Back
2008 Supreme(Bom) 1393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Sahadu Aba Shete - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1469 OF 2007
IN L. A. R. NO. 723 OF 1991
Decided On: 25-09-2008
Mr A R Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for the Appellant-State
and for Respondent/State in all Claimants' Appeals/Cross-Objections.
Mr P M Joshi for the Respondents-Claimants.
Mr Anil Ahuja with Mr J.H Ahuja for the Appellants/Cross Objectionists.
Ms Asha Rakh, Mr Anand Prabhu/Chaware and Ms.Smita Anand for Claimants.
Headnote:a)Land Acquisition Act (1894), S.18(2):- Neither the Collector nor the reference court can extend the period of limitation provided under this provision nor can condone the delay in filing an application for reference.
b)Land Acquisition Act (1894), Ss.23, 4J – While determining the compensation for lands acquired, the lands of neighborhood which have same fertility and potential can form part of the basis.
c)Land Acquisition Act (1894), S.51(A).:- Certified copies of sale deed can be rendered in evidence while determining the compensation for lands acquired.
d)Land Acquisition Act (1894), 8s.7, 18, 23 – While determining the compensation for the lands compulsorily acquired, certain amount of guess work is necessary and the reference court has to be armed with certain amount of leverage because the Section 23 puts an obligation upon the reference court to arrive at a fair and just market price for the lands so acquired from innocent agriculturists.
e)Land Acquisition Act (1894), Ss.4, 23:- While determining the market value of small plots in huge acquisitions, it is not always necessary to make deductions for the smallness of the plots because the owners shall not be penalized for the smallness of the plot in huge acquisitions
f)Land Acquisition Act (1894), Ss.4, 23:- There can not be universal policy in principles of deduction and it always depend the facts and circumstances of the cases like small plots acquired does not enhance the potential of the acquisition but they are acquired for uniformity in the purpose of acquisition.
g)Land Acquisition Act (1894), S.23:- Where the consolidated value of compensation is determined by the court, the claimant can not claim separate compensation for the trees standing on the land.
1. On 25th August 1988, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Irrigation II, Nashik issued on behalf of the State of Maharashtra Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for acquisition of the lands for a public purpose namely, construction of Tisgaon Dam. Corrigendum to this Notification was issued on 24th July 1989. These Notifications were published in the Government Gazette on 25th August 1988 and 26th October 1989, whereupon it was also so published in the local newspapers on 20th August 1988, 23rd August 1988 and even notified at the village chawadi on 17th April 1989. In furtherance to these Notifications, the SLAO issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 23rd March 1990 where after he proceeded in accordance with law and after hearing the Claimants, made an Award under Section 11 of the Act on 16th February 1991 determining compensation payable to the Claimants at the following rates
Group Jirayat Bagayat
I Rs.18,000/- p.h. Rs.27,000/- p.h.
II Rs.22,000/- p.h. Rs.33,000/- p.h.
III Rs.27,000/- p.h. Rs.40,500/- p.h.
IV Rs.33,000/- p.h. Rs.49,500/- p.h.
Pot Kharaba land @ Rs.200/- p.h.
2. Dissatisfied with the extent of compensation, the Claimants without prejudice to their rights and contentions made applications under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare for jirayat land (cultivable land) and Rs.5,000/- per hectare for pot kharaba land (waste land). The Claimants produced documentary and oral evidence and, amongst others, proved on record certain sale-deeds and judgments of the Court being Exhibits 15, 23, 34 and 36. The State government examined only one witness DW1, whose statement was recorded as Exhibit 49, who was not aware of the contents of the sale deed dated 6th April 1988 and thus could not prove in accordance with law Exhibit 50, sale deed relating to the Village Khedgaon where it was stated that the jirayat land measuring 1 hectare 99 Ares was sold for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The learned Reference Court relied upon Exhibit 34 sale deed dated 24th March 1986 vide which 27Ares bagayat land was sold for Rs.41,000/- in village Khedgaon giving a rate of Rs.1,51,851/- per hectare.
3. While referring to other evidence on record, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable to the Claimants for acquisition of their land as follows :
Rs.1,47,000/- p.h. for Jirayat Land (Group II)
Rs. 73,500/- p.h. for Pot Kharab land.
4. The State of Maharashtra took exception to the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court and thus filed the present Appeal i.e. First Appeal No. 1469 of 2007 challenging the correctness of the judgment of the Reference court on different grounds. The Respondent-Claimants have not preferred any Appeal or Cross-Objection against the judgment of the Reference Court.
5. We may usefully refer to the reasonings and findings recorded by the learned Reference Court while enhancing the compensation payable to the Claimants. The same reads as under :-
“14. The last witness examined on behalf of the claimants to prove sale instance Ex. 34 is P.W. 2 Somnath Punjaji Thube. According to him on 24-3- 1980 he had sold G.No. 242 from village Khedgaon to Savitribai Bhaskarrao Davange for Rs.41,000/-. The area sold was 27ARE. It was bagayat land and it was irrigated on the well water. According to him, land was sold as per the then market rates prevailing. There was also electric motor of 3 H.P. Installed on the said well. He had 1/10th share in the well and electric motor. He had purchased said electric motor for Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/-. According to him, he was required to spend round about Rs.2,000/- for getting electric connection. Earnest money of Rs.24,000/- were received at the time of agreement of sale and the remaining amount of Rs.17,000/-, was paid at the time of sale-deed. According to him, he had
