Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 27
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
A.S. OKA & G.S. GODBOLE
Trambak Balaji Sangale & Others
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Another
FIRST APPEAL NOS. 1294 OF 2004, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355 & 1356 OF 2004
Decided On : 06-01-2012
For the Appellants:P.N. Joshi a/with Sachin Gite, Advocates.
For the Respondents:A.R. Patil, AGP, P.P. Chavan a/with Ms. Shyamli Gadre i/by Little & Co, S.A. Rajeshirke, Advocates.
The compensation for the acquired lands should be determined based on the market value of the lands on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, taking into account the location of the lands, their development potential, the sale instances of similar lands in the vicinity, and the statutory benefits available to the claimants.
Headnote:
The Court held that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was inadequate and fixed the compensation for the lands abutting the road at Rs. 2,18,750/per hectare and for the lands not abutting the road at Rs. 1,96,875/per hectare.
Fact of the Case:
The lands in question were acquired by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) for the purpose of development by publishing a notice under Section 32(2) of the MID Act, 1961. The lands were situated in two revenue villages, Sinnar and Malegaon, which are adjoining each other. The lands under acquisition were from the revenue village Sinnar had a frontage of three kilometers on the Pune Nasik State High Way, whereas the lands under acquisition from revenue village Malegaon were not abutting the PuneNasik State High Way but begin from a distance of around 150 meters from the Northern side of the State High Way.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was inadequate and fixed the compensation for the lands abutting the road at Rs. 2,18,750/per hectare and for the lands not abutting the road at Rs. 1,96,875/per hectare.
Issues: The issues before the Court were: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the SLAO was adequate? 2. What was the appropriate compensation for the lands acquired?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was inadequate and fixed the compensation for the lands abutting the road at Rs. 2,18,750/per hectare and for the lands not abutting the road at Rs. 1,96,875/per hectare. The Court considered the following factors in arriving at its decision: 1. The location of the lands and their proximity to the Pune Nasik State High Way. 2. The development potential of the lands. 3. The sale instances of similar lands in the vicinity. 4. The statutory benefits available to the claimants under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the Claimants and dismissed all the appeals filed by the State. The Court also allowed the Cross Objection filed by the State and modified the impugned judgments and awards accordingly.
G.S. GODBOLE, J.
1. All these Appeals are being heard and disposed of by a common Judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved and since all the Advocates appearing in the Appeals have specifically requested for deciding the Appeals by a common Judgment. All the Appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) read with the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Disputes Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “MID Act, 1961”).
2. Initially all these Appeals were decided by the Division Bench (Swatanter Kumar, CJ as he then was and J.P. Devadhar, J.) by Judgment and Order dated 10th April, 2008 and it was held that the References made under Section 34 (1) of the MID Act, 1961 were barred by time except Appeal Nos. 1776, 1779, 1782, 1784, 1794, 1797, 1818, 1832, 1837, 1840, 1844 and 1847 of 2003 which Appeals were remanded to the Reference Court for deciding the question of limitation of the References and for determining the compensation afresh.
3. Aggrieved by these orders, the original claimants had filed Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of India being SLP Nos. 20689 and other connected SLPs, which were numbered as Civil Appeal Nos. 5693 of 2010 to 5828 of 2010 and were allowed by a common Judgment and Order dated 20th July, 2010 passed by the Supreme Court. The operative order of the Supreme Court Judgment reads thus:
“18. In view of the above, we allow these appeals as follows: (a) The judgment of the High Court allowing the appeals of the State and dismissing the appeals of the claimants is set aside.
(b) The judgment and award of the Reference Court holding that the applications for reference were within time is upheld though for different reasons.
(c) All the appeals filed by the claimants and the State before the High Court shall now stand revived for determination of the market value and compensation payable.
(d) The respondents shall pay costs of rs.2500/per case to the respective appellants in the 70 cases.
(e) As the matters relates to an acquisition of 1989, we request the High Court to dispose of the remanded appeals expeditiously.
Sd/[R.V. Raveendran,J.]
New Delhi, Sd/
July 20,2010 [H.L. Gokhale,J.]”
4. In view of the aforesaid directions, all these Appeals have been placed before us by constituting a Special Bench and we have accordingly heard the submissions of the learned Advocates on 5th October, 2011 and 7th October, 2011 and the Judgment was reserved.
5. On behalf of the Appellants (original Claimants), Advocate P. N. Joshi, Advocate Sachin Gite, Advocate S.A. Rajeshirke and Advocate P. B. Shah advanced arguments; whereas on behalf of the Respondents Mr. Anand R. Patil, learned AGP had appeared for the State in all the Appeals and Mr. P. P. Chavan with Ms. Samali Gadre instructed by the Little and Company had appeared on behalf of the MIDC in all the Appeals.
6. Relevant sections 32 to 34 of the MID Act, 1961 provide for acquisition of the lands required by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC, for short) and the relevant provisions of Sections 32 to 34 reads thus:
“32. (1) If, at any time in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required Compulsory acquisition. for the purpose of development by the Corporation, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may acquire such land by publishing in the Official Gazette a notice specifying the particular purpose for which such land is required, and stating therein that the State Government has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section.
(2) Before publishing a notice under subsection(1), the State Government shall by another notice call upon, the owner of the land and any other person who in the opinion of the State Government may be interested therein, to show cause, within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. 3[The S
