,6491,6485,6488,6320,6321,6322,6323,6324,6325,6327,6328,6330,6331, 6333, 6355, 6334, 6335, 6336, 6337, 6338, 6339, 6340, 6341 to 6345, 6356 to 6372, 6501, 6373 to 6375, 6416, 6417, 6376, 6418 to 6421, 6377, 6422, 6456, 6405, 6424 to 6426, 6415, 6414, 6404, 6380, 6396 to 6398, 6454, 6384, 6386, 6392, 6457, 6466, 6439, 6435, 6482, 6483, 6486 to 6490, 6403, 6400, 6432 of 2007
K. K. Tated, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State Appeals and for the Respondents in Claimants Appeal/Cross Objections.
P. N Joshi, instructed by S. S. Gite, S. M Gorwadkar, S. S. KOlwal, for the appellants in Claimants appeal and for the respondents in States appeals and connected civil applications including respondents in C.A. Nos. 6320 to 6492 of2007 in F. A. No.2462 of 2006 to 2626 of 2006.
K. B. Sonwalkar for the added respondents in First Appeals and Applicants in C.A. Nos. 6320 to 6492 of2007 in F.A. No. 2462 of2006 to 2626 of 2006
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 23-Acquisition of land-Compensation for-Determination of-Sale instances of adjacent village about 6 months after date of notification issued under Section 4 of Act-Not to be considered while determining compensation-Sale instances from Revenue Estate of same village from where land acquired, relevant and comparable sale instances-Sale instances of adjacent village cannot be looked into by Court for determining compensation.-In the present case, while making reference to the above sale instances, the reference Court has mainly relief upon the earlier judgment of the Court dated 6th September, 2002, Exhibit-18 relating to the same notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 5th May, 1994. Giving compensation of Rs. 2,12,500/- to the jirayat land, the Court calculated the compensation payable for the pot kharab portion at Rs. 1,06, 250/- Exhibit-18 itself is subject-matter of first appeals before us being First Appeal No. 1717 of 2003 and other connected appeals. These appeals have also been listed for hearing. Thus, the correctness and legality of Exhibit-18 is also in question before the Court. According to the claimants, they are entitled to higher compensation while in the appeals filed by the State they have prayed for withdrawing the enhancement given by the Reference Court in favour of the claimants. The Reference Court noticed that compensation either computed on the basis of the sale instances or with reference to the judgments of the Court awardable to the claimants would be similar. We have already noticed that it was not appropriate for the Reference Court to rely upon Exhibit-20 particularly when the sale instances of relevant period were available and were comparable.
Unless the situation and potential of the land situated in two different villages was identical. The Court would not be justified in relying upon sale instances of other villages. The relevancy of the price fetched in the adjoining villages for sale of land would not be of much help and assistance in the present case.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23-Acquisition of land-Compensation for-Determination of-Acquisition of land compulsory-Compensation payable to claimants to be determined by Court-Besides being just and fair in terms of market value, also equitable.-The statutory provisions of Section 23 of the Act require that the Court has to determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimants while taking into consideration the criteria specified in the section. The Court has to determine the compensation payable to the claimants which, besides being just and fair in terms of the market value, is also equitable as these are cases of compulsory acquisition.
SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J.:-
By this common judgment, we will dispose of 165 appeals filed by the State, 80 appeals filed by the claimants, 45 Cross objections filed by the claimants in State Appeals and 330 connected Civil Applications.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the SLAO"), while exercising his power as Collector, published a notification on 5th May, 1994, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), clearly stating the intention of the Government to acquire the land from the revenue estate of village Mukane, Tal. Igatpuri, District Nashik, for a public purpose viz. Mukane Dam Project. In furtherance to this, declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 7th July, 1994, which was published in the official gazette on the same day. The SLAO, after complying with the requirements of the provisions of the Act, published his award dated 20th October, 1995, under section 11 of the Act. The SLAO classified the lands in different groups and based upon the assessment, gave compensation varying from Rs. 37,000/- per hectare to Rs. 1,17,000/- per hectare. The total land acquired was 349 hectares 59.3 ares. It has been noticed in the award that an enquiry under section 11 of the Act was carried out but no objections were received. The claimants had filed their claims claiming different compensation for lands varying from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 7 lakhs. The land owners-claimants felt dissatisfied from the award of the Collector made applications under section 18 of the Act. These applications were referred by the Collector to the Court of competent jurisdiction and the Reference Court vide its judgment and award dated 14th February, 2006, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, fixed the compensation as follows :
Rs. 2,12,500/- per hectare for jirayat land.
Rs. 1,06,250/- per hectare for potkharab land.
In other words, the Court classified the entire acquired land into two sections and awarded the fair compensation, while referring to various sale instances.
3. Still the claimants felt aggrieved from the judgment of the reference Court preferred appeals before this Court praying for further enhancement of the awarded compensation. They have challenged the correctness and legality of the judgment of the Reference Court. According to them, the Court ·has ignored relevant piece of evidence and has not given the appropriate compensation to the claimants. We may also notice here that during the pendency of this appeal, an application being Civil Application No. 6581 of 2007 was filed by the claimants in First Appeal No. 1377 of 2007. It was prayed by the applicant that the additional evidence be permitted to be led in the First Appeal by taking on record the map Exhibit-l and 7/12 extracts annexed to that application. When this application came up for hearing, the same was disposed of by us vide our order dated 22nd January, 2008, which reads as under.
"Prayer made by the applicant in this application is not opposed. The map in question has been prepared by the Development Authority which itself is a party in the present appeal and has been permitted to intervene in this appeal. Consequently, this application is allowed subject to just exceptions. The map annexed to this application is taken on record with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the same is marked as 'Cl'. Application is accordingly disposed of."
4. The Authority i.e. The Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, for whose benefit the land had been acquired, had also filed applications for becoming parties to the present appeals. These applications are 165 in number. To these applications, there was no opposition. We also heard the arguments on behalf of the said authority. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the fact that there was no opposition to these applications, all these applications for implea
