The agricultural property acquired
belonging to the appellants, from the record was
irrigated, though no receipts for selling
sugarcane was tendered. However, it had a well,
indicated by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, and the learned Judge. In the
situation, the award calls for modification.
FIRST APPEAL NO.532 OF 1997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Goroba s/o Balbhim Bhalekar,
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE : February 17th, 2014
Citation; 2014(6) MHLJ 391
The original claimants / appellants feel
aggrieved by inadequate enhancement effected by
the learned second Joint Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Osmanabad, in LAR No.141/1991 by order
dated 7/7/1997, thereby awarding Rs.6,000/ per
acre.
There is no controversy that
2.
agricultural property of the appellants 1 H. 96
R. forming small pieces situate at village Masla
(Khurd) was subject of notification under
Section 4 dated 22.9.1983 possession of which was
taken on 25th April, 1985, and the Special Land
Acquisition Officer declared the award on
30.12.1985, at the rate of Rs.2,000/ per acre.
3.
Before the learned Judge, there were two
land References; one of the appellants No.
141/1991 and another No.146/1991.
4.
Feeling aggrieved by the award of
Special Land Acquisition Officer Reference under
Section 18 was moved to the learned Collector who
transmitted it to the Court and the learned
Reference Court awarded Rs.6,000/ per acre.
Mr. Choudhari, learned Counsel for the
5.
appellant land holder says, the appellant has set
up a claim of Rs.30,000/ per acre. Two sale
instances at Exhs. 23 and 24 were produced. The
sale deed at Exh.24 was for 1 acre 14 gunthas of
land sold for Rs.45,500/ on 10th April, 1984,
from part of survey No.57 of the same village
Masla.
Grievance of learned Counsel is, out of
6.
the same acquisition proceedings; one Dnyandeo
Ingale had preferred LAR No.143/1991 and
Dnyandeo Narwade had preferred LAR No.148/1991
before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Osmanabad. In those proceedings, indeed, the
sale deed Exh.24 referred to above was also
considered and said Court granted compensation at
the rate of Rs.24,000/ per acre. The grievance
is, the transaction of sale deed Exh.24 was a
bona fide transaction. The award under LAR No.
143/1991 or 148/1991 is not questioned by the
State as to its excessive character.
7.
Learned A.G.P. says, no interference
warrants in the award as the sale instances and
grouping is properly considered by the Reference
Court.
8.
I have gone through original record,
including evidence of claimants Mahadeo Balbhim
Bhalekar, the attesting witness Shri Suresh
Balbhim Shinde to sale deed Exh.24. The
evidence on behalf of the Government was from the
Special Land Acquisition Officer Shri
Y.E.Suryawanshi. He says that the compensation
was proper and adequately paid to the respective
claimants in the light of the quality of the
land. Proper sale deeds were analyzed at the
time of declaring the award.
9.
Mahadeo has described details of his
agricultural properties; additionally, stated
that it was fully irrigated with well water and 5
H.P. motor was installed. He was taking cash
crop; sugarcane was transported to sugar factory
at a distance of 15 kms from his village; some
yield was sold at Sholapur, which is at a
distance of 45 kms from his village. There were
mango trees in the field. According to him,
when the lands were acquired prior thereto, at
the relevant time, market price was Rs.30,000/
to Rs.35,000/ per acre. One Viju Salve sold his
land to Uddhav Jagtap for consideration of Rs.
35,000/ per acre. Sale deed was executed.
Another land of Sham Patil was sold to Waghade
admeasuring 4 acres at the rate of Rs.30,000/
per acre. He has stated that these lands were
situated at 300 fts. to 400 fts. from the
acquired lands. The land of Dnyanoba Sheshrao
Jadhav was also acquired for which Reference
awarded Rs.24,000/. He has stated that
Court
those lands were situate at a distance of 200
fts. from his land. The witness was subjected to
cross examination by learned District Government
Pleader. He did not distort the witness about
proximity of the land subject of land Reference
No.143/1991 or Exh.24.
It is pertinent that before the learned
10.
