Upon perusal of Map (Exh.141), we further find that
the above finding about a small strip of blue colour is also
wrong. It is clear from Exh.141 that major area of suit land
Survey No.1 is affected by blue zone. It appears that the suit
property being affected by the 'blue zone', the same could not
have been converted into nonagricultural use like the other
adjoining Survey numbers and that is why none attempted to
apply for conversion though adjoining survey numbers were
converted way back on 8.7.1982. In this connection, there is a
document (Exh.67) on record, dt.25.2.2000 which is a
communication addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer by
the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Akola. This letter has
been duly proved and marked Exh.67. It is mentioned in para
2 of the said letter that survey nos.1 (suit land), 5/2, 5/1, 7, 8,
2, 25 and 9/1Aof mouza Akoli (Bk.) fall in no development
zone and therefore, were not liable to be converted into nonagricultural purpose, though the said lands fall within the
Municipal limits of Akola town. We have already seen that
Survey No.5/2, 6, 7 and 8 were already ordered to be
converted into nonagricultural use by orders at Exhs. 61, 62
and 63 despite opposition by the then ADTP, Akola by letter
dt.24.4.1982. The S.D.O. found that the said Survey numbers
were adjacent to the newly constructed National highway (bypass
no.6), the situation stood changed in the area and the adjoining Survey numbers of the highway are being used for the non agricultural purpose and other survey nos.5/1, 6 and
8 have already been converted. We, thus, find that the
location of Survey no.1 is after goathan and on the end of the
bank of river Morna. But then, passing of blue strip through
the major area of suit Survey number and the fact that no
attempt was made to apply for conversion of suit land to nonagricultural use at any point of time after 1982 and further
fact that, in fact, there is no conversion of the suit land, to our
mind, show that the suit land was not entirely having nonagricultural
potential for residential use alike the other Survey numbers 5/2, 6, 7 and 8. The documentary evidence thus produced before us and discussed by us above does not show that the market value @ ` 100/per sq.ft. has been proved or established insofar as the suit Survey no.1 is concerned. In the light of the above discussed overwhelming evidence, we do not think that nonproduction
of documents/notification, if any, about blue zone would affect the case of the Government.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1210 OF 2008
Kazi Akiloddin s/o. Sujaoddin, Vs State of Maharashtra,
Dated : 17.6.2013.
CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and Award
dt.2.8.2008 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.140 of 2000,
both the
State of Maharashtra and two others and the original
claimant have preferred these two appeals namely, First Appeal
No.1210 of 2008 filed by the original claimant/appellant Kazi
Akiloddin s/o. Sujaoddin and First Appeal No.6 of 2009 filed
by the State of Maharashtra and two others.
2. FACTS :
The claimant/appellant owner
of field Survey No.1
at mouza Akola (BK) (i.e. Bujurg), Tq. and District Akola, area
1 H, 17 R, instituted reference proceedings u/s.18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
Akola claiming higher compensation on the ground that the
suit land is in the centre of the City and within the municipal
limits of Akola town and also that he has converted the said
land into nonagricultural
purpose/residential purpose and has
also allotted 43 plots thereof for selling. However, a
notification u/s.4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on
3.6.1999 for acquisition of various lands including the suit
land for construction of flood protection wall for Akola City.
Thereafter, Section 6 notification was published on 2.12.1999.
Possession of the suit land was, however, taken by the
agreement (Exh.110) on 15.11.1998 and agreed rental
compensation @ 8 % was paid. Thereafter, Award came to be
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 4.8.2000 granting
compensation to the claimant in the sum of ` 5,69,414/for
the entire land of 1.71 Hs., which was received by the claimant
under protest. Dissatisfied with the Award, the appellant/
claimant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act on
various grounds and claimed enhanced compensation @
Rs.500/per
sq.ft. as market value of the land by reckoning
them as 43 plots. The total compensation that was claimed in
the reference was ` 4,30,84,000/.
Same is the claim made
before us in this First Appeal No.1210 of 2008 by the original
claimant/appellant. The Reference Court granted enhanced
compensation @ ` 100/per
sq.ft. and made the Award which
is under challenge in both these appeals.
