In common appeal on land acquisition compensation, this court affirmed the Reference Court's valuation based on comparable sale instances and upheld development deductions, dismissing appeals from both the acquiring body and claimants.
Both appeals and cross-objections were dismissed without any order as to costs.
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.
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.465 OF 1998
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Through the Executive Engineer (Civil),
M.S.E.B., Osmanabad, Dist, Osmanabad.
= APPELLANT.
(Interested party)
VERSUS
. Gundappa S/o Mallikarjun Swami. (died through his L.Rs.)1. Mallikarjun S/o Gundappa Swami, Age 68 yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o Chakur, Tq Chakur Dist. Latur.
= Ori. Claimant.
2.The State of Maharashtra,
through the collector,
Latur = RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-Objection St.NO.19356/1998
. Gundappa S/o Mallikarjun Swami,(Died Through L.Rs.)
. Malilikarjun S/o Gundappa Swami,(Died Through L.Rs.). Parwatibai S/o Malikarjun Swami,Age Major, Occ. Agri. R/o Adarsha Colony, ChakurTq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. = APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
Versus
1) Maharashtra State Electricity Board Through the ExecutiveFA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(2)
Engineer, Civil M.S.E.B.
Osmanabad.
2)The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Latur,
District: Latur. = RESPONDENTS
(Resp. No. 1
interested party)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO 466 OF 1998
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Through the Executive Engineer (Civil),
M.S.E.B., Osmanabad, Dist, Osmanabad.
= APPELLANT.
(Interested party)
Versus
1. Vasantrao S/o Digambarrao Shashtri, Age 55 yrs, Occ. Agri. & household, R/o Chakur, Tq Chakur Dist. Latur.
= Ori.Claimant.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through the collector, Latur = RESPONDENTS.
WITH
X- Objection Stamp NO.19358 Of 1998
Vasantrao Digambarao Shastri.
Died Through Legal Heirs,
1.Shantabai W/o Vasantrao Shastri
Age 80 yrs, Occ. Household,
R/o Chakur,Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
2. Prabhakar S/o Vasantrao Shastri, Age 62 yrs, Occ. Agri. R/o Chakur,Tq. Chakur,
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(3)
Dist. Latur.
3.Bhaskar S/o Vasantrao Shastri,
Age 53 yrs, Occ. Agril,
R/o Chakur,Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
4.Sudhakar S/o Vasantrao Shastri,
(died through Legal Heirs.)
4-A) Sudhakar S/o Vasantrao Shastri,
Age 49 yrs, Occ. Household,
R/o Chakur,Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
4-B) Vishwas S/o Sudhakar Shastri,
Age 22 yrs, Occ. Agri.
R/o Chakur,Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
4-C)Vishrant S/o Sudhakar Shashtri
Age 13 yrs, Occ. Nil,
U/g of mother Sunanda Sudhakar Shastri,
Age 49 yrs, Occ. Household,
R/o Chakur,Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
5. Shivkumar s/o Vasantrao Shastri,
Age 50 yrs, Occ. Agri,
R/o Chakur,Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
6.Sunita @ Laxmi w/o Shamsundar Joshi,
Age 46 yrs, Occ. Household,
R/o Pune, Tq. and Dist. Pune.
= APPELLANTS
(Ori. Claimant)
Versus
1) Maharashtra State Electricity
Board Through the Executive
Engineer, Civil M.S.E.B.
Osmanabad.
2)The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Latur,
District: Latur. = RESPONDENTS
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(4)
(Resp. No.1
interested party)
---
Shri. P.B.Paithankar Adv. for Appellant-MSEB;
Shri H.B.Nandgavale, Adv. h/for Shri V.G. Sakolkar
Adv. for Resp.no.1;
Shri A.M.Phule, AGP for Respt.-State
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : 7th February, 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.Since both these appeals and the Cross-
objections are arising out of the common Judgment
and Award passed by the court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division at Latur in LAR No.1997/1990 with
LAR No.310 passed on27th October, 1997, I have
heard the common arguments in these matters and I
deem it appropriate to decide these appeals by a
common reasoning.
2.FA No.465/1998 is arising out of LAR No.
1997/1990 whereas FA No.466/1998 is arising out of
LAR No.310/1991.
3.The lands involved in the present appeals
were acquired for construction of 33 KV Sub-Station
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(5)
of Maharashtra State Electricity Board, at Chakur,
Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. Notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein
after referred to as the said Act) in that regard
was published in the official gazette on 1st
January, 1987; whereas Award under Section 11 of
the Act came to be passed on 21st June, 1989.
Possession of the acquired lands was taken on 10th
June, 1986, i.e. prior to issuance of Section 4
notification. In the Award passed under Section 11
of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
had offered compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per hectare.
Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so
offered, the claimants filed Reference Applications
under Section 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement in
the amount of compensation awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, which was adjudicated by
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Latur.
The said court is hereinafter referred to as the
Reference Court.
4.In the Reference Applications, the
claimants had claimed the compensation @ Rs.10/-
per sq.ft. In order to substantiate the claim
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(6)
raised by them, three witnesses were examined by
the claimants. The claimants relied upon two sale
instances at Exhibit-23 and Exhibit 26. The sale
instances were duly proved by them respectively
through evidence of CW 1 – Ramesh Jadhav and CW 2 –
Shivshankar. The evidence was recorded in LAR No.
1997/1990. No oral evidence was adduced by the
respondents. Two sale instances were, however,
produced by the respondents.
5.The learned Reference Court, after having
assessed the oral and documentary evidence brought
on record before it, determined the market value of
the acquired lands @ Rs.7/- per sq.ft. and
accordingly enhanced the amount of compensation.
In so far as land involved in LAR No.1997/1990 is
concerned, the Reference Court directed deductions
to the extent of 25% of the total acquired area
towards the development; whereas in LAR
No.310/1991, out of the total area, 10% was
deducted from it for the purposes of development.
Aggrieved by, the acquiring body has preferred the
present appeals. Since according to the claimants,
the Reference Court also did not grant the just and
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98 (7)
sufficient compensation, they have filed the Cross-
objections, seeking further enhancement in the
amount of compensation, as has been awarded by the
Reference Court.
6.Shri PB Paithankar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant – acquiring body,
assailed the common Judgment and Award impugned in
the present appeals mainly on the ground that the
Reference Court determined the market value of the
acquired lands on the basis of the sale instances
pertaining to small plots. The learned counsel
submitted that the Reference Court failed in
appreciating that the price, which was received to
the plots, which were the subject matters of the
sale-deeds at Exhibit-23 and Exhibit-26, was not
liable to be received to the acquired lands, which
were much large in area. The learned counsel
further submitted that the Reference Court has also
failed in appreciating that the lands, which were
the subject matters of Exhibit-23 and Exhibit-26,
were located in the fully developed area;
whereas the lands, which were the subject matters
of the Reference Applications, were at a
considerable distance from the said lands and
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(8)
were from the undeveloped area.
7.The learned counsel further submitted
that ordinarily, while considering the aspect of NA
potentiality of the agricultural land, 1/3rd of the
area is deducted; whereas the Reference Court in
the present matters has directed the deductions to
the extent of 25% and 10% respectively towards the
development. The learned counsel, in the
circumstances, prayed for setting aside the
impugned Judgment and Award and to restore the
Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer under Section 11 of the Act.
8.As against it, learned counsel Shri HR
Nandgavhale, holding for Advocate Shri VG Sakolkar,
submitted that the amount of compensation, as has
been awarded by the Reference Court, is unjust and
inadequate. It was the contention of the learned
counsel that the Reference Court must have relied
upon the sale instance at Exhibit-26 instead of
Exhibit-23 and must have awarded the same market
rate to the acquired lands. The learned counsel
further submitted that the deductions, as are made
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(9)
from the acquired area for the purpose of computing
the compensation, is also unjust and inappropriate.
The learned counsel further submitted that the
claimants had brought on record sufficient evidence
to substantiate their demand and as such, the
Reference Court must have determined the market
value of the acquired lands at the rate not less
than Rs.10/- per sq.ft.
9.I have given due considerations to the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the acquired lands and the learned counsel
appearing for the claimants. I have perused the
impugned Judgment and Award and the evidence on
record. As has come on record, through evidence of
CW 3 – Mallikarjun, both the acquired lands were
situated and located in the central place of Chakur
city and there were residential houses, plots,
offices around the said lands. It has also come on
record through the evidence of said witness that
towards West of the acquired lands, there was
Grampanchayat office; Zilla Parishad Girls' High
School and the Rural hospital. Whereas to the north
of the acquired lands, there is Jagat Jagruti High
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(10)
School, Untakaneshwar temple, Rest house, Lokmanya
college and the residential colonies. To the South
of the acquired lands, there is cinema theater and
Urdu high school and Railway station and towards
northern side, there are residential colonies on
both the sides of the road. It was specifically
deposed by the said witness that both the acquired
lands were having NA potentiality.
10.In the Cross-objection of CW 3, nothing
has been brought on record so as to disbelieve the
facts deposed by him. The Reference Court, on the
basis of the evidence, which has come on record,
has recorded an unequivocal finding that the
acquired lands were situated in the midst of Latur-
Chakur city and were possessing NA potentiality.
In the circumstances, the Reference Court has
disapproved the amount of compensation offered by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.24,000/-
per hectare, observing that the same is wholly
unjust and insufficient.
11.The discussion made by the Reference
Court further reveals that though the sale instance
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(11)
at Exhibit-26 was much pressed by the claimants for
determining the market value of the acquired lands,
the Reference Court has preferred to rely upon the
sale instance at Exhibit-23. The land which was
the subject matter of Exh.26 was a plot admeasuring
600 sq.ft. (i.e. 20 ft. X 30 ft.) and was sold on
1st June, 1982 for consideration of Rs.15,000/-,
i.e. @ Rs.25/- per sq.ft.. Whereas the land, which
was the subject matter of sale deed at Exh. 23, was
admeasuring 29 mtrs. X 7½ mtrs and was sold by
registered sale deed executed on 16th January, 1985
for the consideration of Rs.15,000/-, i.e.
approximately @ Rs.7/- per sq.ft.
12.It appears to me that the Reference Court
has rightly preferred to rely upon the sale
instance at Exh.23 since it was pertaining to
comparatively large area than the plot, which was
the subject matter of sale deed at Exh. 26.
Secondly, the sale instance at Exh. 26 was of the
period prior to about 4½ years of the issuance of
Section 4 notification pertaining to the acquired
lands, whereas the sale deed at Exh. 23 was
executed prior to about two years of the issuance
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(12)
of Section 4 notification. It has come in the
evidence of CW 1 – Ram Jadhav that though in the
sale instance at Exh.23, the plot involved therein
is shown to have been sold for the consideration of
Rs.15,000/-, in fact, it was sold at Rs.24,000/-
and only for the purpose of stamp duty, the
valuation thereof was shown at Rs. 15,000/-. The
Reference Court has believed the version of CW 2
since the same has gone uncontroverted.
13.The discussion made by the Reference
Court further reveals that having considered the
fact that the sale instance at Exh.23 was of the
year prior to two years of the issuance of Section
4 notification, adequate rise in the market price
of the land at the rate of 10% per year has also
been considered by the Reference Court. The
Reference Court has thereafter taken into account
the minus factors also and has ultimately
determined the market value of the acquired lands @
7/- per sq.ft.
14.The Reference Court has appropriately
discussed that the value which was received to the
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(13)
plots of a smaller area, was not liable to be
received to the large area of land and accordingly,
the negative allowances are appropriately worked
out and the market price of the acquired lands was
determined by it @ Rs.7/- per sq.ft. According to
me, the method adopted by the Reference Court was
in tune with the guidelines laid down by the
judicial pronouncements for determination of the
market value of the lands. The objection raised by
the acquiring body that the Reference Court
determined the market value of the acquired lands
on the basis of the smaller plots, therefore, does
not carry any substance and deserves to be
rejected. I reiterate that the sale instance at
Exh.26 was pertaining to too small plot admeasuring
600 sq.ft. and was of the period prior to about
five years of Section 4 notification. It does not
appear to me that the Reference Court has committed
any error in not relying upon the said sale
instance.
15.Further, it was the objection of the
acquiring body that the Reference Court must have
directed the deduction to the extent of 33% of the
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(14)
acquired lands towards development; whereas as
against it, it is the contention of the claimants
that no deductions were liable to be directed.
Both the objections deserve to be turned down. The
Reference Court has provided sufficient reasons
while directing the deductions to the aforesaid
extent. It has to be stated that the Reference
Court was conscious in directing such deductions.
Considering that the land involved in LAR No.
1997/1990 was larger in area, admeasuring 81 Ares,
when the Reference Court has directed the deduction
to the extent of 25%, similar deduction is
restricted to 10% from the acquired land, which is
involved in LAR No.310/1991, it being comparatively
small piece of land admeasuring 15 Ares. It does
not appear to me that the Reference Court has
committed any error in directing such deductions.
The objections raised in this regard are also,
therefore, without any substance and liable to be
rejected.
16.After having considered the entire
material on record, it does not appear to me that
any sustainable ground is made out either by the
FA Nos.465/98 & 466/98
(15)
appellants for reduction in the amount of
compensation or by the claimants for any
enhancement in the said amount.
17.In the result, both the appeals as well
as both the cross-objections deserve to be
dismissed and are accordingly dismissed, however,
without any order as to costs. Pending civil
application, if any, stands disposed of.
bdv/
title-Mahesh
Jt.BDV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Reference Court erred in determining the market value of acquired land based on sale instances of smaller plots rather than larger areas?
Whether the deduction percentages for development charges towards the acquisition area were appropriate given the land sizes?
Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement in compensation or the appellant entitled to a reduction?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NoneReferred
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Maharashtra State Electricity Board
Gundappa S/o Mallikarjun Swami's L.Rs.
Mallikarjun S/o Gundappa Swami
State of Maharashtra
Vasantrao S/o Digambarrao Shashtri's L.Rs.
P.R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court