Partly allowed

Shantilal Chandmal Saklecha v. State of Mah. Thr S.L.a.O., a'Bad

Bombay HC14 Jun 2012FA/212/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a first appeal in a land acquisition matter. It held that comparable sale instances from 1967 could be used to determine market value for land acquired in 1974, applying a 10% annual appreciation on the sale price.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,000 per acre along with benefits under Section 28 and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Shantilal Chandmal Saklecha Vs State of Mah. Thr S.L.a.O… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 F.A. 212.1993

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 212 OF 1993

¶4

Shantilal S/o Chandmal Saklecha V/s The State of Maharashtra

¶5

Mr. A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellant. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State.

¶6

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶7

DATE : 14/06/2012.

¶8

ORAL ORDER :

¶9

The land of the appellant is acquired for T.C.D. Farm. The land acquired admeasures 36 Acres 2 Gunthas. The Special Land Acquisition Officer [ For short, ‘ S.L.A.O. ’ ] awarded compensation @ ` 2,000/- [ Rupees Two Thousand only ] per Acre. Aggrieved thereby the claimant filed Reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act [ For short, ‘ L.A. Act ’ ] before the Reference Court. The Reference Court only awarded additional solatium on the compensation amount awarded by the S.L.A.O. The enhancement in the market value was not granted on the ground that the sale instance produced by the claimant was of the year 1967 and the notification U/s 4 of the L.A. Act was issued in the year

¶10

2 F.A. 212.1993

¶11

Aggrieved thereby the present Appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

¶12

Mr. A.S. Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶13

in fact there was no impediment for the Reference Court to rely on the sale deed dated 20/09/1967. The same was in respect of S.No. 62/6. The acquired land is S.No. 130. It is just one survey number away. The learned counsel contends that the Apex Court in the case of Special Land

¶14

Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot,l V/s Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa

¶15

Sahib reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court – 1558 has held that the determination of market value by taking price fixed under old comparable sale transaction has base value and grant of appreciation in value of the land @ 10 % per annum every year is not unreasonable.

¶16

According to the learned counsel, the same principle ought to have been applied. The learned counsel submits that the appellant is entitled for the compensation @ ` 7,000/- [ Rupees Seven Thousand only ] per Acre and also the statutory benefits.

¶17

Mrs. Ladda, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader submits that the said sale instances could not have been considered as there is nothing on record to show that the land under the said sale instances is similarly

¶18

situated. The Reference Court has properly considered the said fact.

¶19

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment and the record.

¶20

The notification U/s 4 of the L.A. Act has been issued on 03/02/1974. The sale instances relied by the claimant is dated 20/09/1967. The respondent has not controverted the case of the petitioner that the land under the said sale instances is adjacent situated just after one survey number of the acquired land. In the year 1967, 3 Acres 21 gunthas of land was sold for ` 15,000/- [ Rupees Fifteen Thousand only ]. In view of the principle applied in the case of S.L.A.O. V/s Mohd. Hanif referred supra, 10 % increase every year can be granted.

¶21

In view of the above, it can safely be concluded that the market value of the acquired land would be ` 6,000/- [ Rupees Six Thousand only ] per acre.

¶22

In light of the above, the impugned Award passed by the Reference Court rejecting the claim of the appellant for enhanced compensation can not be sustained. The present Appeal is partly allowed. The respondent shall pay compensation to the appellant in respect of the

¶23

4 F.A. 212.1993

¶24

acquired land i.e. 36 Acres 2 gunthas @ ` 6,000/- [ Rupees Six Thousand only ] per acre along with all the benefits U/s 28 of the L.A. Act and the solatium amount as laid down U/s 23 ( 2 ) of the L.A. Act. No costs.

¶25

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶26

KNP/F.A. 212.1993

Shantilal Chandmal Saklecha v. State of Mah. Thr S.L.a.O., a'Bad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantilal Chandmal Saklecha v. State of Mah. Thr S.L.a.O., a'Bad

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

Ganpatrao Yashwantrao Deshmukh. and Others. Vs Purushottam Shriniwas Joshi (L.Rs.)Kishanrao.

Laxmibai Limbaji Bankar. Vs Eknath Keshav Bankar.

Pandurang Jagannath Agrawal. Vs Gangabai Balmukund Agrawal and Others.

Deoram Nathu Badgujar Vs Huramatbee Deseased Lrs.Sattar Baig Moor Baig

Mohammad Chandsaheb Mohammad Saheb and Another. Vs Narsing Chimshete (L.Rs.) Shivaji and Others.

Jalilkhan Tilawarkhan Pathan Thr Gpa Khalilkhan Tilawatkhan Vs the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Kundalwadi