3. Before the Reference Court, the appellant/claimant
examined himself and also examined two other witnesses
namely : Mohd. Nadir s/o. Mohd. Jabir (PW2)
– the
photographer and Thakurdas Narayandas Boob (PW3)
the
Civil Engineer/Valuer. While the respondent/State examined
Khushalrao Shankarrao Bhoyar (DW1)
SubDivisional
Engineer and Laxman Bhika Raut (DW2)
the
Land
Acquisition Officer in support of the defence. The parties to
the Reference claim also filed various documents which were
exhibited.
4. The State filed its reply (Exh.19) to the reference
u/s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Written Statement is
in the nature of denial of the claim and parawise
reply. It was
stated in the reply that, due to repeated floods to Morna river
near Akola city, it was decided to erect a protection wall to
save the city from flood of the river and thus, the project
namely 'Akola Flood Protection Scheme' was undertaken. On
15.11.1998, the claimant gave relinquishment in respect of the
land bearing Gat No.1 for the area of 1 H, 17 R out
of 2 H,
73R as per the requirement and thus, only 1 H, 17 R land was
acquired. On the date of delivery of possession, the land was
agricultural land in 'blue zone' adjacent to river Morna and
thus, the said land could not be converted into nonagricultural
use. It was a barren land with no trees or any
structure or construction made on it. There was no
potentiality of nonagricultural
use for the land as the land
falls under the 'blue zone' and is a barren land. As per the
agreement dt.15.11.1998 (Exh.110), rental compensation
from 15.11.1998 till 11.10.2000 amounting to ` 59,998/was
duly received by the claimant from the Government besides
the amount under the Award. Finally, the prayer was made for
dismissal of the claim. Upon considering the evidence etc., the
trial Court made the Award, as aforesaid.
SUBMISSIONS :5.
In support of the First Appeal No.1210 of 2008 filed
by the claimant/appellant and in defence to the appeal
preferred by the State namely First Appeal No.6 of 2009,
Mr.A.S.Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the claimant made
the following submissions.
a) The suit land is situated within the Municipal limits of
Akola town and various photographs placed and proved on the
record so also the evidence of claimant and his two witnesses
amply demonstrate that the entire area is a developed area
with Government Offices, police quarters and residential
buildings and that being so, there should be no difficulty in
drawing an inference that the suit land has full nonagricultural
potential, more particularly the residential
potential. He referred to the maps filed on the record to
buttress his point and we have accordingly gone through all
the maps filed by both the parties to this appeal.
b) The evidence of Thakurdus Boob (PW3)
read with
the evidence of the claimant clearly show that the layout was
prepared with 43 plots in the layout for selling the same by
way of business and even the road was constructed in the
layout by spending around ` 5,00,000/therefor
and later, the
suit land came to be acquired for the public purpose and
therefore, he submitted that the land value or the market value
of the suit land will have to be reckoned with the residential
property rates namely ` 500/per
sq.ft. as claimed in the
reference. He submitted that the trial Court committed an
error in awarding enhanced compensation only @ ` 100/per
sq.ft. ignoring the oral as well as the documentary evidence
placed on the record in the form of various sale deeds,
photographs and the evidence of witnesses.
c) Mr.A.S.Chandurkar, learned Counsel, by referring to
various orders passed by the competent Authority under the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 submitted that all the
other neighbouring lands were converted into nonagricultural
use right from the year 1982 and thereafter, various Offices
and residential complexes have come up. That being so,
according to Mr.Chandurkar, learned Counsel, the trial Court
committed an error in ignoring the various orders of
conversion of lands and also registered sale deeds placed on
the record of the relevant date to find out the market value of
the suit property by treating the same as residential plots even
as on Section 4 notification.
d) Mr.Chandurkar, learned Counsel then contended that
the burden of proof in respect of the market value of the
property, as has been decided by the Apex Court in various
decisions, is on the acquired body/State and in this case, the
claimant having discharged the said burden, it was for the
State to discharge its burden, which has not been discharged
by adducing legal and proper evidence. According to the
learned Counsel, the contention raised by the State in its First
Appeal No.6 of 2009 and in defence that the suit land is in the
'blue zone' and therefore, it is useless for any purpose
whatsoever has
not at all been proved except for parole
evidence of one of its witness. If the suit land really fell in the
'blue zone', nothing prevented the State from filing the
relevant notifications and documents indicating that the suit
land fell in the 'blue zone'. That having not been done, it will
have to be held that the land did not fall in the 'blue zone' but
fell in the 'yellow zone' in view of the further fact that all the
adjacent survey numbers were converted by the competent
Authority for residential and commercial use and there is no
reason why only suit land could be ignored from considering
the potential alike the other survey numbers which were
converted.
