The State of Maharashtra Vs Ranajitsinh Shamraomandalik and Ors.

¶1

 ... 1 ...

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 FIRST APPEAL NO.945 OF 1988

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra )
 (At the instance of Special Land )
 Acquisition Officer No.16, Kolhapur). )...Appellant

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 Shamrao Ganpatrao Mandalik, )
 (since deceased through his legal )
 representatives): )

¶7

 1. Shri Ranjitsinh Shamrao Mandalik, )
 2. Shri Ratnakar alias Kirtiraj )
 Shamrao Mandalik, )
 3. Kum.Rajkuwar Shamrao Mandalik, )
 4. Smt.Padmaja Manohar Desai, )
 5. Sau.Alka Krishnarao Sankpal, )
 6. Sau.Amrutkuwar Nivasrao Jagrap, )

¶8

 7. Sau.Sanyogita Anil Gadre, )

¶9

 8. Sau.Shailaja Uday Bhosale. )...Respondents

¶10

 ----------

¶11

 Shri S.N.Gawade, A.G.P for the Appellant.

¶12

 Shri S.M.Kazi for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 8.

¶13

 ---------

¶14

CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J.

¶15

DATE : JANUARY 09, 2007.

¶16

JUDGMENT:

¶17

 1. Heard Advocates appearing for the parties. By

¶18

 the impugned Judgment and Award dated 24th September,
 1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
 Kolhapur, a reference made at the instance of the
 Respondents under section 18 of the Land Acquisition
 Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of

¶19

 ... 2 ...

¶20

 1894) has been allowed.

¶21

 2. The acquisition relates to the land bearing
 R.S.No.382/B of Kasba Karveer, Taluka Karveer, District

¶22

 Kolhapur. A notification under section 126(2) of the
 Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read
 with section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued
 on 28th November, 1974 which was published in official
 gazette on 02nd January, 1975. The Award was made on
 11th July, 1983 under section 11 of the said Act of
 1894. By the said Award the Special Land Acquisition
 Officer-16, Kolhapur recorded that area of the acquired
 land was 2 Ares and he awarded market value of
 Rs.1.15/- per Are to the acquired land. The claim
 filed by the Respondents under section 9 of the said
 Act of 1894 was in the sum of Rs.13,000/-.

¶23

 3. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned
 Trial Judge has fixed the market value of Rs.3/- per sq
 feet and has granted statutory benefits.

¶24

 4. The learned A.G.P submitted that reliance was
 placed by the Respondents on the Award at Exhibit 20
 where material date was 27th August, 1981 and in the
 present case the material date was 28th November, 1974.

¶25

 ... 3 ...

¶26

 He submitted that the document at Exhibit 20 could not
 have been relied upon by the Respondents. He submitted
 that no legal evidence was led by the Respondents. The
 learned Advocate for the Respondents submitted that in
 the Award at Exhibit 20 market value for a similarly
 situated land was fixed at Rs.6/- per sq feet and in
 the present case, the market value was fixed at Rs.3/-
 per sq feet. He submitted that no interference was
 called for.

¶27

 5. I have perused the impugned judgment and record
 of the case. By filing a pursis before the Trial
 Court, parties agreed that evidence led in Land
 Reference No.58 of 1983 should be read in the present
 reference. The Respondent No.3 was examined in the
 said Land Reference No.58 of 1983. In paragraph No.3
 of his deposition he has stated that the acquired land
 was converted into non-agricultural land and it was
 having a road frontage. He stated that there were
 plots of Tara Rani Housing Co-operative Society Limited
 to the North of the acquired land and there were two
 residential colonies on the East of the acquired land.
 On the eastern side of the acquired land, there was a
 colony by the name Mali Colony where Rajaram College
 and Shivaji University Campus are situated. He stated

¶28

 ... 4 ...

¶29

 that on the southern side of the acquired land, there
 was a colony of the State Transport. He stated that
 abutting the colony of State Transport, there is a land
 bearing Regular Survey No.377 which was acquired for
 public purpose and the Award made was produced at
 Exhibit 20. Perusal of the cross-examination shows
 that there is hardly any challenge to the aforesaid
 statements made by the Respondent No.3 in his
 examination-in-chief as regards the location of the
 acquired land.

¶30

 6. Perusal of the Award at Exhibit 20 shows that
 the same pertains to land bearing Regular Survey No.377
 of Kasba Karveer, Kolhapur. The situation and
 description of the land bearing Regular Survey No.377
 incorporated in Award at Exhibit 20 is consistent with
 the version of the Respondent No.3. As pointed out
 earlier, the relevant date in case of said Award is
 27th August, 1981. By the said Award the Special Land
 Acquisition fixed by the market value at Rs.6/- per sq
 feet. Perusal of the evidence of the Respondent No.3
 and the situation of land described in Award at Exhibit
 20 shows that the acquired land as well as land bearing
 R.S.No.377 are certainly comparable lands. Both the
 lands are situated in the heart of the city of

¶31

 ... 5 ...

¶32

 Kolhapur. What the learned Trial Judge has done is
 that he has taken market value of Rs.6/- per sq feet as
 of the year 1981 for a similarly situated land and on
 the said basis, for the acquired land, market value at
 the rate of Rs.3/- per sq feet has been fixed as of the
 year 1974. The total market value awarded is
 Rs.8,450/- with statutory benefits.

¶33

 7. Considering the location of the acquired land
 as reflected from the evidence of the third Respondent,
 the rate of Rs.3/- per sq feet fixed by the Trial Court
 does not appear to be unreasonable. In the case of
Krishna Yachendra Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer

¶34

(AIR 1979 Supreme Court Page 869), the Apex Court held
 that estimation of market value depends largely on
 evaluation of many imponderables. The Apex Court held
 that the estimation of the market value must
 necessarily be to some extent a matter of conjecture or
 guess. In the case before the Apex Court arising out
 of an Award made under section 18 of the said Act of
 1894, market value of a land which was comparable to
 the acquired land as on 18th April, 1946 was
 established to be Rs.6/- per sq.yard. The Apex Court
 held that as on 30th October, 1951 market value can be
 reasonably taken to be Rs.9/- per sq. yard.

¶35

 ... 6 ...

¶36

 8. Thus, so far as determination of market value
 is concerned, I find no error in the impugned Judgment.
 The Award under section 11 has been made on 11th July,
 1983. Hence, there is no error in grant of statutory
 benefits.

¶37

 9. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶38

 (i) Appeal is dismissed.

¶39

 (ii) The Appellant will pay costs of the Appeal to

¶40

 the Respondents.

¶41

JUDGE

The State of Maharashtra v. Ranajitsinh Shamraomandalik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Ranajitsinh Shamraomandalik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Iranna Chandrashekhar @Shakayya Sambhale

The State of Maharashtra Vs Gopal Vishnu Mulay Since (Deceased) by Heirs.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Babu T. Mhatre

Pragna Uday Thaker and Ors. Vs Hindustan Lever Limited and Anr.

Bilkish Banu D/O Abdul S.Saraya Vs Khorshed Ardeshir Patel and Ors.

Budhiram Ramavtar Dhobi Vs Munilal Sadhu D/H Ramdhulare Munilal Dhobi and Ors.