Appeals by the acquiring authority challenging the Reference Court's enhanced compensation award. The High Court upheld the award, finding that the Reference Court correctly considered the land's non-agricultural potential and limitation issues, and dismissed the appeals.
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 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Digitally signed by WAKLE WAKLE MANOJ MANOJ JANARDHAN JANARDHAN Date: 2024.05.10 13:38:54 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bombay- 400 008.
: Appellant
Vs.
Manoj
1 of 23
2 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
WITH REJECTED CASE NO.1670 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bombay- 400 008. : Appellant
Vs.
Manoj
2 of 23
3 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Ganpati Mandir, At Makrandfa Colony Up Nagar Nashik
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2009
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007
Arvindgir Bishweshwargir Gosavi Age-65 years, Occu- Agriculturist R/o. Pandharpur : Applicant
Vs.
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.24954 OF 2023 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007
Manoj
3 of 23
4 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Shri. Sachingir Arvindgir Gosavi Age-40 years, Occu- Agri & Advocate R/o Dale Galli, Pandharpur Dist Solapur : Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay, 400 008 : Appellant Vs. 1. Arvindgir Bishweshwargir Gosavi Died during pendency of appeal 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Collector Office Compound Solapur : Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1982 OF 2007 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay, 400 008 : Appellant Vs. 1. Munnagir Khushalgir Gosavi Age- 40 years, Occu-Business. Navi Peth, Pandharpur 2. Subhashgir Khushalgir Gosavi Age- 49 years, Occu. Business R/o. As above 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3 Collector Office Compound Dist. Solapur : Respondents
Manoj
4 of 23
5 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.395 OF 2009 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1982 OF 2007
WITH CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.10206 OF 2008 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1982 OF 2007
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair marg Bellassis Road, Bombay Central Bombay 400 008 : Appellant Vs. 1. Munnagir Khushalgir Gosavi Age-52 years Occu. Business R/o Pandharpur
Manoj
5 of 23
6 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Age 58 Occu. Business R/o Pandharpur
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16430 OF 2023
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1982 OF 2007
Shri Munnagir Khushalgir Gosavi Age-60 years, Occu- Agri & business R/o Dale Galli, Pandharpur Dist Solapur : Applicant
IN THE MATTER OF
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay, 400 008 : Appellant Vs.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1983 OF 2007
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at
Manoj
6 of 23
7 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay, 400 008 : Appellant Vs.
WITH CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.10862 OF 2008 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1983 OF 2007
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay, 400 008 : Appellant Vs.
Manoj
7 of 23
8 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.398 OF 2009 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1983 OF 2007
Manoj
8 of 23
9 2-FA-1981-2007.doc Age-52 years Occu- business R/o Pandharpur : Applicant Vs. 1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay, 400 008 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3, Collector office Compound Dist. Solapur : Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.25220 OF 2023 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1983 OF 2007 Shri Ashitosh Subhasgir Gosavi Age- 42 years, Occu- Agri & Business R/o. Dale Galli, Pandharpur Dist. Solapur : Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellasis Road Central Bombay 400 008 : Appellant Vs. 1. Subhashgir Khushalgir Gosavi Died during Pendency of appeal 2. Munnagir Kushalgir Gosavi Age-60, Occu- business R/o Navi Peth, Pandharpur 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3, Collector office Compound Dist. Solapur : Respondents
Manoj
9 of 23
10 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2009
: Appellant
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.1331 OF 2010 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2009
Manoj
10 of 23
11 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg, Bellasis Road Central, Dr. A. Nair Marg, Bombay 400 008 : Appellant Vs.
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.284 OF 2010 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2009
Manoj
11 of 23
12 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.24953 OF 2023 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2009
Prashant Madhav Pharate Age- 40 years, Occu-Business R/o Vitthal Nagar, Pandharpur Dist. Solapur : Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay- 400 008 : Appellant Vs. 1. Madhav Krishnaji Pharate died during pendency of appeal 2. Arun Krishnaji Pharate Age 60, Occu- Business R/o Pandharpur, Juni Peth, Pandharpur, Dist, Solapur 3. The State of Maharashtra : Respondents
Manoj
12 of 23
13 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Adv. Pinky Bhansali, for the Appellants (MSRTC) (S.T). Adv. Ajay A. Joshi, for the Respondents. Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the State.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. RESERVED ON : 15TH APRIL, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 10TH MAY, 2024
JUDGMENT:
of 2004, 5 of 2004 & 6 of 2004. The Appeal No.986 of 2010 is arising out
of judgment & order in LAR No.7 of 2004 has given in the chart below:-
| Sr. No. |
Mr. Arvindgir Gosavi |
Mr. Munnagir Gosavi+ Subhasgir |
Mr. Subhasgir Gosavi & Munnagir |
Mr. Arun Parathe |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | First Appeal No (by MSRTC) |
1981 of 2007 | 1982 of 2007 | 1983 of 2007 | 896 of 2009 |
| 2. | Land Acquisition Reference Number |
LAR No. 4 of 2004 |
LAR No. 5 of 2004 |
LAR No. 6 of 2004 |
LAR No. 7 of 2004 |
The Claimants have also filed cross-objections.
Manoj
13 of 23
14 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Appellant/Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The facts are similar which are that the notification came to be issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 2nd July, 1994. The award was passed by learned SLAO on 9th December, 1996 in LAR Nos.4 of 2004, 5 of 2004 & 6 of 2004. The parties are referred to as acquiring body and the Claimants for the purpose of convenience. The chart below is to gives an idea about the land area compensation awarded by the SLAO and by the Reference
Court.
| Sr. No. |
Mr. Arvindgir Gosavi |
Mr. Munnagir Gosavi |
Mr. Subhasgir Gosavi |
Mr. Arun Parathe | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | First Appeal No (by MSRTC) |
1981 of 2007 | 1982 of 2007 | 1983 of 2007 | 896 of 2009 |
| 2. | Land Acquisition Reference Number |
LAR No. 4 of 2004 |
LAR No. 5 of 2004 |
LAR No. 6 of 2004 |
LAR No. 7 of 2004 |
| 3. | Description of property/Land |
Survey No. 109/1A/1B/2-2 Admeasuring 5445 Sq. meter i.e. OH= 50 R |
Survey No. 109/A/1A-1-B/A- 2,1B Admeasuring 13178 Sq. meter i.e. 1H = 21R |
Survey No. 109/A/2B/1- A/3Admeasurin g 18583.3 Sq. meter i.e. 0H = 97R |
Survey No. 109- A/1A/1 Admeasuring At 1H=62 R And Surver No.109- A/1A-2 Admeasuring at 3H=96 R Equal to 6076.32 Sq. meter |
| 4. | Date of Notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition |
2ndJuly 1994 Published in GR dt. 7.7.1994 |
2ndJuly 1994 Published in GR dt. 7.7.1994 |
2ndJuly 1994 Published in G R dt. 7.7.1994 |
16thApril 1994 |
| 5. | Amount | Rs.478900/- per | Rs. 3,83,000/- | Rs.3,83,000 per | Rs.5000 per |
Manoj
14 of 23
15 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
| determined by SLO |
hector i.e. Rs.4789 per Guntha |
per hector i.e. Rs.3830 per Guntha |
hector | Guntha i.e. 4 LK per hector |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6. | Enhance compensation claimed by the Applicant in Land Acquisition Reference |
More than Rs.500/- per Sq. meter i.e. 1 sq. meter == 1076.4 sq. feet One Guntha= 1089 sq. feet Claimed- Rs.24,83,050 |
More than Rs.500/- per Sq. meter Claimed- Rs.61,25,020/- |
More than Rs.500/- per Sq. meter Claimed- Rs.89,10,140/- |
More than Rs.500/- per Sq. meter Claimed- Rs.2,70,000,00/- |
| 7. | Award passed by Reference Court |
Dated :- 17.1.2007 at@ of Rs.350 per Sq. meter |
Dated:- 17.1.2007 At@ of Rs.400 per Sq. meter |
Dated:- 17.1.2007 At@ of Rs.400 per Sq. meter |
Dated:- 24.4.2008 At@ of s.20,000 per guntha i.e. 200 per sq. meter |
| 8. | Granted by D/c | Rs.19,57,050/- As per above calculation |
Rs.52,71,200/- As per above calculation |
Rs.74,33,200/- As per above calculation |
Rs.1,11,60,000/- As per above calculation |
Manoj
15 of 23
16 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, on 4th April, 1997 beyond limitation. Notice for taking compensation was issued on 27th February, 1997 and the references are filed on 4th April, 1997. 27th February, 1997 was the returnable date of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Claimants have not shown when they received notice. Learned Court had considered the land having non-agricultural potential when in fact those were not converted in to non-agricultural land. The instances of the same i.e. 1992, 6th September, 1993 relied upon by the Court. The forth instance was after Section 4 notification and therefore could not have been considered by the Court. The instances are in respect of small plots whereas the lands of the claimants are larger lands and therefore this rate in the sale instances could not have been considered as larger the area lesser the rate. The evidence of the expert witness of the acquiring body was discarded by the Court. The claimants could not prove their case.
Manoj
16 of 23
17 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Section 106 of the Evidence Act. She submits that the rate of the land
should have been at the most Rs.320/- per sq. meter.
as below.
Another5 .
Manoj
17 of 23
18 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
the High Court had adopted a wrong method in ascertaining the market value of the land at the relevant time. The Court has to consider the compensation by ascertaining the market value of the land as on the date of notification under Section 4(1). The methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages, and (3) a year of purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. In that case the Court held that the High Court adopted the second method that is considering the price within the reasonable time in
8 (2022)(2) ALL MR 463 (S.C.)
9 2023 (1) Mh.L.J. 191
10 1969 (3) SCC 735
11 (1995) 2 SCC 305
Manoj
18 of 23
19 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
bona fide transactions. In that case the sale instances High Court had considered only four instances out of six instances & taken the average of
all the said instances without giving sufficient reason as to way two instances are excluded. In that case it was observed that there was arbitrary selection of four transactions and therefore the same was vitiated as the consideration of all the transactions would have changed the average rate.
Manoj
19 of 23
20 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
that all sale instances were in respect of small plots of land are not comparable to a large extent of land for the purpose of determining the compensation. It is also further held that two kinds of deductions are required to be made in respect of large tract i.e. (i) for development, and (ii) in case of small area, the transactions are exemplar. In that case the sale instance was in respect of 135 sq. metes. Whereas the land acquired is a large area, i.e. 45 Hectares 89 R. and this was held that the sale instances could not have been considered while determining the rate of such bigger land. Considering huge difference in size in this case this Court does not find that the same is applicable in case in hand.
Manoj
20 of 23
21 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
Court awarded interest on the solatium amount based on the Constitution
Bench in the case of Sunder Vs. union of India (2001)7 SCC 211.
Manoj
21 of 23
22 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
use to which the land can be put and also the purpose of the acquisition which need to be considered while determining the market value.
Manoj
22 of 23
23 2-FA-1981-2007.doc
out calling for interference at the hands of this Court. The Appeals are therefore dismissed. Cross objection also stand dismissed with no order as
to costs.
(KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Manoj
23 of 23
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Reference Court properly appreciated the evidence and law while determining the amount of compensation.
Whether the appeals are maintainable and the lower court's enhancement of compensation was justified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan SettyReferred¶8
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan Setty AIR 1959 SC 429 · Who else cites this
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of GujaratReferred¶9
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 · Who else cites this
Balvir Singh Vs. State of UttarakhandReferred¶10
Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2023 (7) Supreme 13
Premlata And Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra And Ors.Referred¶11
Premlata And Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra And Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.176-177 of 2022
Subh Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana And AnotherReferred¶12
Subh Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana And Another (2010) SCC 444 · Who else cites this
Mohammad Yusuf And Vs. State of Haryana And OthersReferred¶13
Mohammad Yusuf And Vs. State of Haryana And Others (2018) 16 SCC 105 · Who else cites this
Bhanushankar Oghadbhai Mehta (dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Limited And AnotherReferred¶14
Bhanushankar Oghadbhai Mehta (dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Limited And Another (2018) 13 SCC 722
Madhukar s/o. Govindrao Kamble & Ors. Vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors.Referred¶15
Madhukar s/o. Govindrao Kamble & Ors. Vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors. (2022)(2) ALL MR 463 (S.C.)
Rauji Naik (since deceased) represented by his Legal Heirs Smt. Sushila Rauji Naik And Others Vs. Deputy Collector (L.A) Collectorate South, Margao And Ors.Referred¶16
Rauji Naik (since deceased) represented by his Legal Heirs Smt. Sushila Rauji Naik And Others Vs. Deputy Collector (L.A) Collectorate South, Margao And Ors. 202
Ebrahim Akbaralli And Ors. Vs. The District Deputy Collector Pandharpur Division, District SholapurReferred¶17
Ebrahim Akbaralli And Ors. Vs. The District Deputy Collector Pandharpur Division, District Sholapur 1969 (3) SCC 735 · Who else cites this
P. Ram Reddy And Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad And Ors.Referred¶18
P. Ram Reddy And Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad And Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 305
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Arvindgir Bishweshargir Gosavi
Smt. Anupama Arvindgir Gosavi
Sachingir Arvindgir Gosavi
Nikhilgir Arvindgir Gosavi
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3, Collector office Compound, Dist. Solapur
Kishore C. Sant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