e) The Counsel for the appellant then contended that the
appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed in view of the
fact that the compensation granted @ ` 100/per
sq.ft. by the
reference Court itself is on a very lower side and the State did
not bring the evidence on record to disclose the case of the
appellant. Insofar as the award of additional amount @ 12 %
p.a. is concerned, same has been rightly awarded and the
contention raised by the State Government in the appeal that
the same could not have been awarded merely because the
possession was taken and the Award was passed, is not legal
and correct.
6. Mr.A.S.Chandurkar, learned Counsel relies on the
following rulings :
i. Chimanlal Hargovinddas .vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Poona and anr., (1988) 3 SCC 751.
ii. Vijaysingh Liladhar .vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 760.
iii. Gafar and Ors. vs. Moradabad Development Authority
and anr., (2007) 7 SCC 614.
iv. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and
Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 432.
v. Nelson Fernandes and Ors. vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, South Goa and Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 447.
vi. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams vs. K. Jotheeswara
Pillai (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 461.
vii. Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar .vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2009) 11 SCC 141.
viii. Om Prakash vs. State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Udhao
Dass vs. State of Haryana and Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 565.
ix. State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Maimuma Banu
and Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 448.
7. Mr.A.S.Chandurkar, the learned Counsel defending
First Appeal No.6 of 2009 filed by the State argued that the
land to the extent of around 32 % was also excluded by the
reference Court before going ahead to grant compensation and
thus, the deduction permissible under law was already made
by the reference Court and at any rate, without prejudice to
the contentions raised in the appeal filed by the claimant in
this Court, the ultimate award of compensation by the
reference Court is clearly supportable and therefore, the
appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed with costs.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.P., in support of First
Appeal No.6 of 2009 filed by the State, argued that the
additional amount contemplated by Section 23(1A)
of the
Land Acquisition Act at 12 % cannot be granted and the
reference Court committed an error in granting the same in
view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool District .vs. M.
Ramakrishna Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. reported in 2011(11)
SCC 648 and in particular, para nos. 10 and 11 thereof. He,
therefore, prayed for setting aside the said part of the Award.
9. The learned A.G.P. then contended that the claimant
has failed to discharge initial burden of proof for claiming
higher compensation more than the one awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer and looked from that point of view, it
cannot be said that the State has failed to discharge its burden.
He further argued that the suit land falls within the river bed
of Morna river and that has come in the oral evidence of the
Government witnesses. Not only that, the suit land falls within
the 'blue zone' wherein there cannot be any residential activity.
According to him, in fact, Survey number no.1 i.e. the suit land
was never converted into nonagricultural
land by the
competent Authority and that fact itself shows that it was not
permissible to convert the said land being in the 'blue zone'.
He, therefore, argued that the suit land did not have any
potential at all and therefore, award of compensation @ `
100/per
sq.ft. was uncalled for and there could not have
been any enhancement of compensation.
10. Opposing the appeal preferred by the claimant, the
learned A.G.P. argued that the rate claimed by the
appellant/claimant at ` 500/per
sq.ft. is on a very very higher
side and does not even deserve to be looked into in the wake
of the fact that the suit land was never put to conversion and
therefore, the appeal preferred by the claimant/appellant
deserves to be dismissed with costs.
11. The learned A.G.P. has relied upon the following
rulings :
i) 2011 (11) SCC 648, Revenue Divisional Officer
Kurnool District .vs. M. Ramakrishna Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs.
ii) 2012(3) Mh.L.J. 8, Chandrashekhar (Dead) by L.Rs.
and Others. vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another.
iii) 1995 (2) Supp (2) SCC 168, Special Land Acquisition
Officer and another .vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and Others.
iv) 2012 (6) Scale 458, Girimallappa .vs. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer M and MIP and another.
12. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for both
the parties, we have perused the record and proceedings of
L.A.C. Case No.140 of 2000 and the judgment and Award out
of which these two appeals have arisen. We have heard the
learned Counsel for the rival parties at length. The following
points arise for our consideration in both the appeals :
First Appeal No.1210 of 2008 :
1)Whether the claimant/appellant is entitled
to higher compensation for acquisition of
the suit land by calculating the same @
` 500/per
sq.ft., as claimed by the
appellant/claimant ? ….... No.
2)What order ? …... The appeal is
dismissed
with no order
as to costs.
First Appeal No.6 of 2009 :
1)Whether the reference Court committed an
error in awarding enhanced compensation
@ ` 100/per
sq. ft. for the suit land ? ….. Yes.
2) Whether the respondent/claimant is
entitled to higher compensation, if so
at what rate ? …...No.
3) Whether any deductions are required
to be made for arriving at the compensation
towards the compulsory development ? ….does not survive.
4) What is the total amount of
enhanced compensation the
respondents are entitled to ? ….... does not survive.
CONSIDERATION :
As to Point Nos. 1 and 2 :
13. It is not in dispute that the suit land admeasuring 1 H,
17 R of mouza Akoli (Bk), Gat No.1 was acquired and
possession was taken under urgency clause on 15.11.1998 by
agreement Exh.110, in which it was agreed between the
parties that 8 % rental compensation was to be paid and which
accordingly was paid amounting to ` 59,998/for
the period
from 15.11.1998 to 11.10.2000. The notification u/s.4 of the
Act was published on 3.6.1999 and after completion of the
proceedings, Award was passed on 4.8.2000 (Exh.6). In the
Award, compensation was mainly based on the sale instance
dt.24.4.1998 in respect of land bearing Survey No.9/1A
admeasuring 6 Hs., 87 R. @ ` 5,00,000/per
hectare and in
addition, 10 % increase was granted. The reference was
instituted by the claimant on 30.11.2000. We have perused
the relevant maps filed by the parties on record Exhs.49, 50,
54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 & Exh.141. We have also perused
various orders of conversions of the adjoining lands. What we
find upon perusal of the maps is that the suit land is just on
the bank of river Morna and the other Survey numbers
namely Survey Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are well above Survey No.1
beyond gaothan of Akoli (Bk) away from the bank of river
Morna. Survey Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have been subdivided.
Survey
No.7/2 was converted by order dt.8.7.1982. The sale deed
(Exh.71) dt. 10.5.1999 is in respect of plot no.50 admeasuring
3000 sq.ft. from Survey no.7/2 and the rate is ` 175/per
sq.ft. Survey No.7/1 was converted on the same date by order
(Exh.62). But no sale deed from the said Survey number in
respect of any plot has been placed on record. Survey No.5/1
was converted by order (Exh.63) on 12.11.1982. But there is
no sale deed on the plot from Survey No.5/1 on record.
Survey No.6/1 was converted by order (Exh.64) on 8.5.1995.
It is situated well inside from the river side. There is no sale
deed of any plot from said Survey No.6/1. Mortgage deed
(Exh.34) from Survey no.27/3 is from mouza Malkapur and
not from Akoli (Bk) and therefore, the same is not relevant.
Sale deed (Exh.33), dt.24.8.1998 is of Nazul plot no.7/4, but
it is not clear as to from what Survey number the said plot
was carved out. The sale deed (Exh.71), dt.10.5.1999 is in
relation to plot out of survey no.7/2 which stood converted as
long back as on 8.7.1982 and therefore, the said sale deed
cannot be taken into consideration because it is admitted fact
that the suit Survey no.1 was never converted to nonagricultural
land. Survey no.7/2 was converted way back in
the year 1982 and the plots in that survey number have
undergone thorough development. We can not make use of the
said sale deed (Exh.71) for the purpose of finding out market
value qua the suit land. Sale deed (Exh.72) dt.17.11.1999 is
obviously after Section 4 notification dt.3.6.1999 and the rate
of ` 601/per
sq.ft. mentioned in the said sale deed of a small
piece of plot admeasuring 420 sq.ft. appears to be suspicious
since the sale deed dt.10.5.1999 (Exh.71) shows the rate of `
175/per
sq.ft., while after six months the rate is shown to be
` 601/per
sq.ft. The order of conversion (Exh.62),
dt.8.7.1982 of Survey Nos.7/1 and 7/2 respectively as already
discussed, so also the Order (Exh.63), dt.12.11.1982 in respect
of survey no.5/1 are irrelevant since no sale deeds from the
said survey numbers have been produced or relied upon and
similar is the case with order(Exh.64), dt.8.5.1995 from
Survey No.6/1. Sale deed (Exh.33) is said to be in respect of
Nazul plot no.7/4 admeasuring 4793.03 sq.ft., but then it is
not shown as to it is from which Survey number and when
the said Survey number was converted to residential use. This
is all that documentary evidence which was produced for
showing the market value. As discussed above, the said
evidence does not advance the case of claimant any better.