Judge, judgment in LAR No.143/1991 was tendered,
however, Learned Judge has ignored it only on
the ground that it is not binding or that the
quality of the said land was high. These
observations of the learned Reference Court are
contrary to the record as evidence of Mahadeo
discussed above illustrate that land subject of
Land Reference No.143/1991 is close by, acquired
for the same project. When the competent Court
awarded Rs.24,000/ per acre for similarly placed
agricultural property, there could not have been
any injunction for the learned Reference Court to
act in tune thereof. Judgment in LAR No.143/1991
was not a surmise or guess work but evidence was
discussed in said judgment. Again, sale
instances were placed before the Reference Court,
however, they are not taken up in tune with the
price fetched by the legitimate sellers of the
property situate in same village.
Apex Court in the matter of Mehrwal
11.
Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab (2012 5 SCC
432) dealt with a situation in respect of land
References under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The Apex Court has observed,
"
It is clear that when there are several exemplars
with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule
that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that
accepted."
it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and
"
Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed,
In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale
deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on
behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the
highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there
are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It
is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds
placed
before
the
authority/court
for
fixing
fair
compensation."
In the matter of Sunder v.Union of India
( AIR 2001 SC 3516) (Constitution Bench) answered
about liability of the State acquiring body to
pay interest. It was observed, solatium paid on
account compulsory acquisition under Section
23(2) forms part of compensation awarded and the
State is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9
per cent on solatium.
In (2002) 10 SCC 570 ( in the matter of Land
Acquisition Officer vs. Morisetty Satyanarayana
and others, Apex Court indicated in paragraph no.
6 that the appreciation for effecting market
value and its determination, in normal
circumstances, is by comparable sales method.
In Nelson Fernandes and others Vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer ( (2007) 9 SCC 447),
Hon'ble Lordships of the Supreme Court
reiterated, evaluation of evidence in respect of
compensation and factors to be considered for
assessing. Apex Court has also observed that
the purpose of acquisition is also one of the
factor to be considered.
In Thakur Kanta Prasad Singh V. State of
Bihar (AIR 1976 SC 2219), Supreme Court explained
meaning of the term " market value" to mean the
price that a willing purchaser would pay to a
willing seller for the property having due regard
to its existing condition with all its existing
advantages and its potential possibilities when
laid out in the most advantageous manner
excluding any advantage due to the carrying out
of the scheme for which the property is
compulsorily acquired.
12.
Taking conspectus of the reported
judgments of the Apex Court, the picture that has
been painted before this Court demonstrates that
Mahadeo Bhalekar, the land holder, has un
erringly established proximity of the land, which
was subject of land reference No.143/1991
(Judgment Exh.29) and also established the
proximity of land subject of Exh.24, survey No.
57. The sale deed of Exh.24 was, indeed,
proved by examination of attesting witness Suresh
Shinde. He has stated that the distance of the
land under sale deed Exh.24 and the land acquired
is around 600 to 700 fts. Thus, there is little
variance in the narration of Suresh and Mahadeo
about situation of the two lands. But fact
remains, both properties situate at Masla and
were acquired for same project. It does not
reflect, the Reference Court in LAR No.143/1991 (
Exh.29) made award overreach to reality.
13.
The agricultural property acquired
belonging to the appellants, from the record was
irrigated, though no receipts for selling
sugarcane was tendered. However, it had a well,
indicated by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, and the learned Judge. In the
situation, the award calls for modification.
14.
The appellants in LAR No.141/1991 are
entitled to receive enhanced compensation at the
rate of Rs.24,000/ per acre for the acquired
land totally admeasuring 1 H. 96 R. from Block
::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2014 20:03:52 :::
9
FA NO.532/1997
Nos.711/2, 72/2, 73/2, 74/2, 74/6 of village
Masla(Kd.). The appellants are also entitled for
other statutory benefits under Land Acquisition
Act.
The appeal partly allowed with costs.
Deficit Court fees be deposited.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL)
JUDGE
...
AGP/53297fa
ig
::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2014 20:03:52 :::
No comments:
Post a Comment