Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nashik vs Nashik Panchwati Panjrapol Trust

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Bom) 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. OKA & G.S. PATEL, JJ.
Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nashik
Vs.
The Nashik Panchwati Panjrapol Trust & Anr.
First Appeal No.1067 of 2001 with Cross Objection St.no.39179 of 2001.
Decided On : 3rd October, 2013.

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. G.S. HEGDE for the appellant.
Mr. J.H. AHUJA for the respondent No.1.
Mr. A.R. PATIL, AGP for the respondent No.2.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23 - Determination of compensation. - Since acquired land and lands in sale instances can be treated as Urban Lands hence market value of acquired land cannot be doubled than lands in sale instances. - Therefore, for arriving at the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the market value reflected from Exhibits 49 and 51, the law laid down in the said decision in the case of the General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 745 : 2008 (6) All MR 491 (SC), will have to be applied. In the case in hand, on the relevant date, the lands were situated in the municipal corporation area and there was all around non-agricultural development of the lands in the vicinity of the acquired land as well as the lands subject matter of Exhibits 49 and 51. Therefore, the lands will have to be treated as urban lands. Accordingly, escalation will have to be calculated on cumulative basis at the rate of 15% per annum.
       The acquired land had a wide frontage of at least 350 meters on the Nashik Aurangabad road (as narrated in the award under Section 11 of the said Act). Moreover, it was close to the Bombay-Agra Road. On the other hand, the sale instance lands were in the interior part and they were away from the Nashik-Aurangabad Highway. Market value of a land abutting a highway is always more than market value of a land away from it (Union of India v. Mangatu Ram, (1997) 6 SCC 59). The Reference Court has taken double the market value of the sale deed lands as the market value of the acquired land. A land abutting highway has a negative factor. Some portion of the land abutting highway has to be kept open and cannot be built upon. Hence, the market value cannot be doubled. Considering the facts of the case, for determining the market value of the acquired land, 50% of the market value of the sale instance lands will have to be added. Hence, the market value of the acquired land can be taken as Rs. 528.50 (353+176.50) per square meter.
       As repeatedly held by the Apex Court, some deduction will have to be made on account of development cost which ranges from 20% to 70% depending upon the facts of each case. We may note here that Managing Trustee of the first respondent stated that a lay out plan of the acquired land was already made. The purpose of acquisition cannot be altogether ignored while fixing the market value. The acquired land had a direct access to the State Highway in view of very broad frontage. Considering these peculiar facts, deduction can be made at minimum rate of 20%. By deducting 20% from Rs. 528.50, the market value will be Rs. 422.80 i.e. Rs. 423/- per square meter.

JUDGMENT :- By this appeal, an exception has been taken to the Judgment and Award dated 30th may 2001 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The acquisition relates to land bearing Gat No.287/ A-2 totally admeasuring 2 Hectares (for short "the acquired land") situated at Nashik, Taluka and District Nashik. A notification under section 4 of the said Act in respect of the acquired land was published in the Government Gazette on 17th October 1990. The notification under section 4 was lastly published on village Chawdi on 22nd November 1990. Award under section 11 of the said Act was made on 22nd January 1993. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.150/- per square meter. Other statutory benefits were granted under the said award. A reference under section 18 of the said Act was made at the instance of the first respondent-claimant. In the reference, the market value of the acquired land was claimed at Rs.1000/- per square meter. Additional compensation was sought in respect of the trees as well as iron angles and wires. Compensation was also claimed in respect of the structures. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the market value of the acquired land has been fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.575/- per square meter. The present appeal is preferred by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation at whose instance, the acquisition was made for construction of a bus stand and allied establishments. There is a cross objection filed by the first respondent-claimant claiming enhancement of compensation by Rs.425/- per square meter. Thus, by the cross objection, total market value is claimed at Rs.1000/- per square meter.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the impugned Judgment and Award is based only on two sale instances at Exhibits 49 and 51. He pointed out that the area of the plots of land subject matter of sale instances at Exh.49 and 51 is only 505.78 square meters and 148.75 square meters respectively. As against this, the area of the acquired land is 20,000 square meters. Hence, the said two sale instances of very small plots will have to be kept out of consideration. He pointed out that the acquired land had a direct access to a State Highway and the sale instance lands are away from the Highway. He urged that the acquired land was undeveloped land whereas the land subject matter of sale deed at Exh.51 was a developed plot and in fact, there was a construction up to the plinth level on the land subject matter of the sale deed. He urged that the market value reflected from the said sale deed includes the market value of the plinth constructed on the land subject matter of the sale deed. He invited our attention to the recitals in both the sale deeds. He pointed out that as far as sale deed at Exh.51 is concerned, there is a specific recital that the Municipal Corporation had approved the layout and the District collector had granted permission for non agricultural use in accordance with Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. He pointed out that the first recital in the sale deed refers to the construction carried out up to plinth level of four rooms and a toilet block. He urged that both the sale deeds cannot be said to be the sale deeds of the lands comparable with the acquired land. He invited our attention to the evidence of Shri Ramji Zaveri, the Managing Trustee of the first respondent. He urged that there is no evidence adduced by him to prove the comparability of the acquired land with the sale instance lands. The burden was on the first respondent to prove that the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Officer by the Award under section 11 was inadequate. He urged that once the only two sale instances relied upon by the first respondent are kept out of consideration, it becomes a case of no evidence. He invited our a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2013 Supreme(Bom) 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYA.S. OKA & G.S. PATEL, JJ.Divisional Controller, MSRTC, NashikVs.The Nashik Panchwati Panjrapol Trust & Anr.First Appeal No.1067 of 2001 with Cross Objection St.no.39179 of 2001.Decided On : 3rd October, 2013.

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. OKA & G.S. PATEL, JJ.
Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nashik
Vs.
The Nashik Panchwati Panjrapol Trust & Anr.
First Appeal No.1067 of 2001 with Cross Objection St.no.39179 of 2001.
Decided On : 3rd October, 2013.