Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1952
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J
Gahininath s/o Bandoba Kadam Dead L.Rs.1-A Sanjay S/o Gahininath Kadam, 1-B Mahadev S/o Gahininath Kadam – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Beed. – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3858 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3865 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3852 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3868 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 1555 OF 2004 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3827 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3861 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3829 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3855 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3826 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3860 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3859 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3866 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3863 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3856 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3968 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3864 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3853 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3832 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3833 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3857 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3867 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3854 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3968 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3864 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3863 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3826 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3855 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3829 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 3861 OF 2008 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2004 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Ankush N. Nagargoje, Shri D. M. Mane, Shri S. K. Naikwade, Shri Ramraje A. Deshmukh
For the Respondents: Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, A.G.P.
The averaging method for compensation determination is flawed; reliance on appropriate, comparable sales is essential in fixing fair market value for acquired land.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Section 4 - Group of first appeals for enhancement of compensation for acquired agricultural land - Rate fixed by Reference Court was Rs.628 per R; appellants claimed Rs.1,500 per R - Evidence presented included sale instances and valuation reports - Reference Court relied on averaging method for compensation determination. (Paras 1-30)
(B) Rate Fixation - The method of averaging different sale prices is inherently flawed if the sales differ significantly in type and location - Comparable sales in proximity are crucial for determining true market value. (Paras 17-20)
(C) Jurisdiction of Reference Court - The discretion in valuing land must adhere to previous judgments of the same court unless strong grounds exist otherwise. (Paras 30-31)
Facts of the case:
This judgment involves multiple appeals from agriculturists disputing the compensation awarded for their lands acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for a government project. The Reference Court had initially determined the compensation rate without adequately considering appellants' evidence regarding land classification and irrigation.
Findings of Court:
The court held the averaging method used by the Reference Court was inappropriate, ultimately raising the compensation rate to Rs.1,075 per R for all appeals.
Issues: The central questions were the adequacy of the compensation rate, the appropriateness of evidence submitted by the appellants, particularly regarding irrigation status, and the soundness of the average compensation method of reference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that reliance on suitable comparable sales in nearby locations is paramount, rather than averaging dissimilar sales. It clarified that appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation based on credible evidence demonstrating the land's agricultural potential.
Result: Appeals allowed partly; compensation rate modified to Rs.1,075 per R.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. evidence of land acquisition for compensation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. undisputed facts regarding compensation process. (Para 4) |
| 3. analysis of irrigation claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. evidence insufficient to prove irrigation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. averaging method for land valuation disputed. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. final order enhancing compensation. (Para 27 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :-
This is a group of first appeals of the agriculturists who are claiming enhancement of compensation. They are aggrieved by common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court on 15.04.2004, partly enhancing the rate of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of the parties, I propose to refer to papers of First Appeal No. 3865 of 2008 and First Appeal No. 3852 of 2008. Parties have led common evidence in L. A. R. No. 28 of 1996 and L. A. R. No. 224 of 1996. First Appeal No. 3865 of 2006 is arising out of L. A. R. No. 28 of 1996. The arguments are led by learned advocates Mr. Ankush Nagargoje and Mr. Ramraje Deshmukh for the appellants.
3. The respondent/acquiring body had undertaken acquisition for Urdhva Manjara Medium Project or Dokewadi project or Ieet project. The lands from village Loni (Ghat), Ieet, Lanjeshwar, Wadwana and Jategaon were acquired. Notifications U/Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for the sake of convenience and brevity hereinafter referred as to the ‘L.A. Act’) were issued on different dates. These appeals pertain to acquisition of lands from village Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.
4. Following are the undisputed facts :
(i) Notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act was issued for the lands in question at Wadwana on 28.06.1990.
(ii) By private negotiations possession of the lands was taken on 01.10.1989.
(iii) Notification U/Sec. 9 of the L. A. Act was issued on 03.10.1991.
(iv) Award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘S.L.A.O.’) on 05.08.1993.
(v) Appellants received compensation/payment under protest on 01.11.1993.
(vi) Appellants led oral evidence of eight witnesses before the Reference Court. Respondents did not lead any oral evidence.
(vii) Appellants produced various sale instances. They also produced various judgments of the Reference Court, which were akin to the facts in question as well as judgments of the High Court to determine the rate of compensation.
(viii) The S.L.A.O. determined the rate of Rs. 150/- per R to 210 per R for Jirayat land. It was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs. 628 per R. Appellants have claimed rate of Rs. 1500/- per R.
(ix) Reference Court relied on three sale instances namely Exhibits 26, 27 and 36 and has drawn average to arrive at rate of Rs. 628 per R.
(x) Appellants are claiming compensation for eight (08) wells and mango trees. The valuation report for well at Exhibits 41 to 46 and for trees at Exhibits 39 are relied on by them, which were discarded by Reference Court.
05. The substratum of submissions of Mr. Ankush N. Nagargoje, learned counsel for appellants is as follows :
I Rate fixed by the Reference court and the consequential compensation awarded by it are extremely inadequate, unreasonable and against voluminous evidence on record.
II Appellants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per R as the lands were irrigated due to permanent source of water from wells and the river. Appellants’ voluminous evidence of comparative sale instances, rates given by the Reference Court for the similarly situated lads and law laid down by the High Court are overlooked erroneously and highhandedly.
III Reference Court has committed error of jurisdiction in discarding valuation report of wells and mango trees. In that regard oral evidence of P.W. No. 7 – Ramhari Bayaji Ghodke and P.W. No. 4 - Bhimrao Gopal Bhujbal was not properly appreciated.
IV The method adopted by the Reference Court of averaging the rates from Exhibits 21, 27 and 36 is arbitrary and perverse.
V Reference Court has committed gross illegality in discardin