14. Insofar as orders of conversion of neighbouring lands
are concerned, the said conversion orders can be put to use
only for showing that the adjoining lands were converted into
nonagricultural
use by the competent Authority. Insofar as the
suit Survey number is concerned, from the perusal of various
maps and from the evidence of Laxman Bhika Raut, Land
Acquisition Officer examined by the Government, it appears
that the suit survey number is on the bank of the river Morna.
We quote the relevant portion from his evidence :
“ I have personally inspected the spot. After going
through the record and personal inspection, I find
that the land field Survey No.1 to the extent of 1H,
17 R of the claimant is situated in the river bed and
also adjacent to river Morna. However, I also
noticed that the said land is an agricultural land
and it comes under the blue zone and the same was
not converted into nonagricultural
purpose. I also
revealed that the said land was barren. There were
no trees and structures standing on the said land. So
also the land is not developed. “
15. This evidence has not been seriously challenged and
the maps on record corroborate this evidence. As already
stated by us, Survey No.1 suit
land is on the bank of the river
and the other Survey Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are away from the bank
of the river. In view of the fact that Survey Nos.5, 6 and 7
were converted in the year 1982 and the fact that from the
year 1982 onwards till the acquisition in question the suit
Survey number was never converted nor it is shown that the
claimant or his predecessorintitle
had made any attempt to
file application for converting the said Survey number no.1
into nonagricultural
use, it could be readily inferred that the
suit Survey number could not be converted being on the bank
of the river Morna and rather at the end of the gaothan of
Akoli (Bk). The trial Court has recorded a finding which we
would like to quote thus :
“ There is no dispute that the suit property was
owned and in possession of the plaintiff and that it
was situated at the bank of Morna river and that it
was acquired by defendant for construction of flood
protection wall by said award and that compensation
was awarded at the rate of Rs.5,61,000/per
hector.“
Then there is a further finding in para 13, which is mentioned
as below :
“ in order to corroborate the oral evidence, zoning
maps are produced at Exh.57 to 59 and Exh.141.
These maps shows that only small strip of blue colour
is shown as passing through the suit property. It is
not clear from those maps that whole of the suit
property is covered under blue zone. Further there is
no reference in the Award Exh.46 about falling the
suit property in the blue zone area so as to consider
that said factor was considered by acquiring body at
the time of determining the correct market value.”
There are no grounds raised by the appellant/claimant to
challenge these findings. For convenience, we reproduce the
extract of the Map (Exh.141) as under :
16. Upon perusal of Map (Exh.141), we further find that
the above finding about a small strip of blue colour is also
wrong. It is clear from Exh.141 that major area of suit land
Survey No.1 is affected by blue zone. It appears that the suit
property being affected by the 'blue zone', the same could not
have been converted into nonagricultural
use like the other
adjoining Survey numbers and that is why none attempted to
apply for conversion though adjoining survey numbers were
converted way back on 8.7.1982. In this connection, there is a
document (Exh.67) on record, dt.25.2.2000 which is a
communication addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer by
the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Akola. This letter has
been duly proved and marked Exh.67. It is mentioned in para
2 of the said letter that survey nos.1 (suit land), 5/2, 5/1, 7, 8,
2, 25 and 9/1A
of mouza Akoli (Bk.) fall in no development
zone and therefore, were not liable to be converted into nonagricultural
purpose, though the said lands fall within the
Municipal limits of Akola town. We have already seen that
Survey No.5/2, 6, 7 and 8 were already ordered to be
converted into nonagricultural
use by orders at Exhs. 61, 62
and 63 despite opposition by the then ADTP, Akola by letter
dt.24.4.1982. The S.D.O. found that the said Survey numbers
were adjacent to the newly constructed National highway (bypass
no.6), the situation stood changed in the area and the
adjoining Survey numbers of the highway are being used for
the nonagricultural
purpose and other survey nos.5/1, 6 and
8 have already been converted. We, thus, find that the
location of Survey no.1 is after goathan and on the end of the
bank of river Morna. But then, passing of blue strip through
the major area of suit Survey number and the fact that no
attempt was made to apply for conversion of suit land to nonagricultural
use at any point of time after 1982 and further
fact that, in fact, there is no conversion of the suit land, to our
mind, show that the suit land was not entirely having nonagricultural
potential for residential use alike the other Survey
numbers 5/2, 6, 7 and 8. The documentary evidence thus
produced before us and discussed by us above does not show
that the market value @ ` 100/per
sq.ft. has been proved or
established insofar as the suit Survey no.1 is concerned. In the
light of the above discussed overwhelming evidence, we do not
think that nonproduction
of documents/notification, if any,
about blue zone would affect the case of the Government.
17. The evidence of the claimant so also his witness
Thakurdas Boob about the proposed layout of 43 plots in the
suit land and the money spent for development of road etc.
does not advance the case of the claimant anywhere and is
merely hypothetical in view of our categorical findings or
evidence discussed by us hereinabove. The evidence of the
claimant as well as his Valuer or Expert, therefore, becomes
irrelevant since the suit field Survey No.1 did not have any
nonagricultural
potential, as claimed by the claimant. In other
words, the suit land was required to be treated as the
agricultural land only and accordingly, the market value of the
said land was required to be determined. It is not the case of
the claimant that the Award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer treating his land as having only agricultural potential is
in any way wrong or illegal since his case is that the suit land
has nonagricultural
potential and therefore, the market value
ought to have been calculated accordingly. Since we have
categorically held that the suit land was not having any
potentiality of nonagricultural
nature, the inescapable
conclusion will be that the Award Passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer will have to be set aside.
18. Having come to the above conclusions and though
there is no need to dwell upon the issue about deduction of
70% value from the award of compensation towards various
types of developments as decided by the Apex Court in the
case of Chandrashekar (Dead) By L.Rs. and Others vs. Land
Acquisition Officer and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC
390, we find that the reference Court completely ignored the
said aspect. It is true that the area required for such
developments was deducted, but that is not enough. The
value required for carrying out developments on the said lands
not to be utilised for constructing houses ought to have been
deducted by the reference Court. That having not been done,
we are of the view that, in terms of the said judgment of the
Apex Court (cited supra), deduction to the extent of 70 % area
was required to be made. Thus, on this count also, we do not
find that the Award can be maintained.
19. In the light of the discussion made by us, we will have
to answer the point no.1 in First Appeal No.1210 of 2008 in
the negative and dismissing First Appeal No.1210 of 2008 in
answer to Point No.2. Similarly, Point no.1 in First Appeal
No.6 of 2009 will have to be answered in the affirmative,
while point no.2 will have to be answered in the negative;
whereas the remaining point nos. 3 and 4 do not survive. In
the result, we make the following order.
// ORDER //
i) First Appeal No.1210 of 2008 filed by the
appellant/claimant namely Kazi Akiloddin s/o.
Sujaoddin is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
ii) First Appeal No.6 of 2009 filed by the State
of Maharashtra and Others is allowed with no orders
as to costs and the impugned judgment and Award in
Land Acquisition Case No.140 of 2000 is set aside.
Consequently, the reference L.A.C. Case No.140 of
2000 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
iii) The claimant namely the appellant in First
Appeal No.1210 of 2008 and the respondent in First
Appeal No.6 of 2009 shall refund the amount of
compensation withdrawn by him to the State of
Maharashtra with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the
respective date of withdrawal till the date of refund
within three months from today and upon failure to
refund the said amount to the State, the State shall
be entitled to execute the instant decree in
accordance with law against him and the persons
who have accepted to stand as sureties or have
furnished security.
iv) The said securities and sureties to continue
till the amount is recovered back by the State.
iv) No order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment