There is also absolutely no reason for the reference Court to
grant different compensation ranging from Rs.1,15,000/ per hectare to
Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare in cases of different claimants, specially when
the judgment in all the reference cases is identical and it may not be
wrong to say that it is almost cyclostyled and having the same contents.
Merely because the land acquisition officer had granted different rate of
compensation to the claimants on the basis of the land revenue paid by
them, the reference Court could not have granted different compensation
to the respondentsclaimants. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court has
observed in the judgment reported in 2008(1) BCR 204 (State of
Maharashtra & others Versus Yashwant Kahnu Shirsath) and 1995(1)
BCR 277 that the placing of the land in different classes on the basis of
the land revenue of the lands and then determining the market value on
the basis of the land revenue is not a correct method of valuation.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
First Appeal No.589/2010 With CrossObjection No.19/2010
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
.....VERSUS.....
Shri Kamlaji Balaji Jadhav,
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER , 2010.
Citation: 2011 (3) BOM C R331
Since common issues arise for consideration in these first
appeals and they arise out of almost identical awards passed by the
reference Court in the land acquisition cases filed by the respondents,
they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
2. The lands of the respondents were situated at village
MehunaRaja, Taluka DeulgaonRaja, District Buldana. They were acquired
by the State of Maharashtra by the section 4 notification issued on
24.10.2001 for the Khadakpurna Project. The land acquisition officer
passed the award on 15.06.2005 and granted separate compensation to
the claimants by placing their lands in different groups on the basis of the
land revenue paid by the claimants. The land acquisition officer granted
compensation ranging from Rs.69,555/ to Rs.82,360/ in respect of the
lands of the respondents. The respondents were dissatisfied with the
grant of compensation by the land acquisition officer at those rates and,
therefore, they filed reference applications before the Collector, Buldana.
Separate land acquisition cases were registered and were decided by the
reference Court by separate judgments though, the evidence tendered in
these cases was almost identical and the judgments passed by the
reference Court were also identical. The reference Court granted separate
compensation to the respondents, ranging from Rs.1,15,000/ per hectare
to Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare. The appellantVidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation is aggrieved by the awards passed by the
reference Court in these cases and has filed these appeals. In some of the
cases, the respondents have also filed crossobjections seeking higher
compensation.
3. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the appellantVidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation, submitted that the reference Court
was not justified in relying on a sale instance, which was mentioned by
the land acquisition officer in the land acquisition officer's award dated
15.06.2005 showing that the transaction fetched the consideration @
Rs.1,22,000/ per hectare. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the reference Court could not have relied on the
transaction mentioned in the award when the claimants had not produced
the saledeed or the extract of sale index in regard to the transaction at
serial number 11 in the award dated 15.06.2005. The learned counsel for
the appellant relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court
reported in 2007(5) BCR 847 (State of Maharashtra Versus Prashram
Jagannath Aute) to substantiate his submission that a reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against an award
and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the
land acquisition officer in his award unless the same material is produced
and proved before the Court. The learned counsel for the appellant then
submitted that in these cases, there was absolutely no evidence on record
to grant compensation to the claimants @ Rs.1,15,000/ to Rs.1,64,000/
per hectare. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
claimants were seeking compensation @ Rs.3,25,000/ per acre on the
basis of the sale transaction of village DeulgaonMahi, which was a much
bigger village and there was no comparison between the lands at village
DeulgaonMahi and village Mehuna Raja. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that certain persons, whose lands were acquired by
the State for the same project by the same section 4 notification had
accepted exgratia payment and this payment was approximately @
Rs.85,000/ per hectare. The learned counsel for the appellant then
submitted that the reference Court had rightly rejected the sale instance
from village DeulgaonMahi though there were also other reasons for
rejection of the same. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the claimants had admitted in their crossexamination that village
DeulgaonMahi was a big village on ChikhaliDeulgaonRaja road and
there were hotels on both the sides of the road, banks, Offices, cloth
market, Ginning and Pressing Factories, etc. and the sale transaction of
village DeulgaonMahi was in regard to the land, which was adjoining to
the Ginning and Pressing Factory. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted by placing reliance on the 7/12 extracts that the land from
village DeulgaonMahi, specially Survey No.124 was also converted to
nonagricultural use since the year 2000 and, hence, there was no
comparison between the lands of the claimants from village MehunaRaja
and the land sold by the transaction of village DeulgaonMahi. The
learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that there was an error
in the mentioning of the market price of the transaction at serial number
11 of the award dated 15.06.2005 as the saledeed of the sale transaction
at serial number 11 showed that the market value of the land was not
Rs.1,22,000/ per hectare but was only Rs.45,112/ per hectare. The
learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to file the said saledeed
in this appeal as the same was not produced by the appellant in the
reference Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
award passed by the land acquisition officer in these cases was just and
proper and there was no question of granting enhancement on the basis
of the scanty evidence on record.
4. Shri A.S. Chandurkar and Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, the learned
counsel for the respondentsclaimants in these appeals, have supported
the judgments passed by the reference Court and have submitted that the
market value of the land was much more than what was granted by the
land acquisition officer and also the reference Court. The learned counsel
for the respondentsclaimants submitted on the basis of their crossobjections
filed in some of the appeals that the reference Court ought to
have considered the sale transaction of village DeulgaonMahi, which
showed that the market value of one acre of land was Rs.3,25,000/. The
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in fact, the reference
Court committed an error in rejecting the sale transaction of village
DeulgaonMahi. The learned counsel for the respondents then submitted
that the land of the respondents was irrigated land and they were taking
several crops like Wheat, Jowar, Tur, Sugarcane, Gram, Sunflower, Corn
and Cotton from the acquired land. The learned counsel for the
respondentsclaimants submitted that this Court may not permit the
appellant to produce the copy of the saledeed shown at serial number 11
in the award passed by the land acquisition officer on 15.06.2005 in this
Court as the appellant had failed to tender that evidence before the
reference Court and has not given any justifiable reason for not producing
the same before the reference Court. The learned counsel for the
respondentsclaimants relied on the judgment reported in 2005 (3)
Mh.L.J. 249 (Special Land Acquisition Officer & another Versus Mariano
Caetano Clarimundo Francisco Jose De Piedade Menezes alias Caetano De
Piedade Menezes) to substantiate the submission that the production of the
additional evidence cannot be permitted before the appellate Court when
the same could have been produced before the reference Court but, was
not produced. The learned counsel for the respondentsclaimants sought
for the dismissal of the appeals and higher compensation for the
claimants, who had filed the crossobjections.
5. Shri M.A. Kadu and Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, the learned
Assistant Government Pleaders appearing on behalf of the State of
Maharashtra, adopted the submissions made on behalf of the appellant
and submitted that the reference Court was not justified in enhancing the
compensation when the land acquisition officer had granted
compensation to the claimants at a rate, which was higher than the rate
prescribed by the Ready Reckoner and on the basis of the sale
transactions considered by the land acquisition officer. The learned
Assistant Government Pleaders submitted that the award passed by the
land acquisition officer was just and proper and the reference Court could
not have enhanced the compensation, specially in the absence of any
cogent evidence to grant the same.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the Record & Proceedings, it appears that the following points
arise for determination in this appeal.
I) Whether the reference Court was justified in granting
compensation ranging from Rs.1,15,000/ per hectare
to Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare to the respondents
and/or whether the compensation needs to be
enhanced or reduced ?
II) What order ?
7. It is necessary to note that the evidence tendered by the
claimants in these cases is extremely scanty. The claimants have merely
stated about the crops fetched by the claimants from their agricultural
lands. They have produced only two sale transactions of village
DeulgaonMahi to show that one acre of land was sold @ Rs.3,25,000/
per acre. The claimants have also produced two documents to show that
the State had given exgratia payment to certain claimants, whose lands
were acquired by the same section 4 notification and these persons had
accepted the exgratia payment. These documents, however, show that
the exgratia payment was made to the other persons, who had
undertaken not to file the reference by accepting the exgratia payment at
the rate of approximately Rs.85,000/ per hectare. Apart from these
documents, nothing has been produced by the claimants before the
reference Court. However, the reference Court considered the transaction
at serial number 11 in the award of the land acquisition officer, dated
15.06.2005 to hold that the transaction at serial number 11 fetched the
market value @ Rs.1,22,448/ per hectare. The reference Court was not
justified in considering the sale transaction at serial number 11 in the
award passed by the land acquisition officer on 15.06.2005 to grant
enhanced compensation to the claimants at the rate ranging from
Rs.1,15,000/ to Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare. The learned counsel for the
appellantVidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation has rightly relied
on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2007(5) BCR
847 (State of Maharashtra Versus Prashram Jagannath Aute), which had
considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1988
(3) SCC 751 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas Versus Special Land Acquisition
Officer) which laid down the principle that the reference Court cannot
take into account the material relied upon by the land acquisition officer
in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the
reference court as the reference Court under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act is not an appeal against an award passed by the land
acquisition officer. In view of the well settled principle of law that the
reference Court could not have relied upon the material relied upon by
the land acquisition officer in his award, the reference Court in these
cases could not have taken into account the transaction at serial number
11 in the award passed by the land acquisition officer dated 15.06.2005
when the saledeed or the extract of sale index of the transaction at serial
number 11 of the award was not produced and proved by the claimants
before the reference Court.
8. The only basis for enhancing the compensation by the
reference Court is the transaction at serial number 11 mentioned in the
award dated 15.06.2005. Even if this Court may accept the submission of
the respondentsclaimants that the appellant may not be permitted to
tender additional evidence in this Court in the form of a saledeed of the
transaction at serial number 11 in the award dated 15.06.2005 to show
that the rate is mistakenly quoted in the award as Rs.1,22,448/, in stead
of Rs.45,112/ the awards passed by the reference Court in these cases
are still liable to be set aside as the reference Court has relied upon the
material relied upon by the land acquisition officer in his award though
the same material was not produced and proved before the reference
Court. In case, the transaction at serial number 11 in the award passed
by the land acquisition officer on 15.06.2005 is ignored as it has to be in
view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported
in 1988 (3) SCC 751 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas Versus Special Land
Acquisition Officer), there is hardly anything on record to support the
claim of the respondentsclaimants for higher compensation.
9. Though the respondents have stated in their evidence that
there was a ban on sale transactions in village MehunaRaja since the year
2000 and hence the saledeeds could not be filed, it is necessary to note
that the respondents could have definitely filed the evidence in regard to
the sale transactions, which were effected in village MehunaRaja prior to
2000 in the years between 199596 to 199900 so that the Court could
have had at least some relevant material before it for determining the
market value of the land. Since no sale transaction of village MehunaRaja
was produced on record, it needs to be inferred that the sale transactions
from village MehunaRaja prior to the year 2000 were not such, which
could have fetched enhanced compensation for the claimants. The
claimants ought to have produced the sale transactions of village
MehunaRaja executed prior to Year2000 before the alleged ban on the
sale of lands in village MehunaRaja for seeking higher compensation in
stead of producing the sole sale transaction of village DeulgaonMahi,
which was not comparable to the lands at village MehunaRaja in any
respect.
10. The claimants had merely banked on the two saledeeds of
village DeulgaonMahi by which one acre of land was sold for
Rs.3,25,000/. The said sale transactions are rightly rejected by the
reference Court though the reason for the rejection of the same may not
be correct. The reference Court had rejected the sale transaction from
village DeulgaonMahi only because on acre of land was sold by this
transaction and the extent of the acquired lands of the respondents was
more than one acre. The learned counsel for the appellant was justified
in submitting that there were other reasons also for rejecting the sale
transactions of village DeulgaonMahi. It would be necessary to refer to
the map, which is produced on record in most of these cases. The map
clearly shows that though village DeulgaonMahi and village Mehuna
Raja are adjoining villages, village DeulgaonMahi is a very large village
as compared to village DeulgaonRaja. Moreover apart from producing
the map of the adjoining villages, there is no evidence tendered by the
claimants on record to show that the lands of village DeulgaonMahi sold
by the sale transaction of 2000 were in regard to comparable lands, as
those of the respondents from village MehunaRaja. In fact, the claimants
had admitted in their crossexamination that DeulgaonMahi village was
on Chikhali – DeulgaonRaja road and there were hotels, banks, Offices,
Shops for selling Tractors, cloth market, a market place and three Ginning
and Pressing Factories at village DeulgaonMahi. In fact, the sale
transaction of village DeulgaonMahi shows that one of the boundaries of
the land sold by the said transaction was a Ginning and Pressing Factory.
It also appears from the 7/12 extract on record that Survey No.124,
which was sold by one of the transaction of village DeulgaonMahi was
converted to nonagricultural use since the year 2000. There is not only
no evidence on record as regards the similarity between the acquired land
and the land sold by the transaction of village DeulgaonMahi but, there
is evidence adverse to the claimants on record to show that there is a vast
difference between village MehunaRaja and village DeulgaonMahi and
there is no comparison between the two villages. There is evidence on
record to show that village DeulgaonMahi is a much large village with
considerable development. But, there is no evidence on record to that
effect in respect of the land at village MehunaRaja. Even in the map
produced by the claimants, it is shown that village DeulgaonMahi has a
big market place. The reference Court has rightly discarded the sale
transaction of village DeulgaonMahi but, there are additional reasons for
supporting the finding of the reference Court for discarding the sale
transaction of village DeulgaonMahi.
11. There is also absolutely no reason for the reference Court to
grant different compensation ranging from Rs.1,15,000/ per hectare to
Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare in cases of different claimants, specially when
the judgment in all the reference cases is identical and it may not be
wrong to say that it is almost cyclostyled and having the same contents.
Merely because the land acquisition officer had granted different rate of
compensation to the claimants on the basis of the land revenue paid by
them, the reference Court could not have granted different compensation
to the respondentsclaimants. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court has
observed in the judgment reported in 2008(1) BCR 204 (State of
Maharashtra & others Versus Yashwant Kahnu Shirsath) and 1995(1)
BCR 277 that the placing of the land in different classes on the basis of
the land revenue of the lands and then determining the market value on
the basis of the land revenue is not a correct method of valuation.
12. Hence, in the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove,
the reference Court was surely not justified in enhancing the
compensation and granting it @ Rs.1,15,000/ per hectare to
Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare. These are the cases, where there is absolutely
no evidence on record to seek enhanced compensation @ Rs.1,15,000/
per hectare to Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare, much less, at the rate of
Rs.3,25,000/ per acre.
13. On an overall view of the evidence on record and by
applying some guesswork, this Court is of the view that the reference
Court could have granted compensation, to the claimants at the most, @
Rs.1,00,000/ per hectare. The documents produced by the claimants
before the reference Court showing the acceptance of the exgratia
payment @ Rs.85,000/ per hectare by several persons of village
MehunaRaja after giving an undertaking not to file a reference, could
have been a guide for determining the compensation in these cases. It is
necessary to note that the other persons from village MehunaRaja
have accepted the exgratia payment at the rate of approximately
Rs.85,000/ per hectare as could be seen from the documents produced
by the respondents before the reference Court. It would be worthwhile
to mention here that those persons from village MehunaRaja have not
received any statutory benefits on the exgratia payment, and the
payment @ Rs.85,000/ is without any statutory benefits. The acceptance
of the exgratia payments by a number of villagers, whose lands were
acquired by the same Section 4 notification itself shows that the market
value of the lands at village MehunaRaja at the relevant time was
Rs.85,000/ per hectare or at the most, a little more than that.
14. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the first appeals are
partly allowed. The judgments passed by the reference Court in the
land acquisition cases of the respondents are modified. It is held that
the respondents would be entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/
(Rupees One Lac) per hectare with statutory benefits and not at the
rates at which the compensation is granted to the respondentsclaimants
by the reference Court. The crossobjections filed by the
respondentsclaimants are dismissed in view of the findings recorded
hereinabove.
Order accordingly. No order as to costs.
Print Page
grant different compensation ranging from Rs.1,15,000/ per hectare to
Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare in cases of different claimants, specially when
the judgment in all the reference cases is identical and it may not be
wrong to say that it is almost cyclostyled and having the same contents.
Merely because the land acquisition officer had granted different rate of
compensation to the claimants on the basis of the land revenue paid by
them, the reference Court could not have granted different compensation
to the respondentsclaimants. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court has
observed in the judgment reported in 2008(1) BCR 204 (State of
Maharashtra & others Versus Yashwant Kahnu Shirsath) and 1995(1)
BCR 277 that the placing of the land in different classes on the basis of
the land revenue of the lands and then determining the market value on
the basis of the land revenue is not a correct method of valuation.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
First Appeal No.589/2010 With CrossObjection No.19/2010
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
.....VERSUS.....
Shri Kamlaji Balaji Jadhav,
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER , 2010.
Citation: 2011 (3) BOM C R331
Since common issues arise for consideration in these first
appeals and they arise out of almost identical awards passed by the
reference Court in the land acquisition cases filed by the respondents,
they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
2. The lands of the respondents were situated at village
MehunaRaja, Taluka DeulgaonRaja, District Buldana. They were acquired
by the State of Maharashtra by the section 4 notification issued on
24.10.2001 for the Khadakpurna Project. The land acquisition officer
passed the award on 15.06.2005 and granted separate compensation to
the claimants by placing their lands in different groups on the basis of the
land revenue paid by the claimants. The land acquisition officer granted
compensation ranging from Rs.69,555/ to Rs.82,360/ in respect of the
lands of the respondents. The respondents were dissatisfied with the
grant of compensation by the land acquisition officer at those rates and,
therefore, they filed reference applications before the Collector, Buldana.
Separate land acquisition cases were registered and were decided by the
reference Court by separate judgments though, the evidence tendered in
these cases was almost identical and the judgments passed by the
reference Court were also identical. The reference Court granted separate
compensation to the respondents, ranging from Rs.1,15,000/ per hectare
to Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare. The appellantVidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation is aggrieved by the awards passed by the
reference Court in these cases and has filed these appeals. In some of the
cases, the respondents have also filed crossobjections seeking higher
compensation.
3. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the appellantVidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation, submitted that the reference Court
was not justified in relying on a sale instance, which was mentioned by
the land acquisition officer in the land acquisition officer's award dated
15.06.2005 showing that the transaction fetched the consideration @
Rs.1,22,000/ per hectare. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the reference Court could not have relied on the
transaction mentioned in the award when the claimants had not produced
the saledeed or the extract of sale index in regard to the transaction at
serial number 11 in the award dated 15.06.2005. The learned counsel for
the appellant relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court
reported in 2007(5) BCR 847 (State of Maharashtra Versus Prashram
Jagannath Aute) to substantiate his submission that a reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against an award
and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the
land acquisition officer in his award unless the same material is produced
and proved before the Court. The learned counsel for the appellant then
submitted that in these cases, there was absolutely no evidence on record
to grant compensation to the claimants @ Rs.1,15,000/ to Rs.1,64,000/
per hectare. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
claimants were seeking compensation @ Rs.3,25,000/ per acre on the
basis of the sale transaction of village DeulgaonMahi, which was a much
bigger village and there was no comparison between the lands at village
DeulgaonMahi and village Mehuna Raja. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that certain persons, whose lands were acquired by
the State for the same project by the same section 4 notification had
accepted exgratia payment and this payment was approximately @
Rs.85,000/ per hectare. The learned counsel for the appellant then
submitted that the reference Court had rightly rejected the sale instance
from village DeulgaonMahi though there were also other reasons for
rejection of the same. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the claimants had admitted in their crossexamination that village
DeulgaonMahi was a big village on ChikhaliDeulgaonRaja road and
there were hotels on both the sides of the road, banks, Offices, cloth
market, Ginning and Pressing Factories, etc. and the sale transaction of
village DeulgaonMahi was in regard to the land, which was adjoining to
the Ginning and Pressing Factory. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted by placing reliance on the 7/12 extracts that the land from
village DeulgaonMahi, specially Survey No.124 was also converted to
nonagricultural use since the year 2000 and, hence, there was no
comparison between the lands of the claimants from village MehunaRaja
and the land sold by the transaction of village DeulgaonMahi. The
learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that there was an error
in the mentioning of the market price of the transaction at serial number
11 of the award dated 15.06.2005 as the saledeed of the sale transaction
at serial number 11 showed that the market value of the land was not
Rs.1,22,000/ per hectare but was only Rs.45,112/ per hectare. The
learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to file the said saledeed
in this appeal as the same was not produced by the appellant in the
reference Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
award passed by the land acquisition officer in these cases was just and
proper and there was no question of granting enhancement on the basis
of the scanty evidence on record.
4. Shri A.S. Chandurkar and Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, the learned
counsel for the respondentsclaimants in these appeals, have supported
the judgments passed by the reference Court and have submitted that the
market value of the land was much more than what was granted by the
land acquisition officer and also the reference Court. The learned counsel
for the respondentsclaimants submitted on the basis of their crossobjections
filed in some of the appeals that the reference Court ought to
have considered the sale transaction of village DeulgaonMahi, which
showed that the market value of one acre of land was Rs.3,25,000/. The
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in fact, the reference
Court committed an error in rejecting the sale transaction of village
DeulgaonMahi. The learned counsel for the respondents then submitted
that the land of the respondents was irrigated land and they were taking
several crops like Wheat, Jowar, Tur, Sugarcane, Gram, Sunflower, Corn
and Cotton from the acquired land. The learned counsel for the
respondentsclaimants submitted that this Court may not permit the
appellant to produce the copy of the saledeed shown at serial number 11
in the award passed by the land acquisition officer on 15.06.2005 in this
Court as the appellant had failed to tender that evidence before the
reference Court and has not given any justifiable reason for not producing
the same before the reference Court. The learned counsel for the
respondentsclaimants relied on the judgment reported in 2005 (3)
Mh.L.J. 249 (Special Land Acquisition Officer & another Versus Mariano
Caetano Clarimundo Francisco Jose De Piedade Menezes alias Caetano De
Piedade Menezes) to substantiate the submission that the production of the
additional evidence cannot be permitted before the appellate Court when
the same could have been produced before the reference Court but, was
not produced. The learned counsel for the respondentsclaimants sought
for the dismissal of the appeals and higher compensation for the
claimants, who had filed the crossobjections.
5. Shri M.A. Kadu and Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, the learned
Assistant Government Pleaders appearing on behalf of the State of
Maharashtra, adopted the submissions made on behalf of the appellant
and submitted that the reference Court was not justified in enhancing the
compensation when the land acquisition officer had granted
compensation to the claimants at a rate, which was higher than the rate
prescribed by the Ready Reckoner and on the basis of the sale
transactions considered by the land acquisition officer. The learned
Assistant Government Pleaders submitted that the award passed by the
land acquisition officer was just and proper and the reference Court could
not have enhanced the compensation, specially in the absence of any
cogent evidence to grant the same.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the Record & Proceedings, it appears that the following points
arise for determination in this appeal.
I) Whether the reference Court was justified in granting
compensation ranging from Rs.1,15,000/ per hectare
to Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare to the respondents
and/or whether the compensation needs to be
enhanced or reduced ?
II) What order ?
7. It is necessary to note that the evidence tendered by the
claimants in these cases is extremely scanty. The claimants have merely
stated about the crops fetched by the claimants from their agricultural
lands. They have produced only two sale transactions of village
DeulgaonMahi to show that one acre of land was sold @ Rs.3,25,000/
per acre. The claimants have also produced two documents to show that
the State had given exgratia payment to certain claimants, whose lands
were acquired by the same section 4 notification and these persons had
accepted the exgratia payment. These documents, however, show that
the exgratia payment was made to the other persons, who had
undertaken not to file the reference by accepting the exgratia payment at
the rate of approximately Rs.85,000/ per hectare. Apart from these
documents, nothing has been produced by the claimants before the
reference Court. However, the reference Court considered the transaction
at serial number 11 in the award of the land acquisition officer, dated
15.06.2005 to hold that the transaction at serial number 11 fetched the
market value @ Rs.1,22,448/ per hectare. The reference Court was not
justified in considering the sale transaction at serial number 11 in the
award passed by the land acquisition officer on 15.06.2005 to grant
enhanced compensation to the claimants at the rate ranging from
Rs.1,15,000/ to Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare. The learned counsel for the
appellantVidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation has rightly relied
on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2007(5) BCR
847 (State of Maharashtra Versus Prashram Jagannath Aute), which had
considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1988
(3) SCC 751 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas Versus Special Land Acquisition
Officer) which laid down the principle that the reference Court cannot
take into account the material relied upon by the land acquisition officer
in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the
reference court as the reference Court under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act is not an appeal against an award passed by the land
acquisition officer. In view of the well settled principle of law that the
reference Court could not have relied upon the material relied upon by
the land acquisition officer in his award, the reference Court in these
cases could not have taken into account the transaction at serial number
11 in the award passed by the land acquisition officer dated 15.06.2005
when the saledeed or the extract of sale index of the transaction at serial
number 11 of the award was not produced and proved by the claimants
before the reference Court.
8. The only basis for enhancing the compensation by the
reference Court is the transaction at serial number 11 mentioned in the
award dated 15.06.2005. Even if this Court may accept the submission of
the respondentsclaimants that the appellant may not be permitted to
tender additional evidence in this Court in the form of a saledeed of the
transaction at serial number 11 in the award dated 15.06.2005 to show
that the rate is mistakenly quoted in the award as Rs.1,22,448/, in stead
of Rs.45,112/ the awards passed by the reference Court in these cases
are still liable to be set aside as the reference Court has relied upon the
material relied upon by the land acquisition officer in his award though
the same material was not produced and proved before the reference
Court. In case, the transaction at serial number 11 in the award passed
by the land acquisition officer on 15.06.2005 is ignored as it has to be in
view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported
in 1988 (3) SCC 751 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas Versus Special Land
Acquisition Officer), there is hardly anything on record to support the
claim of the respondentsclaimants for higher compensation.
9. Though the respondents have stated in their evidence that
there was a ban on sale transactions in village MehunaRaja since the year
2000 and hence the saledeeds could not be filed, it is necessary to note
that the respondents could have definitely filed the evidence in regard to
the sale transactions, which were effected in village MehunaRaja prior to
2000 in the years between 199596 to 199900 so that the Court could
have had at least some relevant material before it for determining the
market value of the land. Since no sale transaction of village MehunaRaja
was produced on record, it needs to be inferred that the sale transactions
from village MehunaRaja prior to the year 2000 were not such, which
could have fetched enhanced compensation for the claimants. The
claimants ought to have produced the sale transactions of village
MehunaRaja executed prior to Year2000 before the alleged ban on the
sale of lands in village MehunaRaja for seeking higher compensation in
stead of producing the sole sale transaction of village DeulgaonMahi,
which was not comparable to the lands at village MehunaRaja in any
respect.
10. The claimants had merely banked on the two saledeeds of
village DeulgaonMahi by which one acre of land was sold for
Rs.3,25,000/. The said sale transactions are rightly rejected by the
reference Court though the reason for the rejection of the same may not
be correct. The reference Court had rejected the sale transaction from
village DeulgaonMahi only because on acre of land was sold by this
transaction and the extent of the acquired lands of the respondents was
more than one acre. The learned counsel for the appellant was justified
in submitting that there were other reasons also for rejecting the sale
transactions of village DeulgaonMahi. It would be necessary to refer to
the map, which is produced on record in most of these cases. The map
clearly shows that though village DeulgaonMahi and village Mehuna
Raja are adjoining villages, village DeulgaonMahi is a very large village
as compared to village DeulgaonRaja. Moreover apart from producing
the map of the adjoining villages, there is no evidence tendered by the
claimants on record to show that the lands of village DeulgaonMahi sold
by the sale transaction of 2000 were in regard to comparable lands, as
those of the respondents from village MehunaRaja. In fact, the claimants
had admitted in their crossexamination that DeulgaonMahi village was
on Chikhali – DeulgaonRaja road and there were hotels, banks, Offices,
Shops for selling Tractors, cloth market, a market place and three Ginning
and Pressing Factories at village DeulgaonMahi. In fact, the sale
transaction of village DeulgaonMahi shows that one of the boundaries of
the land sold by the said transaction was a Ginning and Pressing Factory.
It also appears from the 7/12 extract on record that Survey No.124,
which was sold by one of the transaction of village DeulgaonMahi was
converted to nonagricultural use since the year 2000. There is not only
no evidence on record as regards the similarity between the acquired land
and the land sold by the transaction of village DeulgaonMahi but, there
is evidence adverse to the claimants on record to show that there is a vast
difference between village MehunaRaja and village DeulgaonMahi and
there is no comparison between the two villages. There is evidence on
record to show that village DeulgaonMahi is a much large village with
considerable development. But, there is no evidence on record to that
effect in respect of the land at village MehunaRaja. Even in the map
produced by the claimants, it is shown that village DeulgaonMahi has a
big market place. The reference Court has rightly discarded the sale
transaction of village DeulgaonMahi but, there are additional reasons for
supporting the finding of the reference Court for discarding the sale
transaction of village DeulgaonMahi.
11. There is also absolutely no reason for the reference Court to
grant different compensation ranging from Rs.1,15,000/ per hectare to
Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare in cases of different claimants, specially when
the judgment in all the reference cases is identical and it may not be
wrong to say that it is almost cyclostyled and having the same contents.
Merely because the land acquisition officer had granted different rate of
compensation to the claimants on the basis of the land revenue paid by
them, the reference Court could not have granted different compensation
to the respondentsclaimants. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court has
observed in the judgment reported in 2008(1) BCR 204 (State of
Maharashtra & others Versus Yashwant Kahnu Shirsath) and 1995(1)
BCR 277 that the placing of the land in different classes on the basis of
the land revenue of the lands and then determining the market value on
the basis of the land revenue is not a correct method of valuation.
12. Hence, in the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove,
the reference Court was surely not justified in enhancing the
compensation and granting it @ Rs.1,15,000/ per hectare to
Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare. These are the cases, where there is absolutely
no evidence on record to seek enhanced compensation @ Rs.1,15,000/
per hectare to Rs.1,64,000/ per hectare, much less, at the rate of
Rs.3,25,000/ per acre.
13. On an overall view of the evidence on record and by
applying some guesswork, this Court is of the view that the reference
Court could have granted compensation, to the claimants at the most, @
Rs.1,00,000/ per hectare. The documents produced by the claimants
before the reference Court showing the acceptance of the exgratia
payment @ Rs.85,000/ per hectare by several persons of village
MehunaRaja after giving an undertaking not to file a reference, could
have been a guide for determining the compensation in these cases. It is
necessary to note that the other persons from village MehunaRaja
have accepted the exgratia payment at the rate of approximately
Rs.85,000/ per hectare as could be seen from the documents produced
by the respondents before the reference Court. It would be worthwhile
to mention here that those persons from village MehunaRaja have not
received any statutory benefits on the exgratia payment, and the
payment @ Rs.85,000/ is without any statutory benefits. The acceptance
of the exgratia payments by a number of villagers, whose lands were
acquired by the same Section 4 notification itself shows that the market
value of the lands at village MehunaRaja at the relevant time was
Rs.85,000/ per hectare or at the most, a little more than that.
14. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the first appeals are
partly allowed. The judgments passed by the reference Court in the
land acquisition cases of the respondents are modified. It is held that
the respondents would be entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/
(Rupees One Lac) per hectare with statutory benefits and not at the
rates at which the compensation is granted to the respondentsclaimants
by the reference Court. The crossobjections filed by the
respondentsclaimants are dismissed in view of the findings recorded
hereinabove.
Order accordingly. No order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment