The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a landowner aggrieved by lower compensation awarded by the Reference Court in land acquisition proceedings for Ring Road construction, holding that the Reference Court's reasoning and reliance on the Jakham s/o Vali Pasha award were legally sound.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
fa639-96
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 639 OF 1996
Ranba s/o Nagorao Gojamgunde
Since deceased by his L.Rs.
1A)Smt. Muktabai w/o Ranba Gojamgunde,
Age : 69 years, Occu. Household.
1B)Shri Uday s/o Ranba Gojamgunde,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Servie.
1C)Shri Uttam s/o Ranba Gojamgunde,
Age : 49 years, Occu. Nil.
All r/o Anandnagar,
Tanaji Chowk, Latur.
APPELLANTS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur.
RESPONDENT
....
Smt. S.A. Dhumal, advocate for the appellants.
Mr. B.J. Sonawane, advocate for the Respondent.
....
CORAM :M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 28th FEBRUARY, 2012
ORAL JUDGEMENT :
1.Heard.
2.Aggrieved by the grant of lesser
compensation by the Reference Court, in land
(2)
fa639-96
acquisition proceedings, the present appeal is
preferred by the original claimant/land owner.
3.Vide Notification under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, dated 28th January, 1983, after
the usual procedure, the land bearing Gut No. 114
(B1), to the extent of 30 R of Latur, was acquired by
the State for the purpose of construction of Ring
Road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per acre.
The appellants claimed that since the land has a
potentiality of conversion to non-agriculture
purposes and since, in fact, even an application for
conversion of the same was filed, the compensation
ought to have been at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq.
foot. The Reference was, therefore, filed.
4.Before the learned Reference Court, though
the claimant has filed number of sale instances, only
one sale instance at Exh-29 was proved. It showed
that a plot admeasuring 16 x 20 sq. feet was sold at
the rate of Rs. 28/- per sq. foot. It was dated 8th
April, 1983. The learned Reference Court relied over
the said sale instance. However, to determine the
fa639-96
(3)
price of the acquired land, it suddenly, further
observed as follows :
"As I have discussed earlier, the sale
instance produced by the claimant at Exh.
29, is the proper sale instance for
determine the price of the claimant's
acquired land. By that sale instance it is
clear that on 8.4.1983 price of the ploted
land was Rs. 9,000/- for the area 16x20'
i.e. @ Rs. 28/- per sq. ft. In this
proceeding the date of notification U/s. 4
is 20.1.1983 that means the sale instance at
Exh. 29 is of the same period of
notification. Hence, according to me this
sale instance is the proper sale instance
for determining the price of the claimants
acquired land. However, considering the
fact that the plot referred in that sale
deed is situated at the distance of 1000' to
1200' from the acquired land of the claimant
and the facilities available to it and
considering the claim of the claimant @ Rs.
15/- per sq. ft. according to me, it will be
just and proper to determine the price of
t6he claimant's acquired land @ Rs. 8/- per
sq. ft. and that will be the most adequate
price to the claimant's acquired land."
5.The learned counsel for the appellants Smt.
Tambat vehemently submitted that the reasoning given
by the learned Reference Court is not proper. When
the learned Reference Court has once held that the
sale instance can be relied on to determine the price
of the acquired land, the Court cannot suddenly take
(4)
fa639-96
a somersault and grant the compensation at the rate
of Rs. 8/- per sq. feet, merely because the claimant
has claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/-
per sq. feet.
6.The perusal of Exhibit-29 i.e. the sale
instance, however, shows that the plot sold
thereunder is not comparable to the land in question.
The said plot is within the municipal limits of Latur
and, in fact, it is numbered as City Survey No. 1161,
meaning thereby that the plot was surveyed in the
City Survey long back. The boundaries of the plot
also show that it comes in the area wherein the
houses of different persons are situated. In these
circumstances, the first of the reasoning of the
learned Reference Court that the sale instance is
comparable, is ex-facie wrong. Therefore, the next
of the reasoning as re-produced supra would not
stand.
7.The learned Reference Court, however,
further relied on an Award passed in another Land
Acquisition Reference No. 978/90. The judgement in
that Reference shows that the claimant - Vali Pasha,
fa639-96
(5)
whose land from the very same Gut No. 114, was
acquired for the same purpose i.e. for construction
of Ring Road, was granted compensation at the rate of
Rs. 8/- per sq. feet. In that view of the matter,
the Award of the Reference Court granting the
compensation at the rate of Rs. 8/- per sq. feet on
this footing is proper. The learned A.G.P. Mr.
Sonawane, however, submits that the learned Reference
Court ought not to have granted compensation on per
sq. feet basis. He relied on the ratio in "State of
Maharashtra & others v. Ismile Abdul Gafur Patel,
since deceased through his legal heirs & others",
reported in 2006 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 369. It should be
noted that the State has not preferred any appeal
challenging the Award. Further, the reasoning
forwarded in the said judgement would show that when
large area of land is acquired, grant of compensation
on per square meter basis is held to be not proper
and the proper rate should be per acre/hectare. In
the present case, it is shown that the land has a
potentiality of conversion to non-agriculture
purposes. By giving notional deductions towards the
development of the land from agriculture to non-
fa639-96
(6)
agriculture use, such as roads, drainage, water, etc.
and also upon giving the deductions towards the price
of the development, the compensation on the basis of
meter or feet basis, can also be granted. In the
cited case, ten lands were acquired by the State and
in those circumstances, the observations were made.
8.In view of the above circumstances, the
appeal fails. It is, therefore, dismissed without any
order as to costs.
NPJ/fa639-96
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Reference Court erred in granting compensation at Rs. 8/- per sq. ft. based on an incomparable sale instance.
Whether the precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Ismile Abdul Gafur Patel bars compensation on a per square feet basis in single land acquisition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra & others v. Ismile Abdul Gafur PatelDistinguished¶46
State of Maharashtra & others v. Ismile Abdul Gafur Patel, since deceased through his legal heirs & others
Land Acquisition Reference No. 978/90Referred¶42
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranba s/o Nagorao Gojamgunde (since deceased by L.Rs. Smt. Muktabai, Shri Uday, Shri Uttam)
The State of Maharashtra
M.T. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court