Dismissed

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhashgir Khushalgir Gosavi and Anr.

Bombay HC10 May 2024FA/1983/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MSRTC appealed against enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court in four consolidated land acquisition references at Pandharpur. The High Court upheld the Reference Court's valuation recognising non-agricultural potential of the land, rejected the limitation objection, and dismissed the appeals and cross-objections.

What the court decided

AI extract

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Subhashgir… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by WAKLE WAKLE MANOJ MANOJ JANARDHAN JANARDHAN Date: 2024.05.10 13:38:54 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007

¶6

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bombay- 400 008.

¶7

: Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Arvindgir Bishweshargir Gosavi Age 50 years, Occu. Business R/o. 4374, Navi Peth Pandharpur.

¶10

1A] Smt. Anupama Arvindgir Gosavi Age-65, Occu- Nil.

¶11

1B] Sachingir Arvindgir Gosavi Age-39, Occu- Advocate and Agri

¶12

1C] Nikhilgir Arvindgir Gosavi Age-39, Occu- Agri

¶13

1D] Bhibishan Arvindgir Gosavi Age-33, Occu- Service All R/o Dale Galli Pandharpur

¶14

1E] Sau Nayana Satishgir Gosavi Age-37 years, Occu- Household R/o Gosavi Patil Mala, Icha Mani Ganpati Mandir, At Makrand Colony Up Nagar Nashik

¶15

1F] Sou Sarika Satish Bharati Age-35, Occu- Service Main road Murud, Tal- Latur Dist- Latur

Manoj

1 of 23

2 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

1G] Sou Nutun Yashwant Giri Age-34, Occu- Housewife Queen’s Garden, Camp Pune 01.

¶20

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3, Collector office Compound, Dist. Solapur. : Respondents

¶21

WITH REJECTED CASE NO.1670 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007

¶22

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bombay- 400 008. : Appellant

¶23

Vs.

¶24

Arvindgir Bishweshargir Gosavi

¶25

Age 50 years, Occu. Business R/o. 4374, Navi Peth Pandharpur.

¶26

1A] Smt. Anupama Arvindgir Gosavi Age-65, Occu- Nil.

¶27

1B] Sachingir Arvindgir Gosavi Age-39, Occu- Advocate and Agri

¶28

1C] Nikhilgir Arvindgir Gosavi Age-39, Occu- Agri

¶29

1D] Bhibishan Arvindgir Gosavi Age-33, Occu- Service All R/o Dale Galli Pandharpur

¶30

1E] Sau Nayana Satishgir Gosavi Age-37 years, Occu- Household R/o Gosavi Patil Mala, Icha Mani

Manoj

2 of 23

3 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

Ganpati Mandir, At Makrandfa Colony Up Nagar Nashik

¶35

1F] Sou Sarika Satish Bharati Age-35, Occu- Service Main road Murud, Tal- Latur Dist- Latur

¶36

1G] Sou Nutun Yashwant Giri Age-34, Occu- Housewife Queen’s Garden, Camp Pune 01.

¶37

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3, Collector office Compound,

¶38

Dist. Solapur. : Respondents

¶39

WITH

¶40

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2009

¶41

¶42

FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007

¶43

Arvindgir Bishweshwargir Gosavi Age-65 years, Occu- Agriculturist R/o. Pandharpur : Applicant

¶44

Vs.

¶45

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road, Bombay Central Bombay 400 008

¶46

The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Collector Office Compound Solapur : Respondents

¶47

WITH

¶48

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.24954 OF 2023 IN

¶49

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

¶59

FIRST APPEAL NO.1982 OF 2007

¶60

Munnagir Khushalgir Gosavi Age-52 years Occu. Business R/o Pandharpur

¶61

Subashgir Kushalgir Gosavi Age 58 Occu. Business R/o Pandharpur : Applicants Vs.

¶62

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair marg Bellassis Road, Bombay Central Bombay 400 008

¶63

The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Collector Office Compound Solapur : Respondents

¶64

WITH CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.10206 OF 2008 IN

¶65

FIRST APPEAL NO.1982 OF 2007

¶66

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

¶67

Subashgir Kushalgir Gosavi

Manoj

5 of 23

6 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

Age 58 Occu. Business R/o Pandharpur

¶72

The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Collector Office Compound Solapur : Respondents

¶73

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16430 OF 2023

¶74

¶75

FIRST APPEAL NO.1982 OF 2007

¶76

Shri Munnagir Khushalgir Gosavi Age-60 years, Occu- Agri & business R/o Dale Galli, Pandharpur Dist Solapur : Applicant

¶77

IN THE MATTER OF

¶78

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay, 400 008 : Appellant Vs.

¶79

Shri Munnagir Khushalgir Gosavi Age-60 years, Occu- Agri & business R/o Navi Peth, Pandharpur

¶80

Subhashgir Kushalgir Gosavi Died during pendency of appeal

¶81

The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Collector Office Compound Solapur : Respondents

¶82

WITH

¶83

FIRST APPEAL NO.1983 OF 2007

¶84

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.

¶89

Subhashgir Khushalgir Gosavi Age- 49 years, Occu- Business R/o.4374 Navi Peth Pandharpur

¶90

1A] Smt. Vaishali Alias Renuka Subhasgir Gosavi Age 65 Occu- Household

¶91

1B] Ashitosh Subhasgir Gosavi Age 40 Occu: Agri & Business

¶92

1C] Anand Subhasgir Gosavi Age 34 Occu: Agriculturist

¶93

1D] Sou Rupali Achyut Gosavi Age 38 Occu: Household No.1 to 3 R/o Dale Galli Pandharpur Dist. Solapur And 4 At Pune

¶94

Munnagir Khushalgir Gosavi Age- 40 years, Occu. Business Navi Peth, Pandharpur.

¶95

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3, Collector office Compound Dist. Solapur : Respondents

¶96

WITH CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.10862 OF 2008 IN

¶97

FIRST APPEAL NO.1983 OF 2007

¶98

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

Subhashgir Khushalgir Gosavi Age- 62 years, Occu- Business R/o. Pandharpur

¶103

1A] Smt. Vaishali Alias Renuka Subhasgir Gosavi Age 65 Occu- Household

¶104

1B] Ashitosh Subhasgir Gosavi Age 40 Occu: Agri & Business

¶105

1C] Anand Subhasgir Gosavi Age 34 Occu: Agri

¶106

1D] Sou Rupali Achyut Gosavi Age 38 Occu: Household No.1 to 3 R/o Dale Galli Pandharpur Dist. Solapur And 4 At Pune

¶107

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay, 400 008

¶108

1. Munnagir Khushalgir Gosavi Age- 40 years, Occu. Business Navi Peth, Pandharpur.

¶109

1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3, Collector office Compound Dist. Solapur : Respondents

¶110

WITH

¶111

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.398 OF 2009 IN

¶112

FIRST APPEAL NO.1983 OF 2007

¶113

Subhashgir Khushalgir Gosavi Age- 58 years Occu. Business R/o Pandharpur

¶114

Munnagir Kushalgir Gosavi

¶115

Manoj

¶116

8 of 23

¶117

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

¶118

Manoj

¶119

9 of 23

¶120

10 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶121

WITH

¶122

FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2009

¶123

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg, Bellasis Road Central, Dr. A. nair Marg, Bombay 400 008 Vs.

¶124

1. Madhav Krishnaji Pharate Age- 58 years, Occu- Agriculturist & Business Residence: Pandharpur, Vitthal Nagar, Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur Died through his legal heirs

¶125

: Appellant

¶126

1A] Prashant Madhav Pharate Age 37 Occ: Business

¶127

1B] Pradeep Mahav Pharate Age-34 Occu- Business Both R/o Pandharpur

¶128

Arun Krishnaji Pharate Age- 53, Occu. Agricultural, R/o Pandharpur Juni Peth, Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur Died through his legal hirs

¶129

2A] Mr. Abhijit Arun Pharate Age 37 Occu: Business R/o At Pandharpur Dist. Solapur

¶130

The State of Maharashtra : Respondents

¶131

WITH

¶132

CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.1331 OF 2010 IN

¶133

FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2009

¶134

Manoj

¶135

10 of 23

¶136

11 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶137

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg, Bellasis Road Central, Dr. A. Nair Marg, Bombay 400 008 : Appellant Vs.

¶138

Madhav Krishnaji Pharate Age- 59 years, Occu- Agriculturist & Business R/o: Vitthal Nagar Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur Died during pendency of appeal

¶139

1A] Prashant Madhav Pharate Age 37 Occ: Business

¶140

1B] Pradeep Mahav Pharate Age-34 Occu- Business Both R/o Pandharpur

¶141

Arun Krishnaji Pharate Age- 54, Occu. Agri, R/o Juni Peth, Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur Died through his legal hirs

¶142

2A] Mr. Abhijit Arun Pharate Age 37 Occu: Business R/o At Pandharpur Dist. Solapur

¶143

The State of Maharashtra : Respondents

¶144

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.284 OF 2010 IN

¶145

FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2009

¶146

Madhav Krishnaji Pharate Age 59 Occu Agriculturist & Business R/0 Vitthal Nagar, Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur

¶147

Manoj

¶148

11 of 23

¶149

12 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶150

Arjun Krishnaji Pharate Age- Adult Occu: Applicant Vs.

¶151

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg, Bellasis Road Central, Dr. A. Nair Marg, Bombay 400 008

¶152

The Special land Acquisition Officer No.3, Collector office compound Solapur : Respondents WITH

¶153

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.24953 OF 2023 IN

¶154

FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2009

¶155

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

¶156

Manoj

¶157

12 of 23

¶158

13 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶159

Adv. Pinky Bhansali, for the Appellants (MSRTC) (S.T). Adv. Ajay A. Joshi, for the Respondents. Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the State.

¶160

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. RESERVED ON : 15TH APRIL, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 10TH MAY, 2024

¶161

JUDGMENT:

¶162

This is a group of Appeals filed by the acquiring body challenging common judgment & award passed by the the Learned Reference Court i.e. The Learned District Judge, Pandharpur in LAR Nos.4

¶163

of 2004, 5 of 2004 & 6 of 2004. The Appeal No.986 of 2010 is arising out

¶164

of judgment & order in LAR No.7 of 2004 has given in the chart below:-

¶165

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

¶166

The Claimants have also filed cross-objections.

¶167

The Reference Court by impugned judgment & order has enhanced the amount of compensation towards the land acquired by

¶168

Manoj

¶169

13 of 23

¶170

14 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶171

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 2^nd July, 1994. The award was passed by learned SLAO on 9^th 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

¶172

Court.

¶173

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	2^ndJuly 1994 Published in GR dt. 7.7.1994	2^ndJuly 1994 Published in GR dt. 7.7.1994	2^ndJuly 1994 Published in G R dt. 7.7.1994	16^thApril 1994
5.	Amount	Rs.478900/- per	Rs. 3,83,000/-	Rs.3,83,000 per	Rs.5000 per

¶174

Manoj

¶175

14 of 23

¶176

15 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶177

	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

¶178

The Learned Court after considering the evidence laid before it along the land references held that the just and fair compensation for the land as given in the chart.

¶179

Learned Advocate for the Appellant vehemently argued the Appeals. First ground is that the references were not filed within six weeks from the date of award and thus they are beyond limitation. Those ought not to have been entertained by Reference Court. Section 4 notification was issued on 2^nd July, 1994 in LAR Nos.4 of 2004, 5 of 2004 & 6 of 2004

¶180

& 16^th April, 1996 in LAR No.7 of 2004. The references are filed under

¶181

Manoj

¶182

15 of 23

¶183

16 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶184

Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, on 4^th April, 1997 beyond limitation. Notice for taking compensation was issued on 27^th February, 1997 and the references are filed on 4^th April, 1997. 27^th 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, 6^th 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.

¶185

In rejoinder the learned Advocate for the Appellant again submitted that the notice of the award under the Act is constructive notice. The panchnama of taking possession is on 27^th February, 1997 the said date cannot be taken to be the date of notice. She submits that as per Section 18 the limitation is six weeks from the date of Collector’s Award. It was specifically for the claimants to show that they had no notice in view of

¶186

Manoj

¶187

16 of 23

¶188

17 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶189

Section 106 of the Evidence Act. She submits that the rate of the land

¶190

should have been at the most Rs.320/- per sq. meter.

¶191

Learned Advocate for the Appellant relied upon the Judgments

¶192

as below.

¶193

(1) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan Setty¹

¶194

(2) Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat²

¶195

(3) Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand³

¶196

(4) Premlata And Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra And Ors.⁴

¶197

As to whether the Court has rightly considered the references. Learned Advocate for the Respondents relied upon the Judgments as below.

¶198

(1) Subh Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana And

¶199

Another⁵ .

¶200

(2) Mohammad Yusuf And Vs. State of Haryana And Others⁶ .

¶201

(3) Bhanushankar Oghadbhai Mehta (dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Limited And Another⁷ .

¶202

1 AIR 1959 SC 429

¶203

2 (2005) 4 SCC 789

¶204

3 2023 (7) Supreme 13

¶205

4 Civil Appeal Nos.176-177 of 2022

¶206

5 (2010) SCC 444

¶207

6 (2018) 16 SCC 105

¶208

7 (2018) 13 SCC 722

¶209

Manoj

¶210

17 of 23

¶211

18 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶212

(4) Madhukar s/o. Govindrao Kamble & Ors. Vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors.⁸ .

¶213

(5) 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.⁹ .

¶214

(6) Ebrahim Akbaralli And Ors. Vs. The District Deputy Collector Pandharpur Division, District Sholapur¹⁰

¶215

(7) P. Ram Reddy And Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad And Ors.¹¹ .

¶216

In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, it was held that

¶217

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

¶218

8 (2022)(2) ALL MR 463 (S.C.)

¶219

9 2023 (1) Mh.L.J. 191

¶220

10 1969 (3) SCC 735

¶221

11 (1995) 2 SCC 305

¶222

Manoj

¶223

18 of 23

¶224

19 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶225

bona fide transactions. In that case the sale instances High Court had considered only four instances out of six instances & taken the average of

¶226

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.

¶227

In the case of Viluben Jhalejar (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the market value is ordinarily the price of the property that may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the Special needs of a particular purchase. It was also held that the smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, etc. Such development charges are also required to be paid between 20% & 50% of the total price.

¶228

In the case of Balvir Singh (supra) this is in respect of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it is for the person who has to prove the guilt exclusively within his personal knowledge. This is with respect to her submission that it was for the Claimants to show exact date of knowledge.

¶229

Manoj

¶230

19 of 23

¶231

20 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶232

In the case of Premlata (supra) the Hon’ble Court has held

¶233

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.

¶234

Learned Advocate fo the Respondents cross-objector relied judgment in the case of Subh Ram (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered that when all the lands are acquired for the same purpose irrespective of quality of the land or the situation of the land uniform rate needs to be given to all the lands.

¶235

In the case of Mohammad Yusuf (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it is well settled that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar land, usually the highest of the exemplars which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered.

¶236

Manoj

¶237

20 of 23

¶238

21 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶239

In the case of Bhanushankar Mehta (supra) the Hon’ble Apex

¶240

Court awarded interest on the solatium amount based on the Constitution

¶241

Bench in the case of Sunder Vs. union of India (2001)7 SCC 211.

¶242

In the case of Madhukar Kamble (supra) the Hon’ble Apex considered the evidence in that case produced by the land owners showing that the acquired land was close to Educational Institutions, Banks, Tahsil Office etc. It is further held that it is not the nature of the land which alone is determinative of the market value of the land. The market value must be determined keeping in view various factors including proximity to the developed area and the road etc.,

¶243

In the case of Rauji Naik (supra) this Court there was evidence to show that the land acquired was following within the commercial zone. The Appeals of the claimant were allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation of Rs.450/- per sq. mtr.

¶244

In the case of Ebrahim Akbaralli (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered that though the large portion of the acquired land was technically agricultural land, it was held that the nomenclature is not material when the land has potentiality of non-agricultural land. It is the case from the same Pandharpur Municipality from which present appeals are arisen.

¶245

Manoj

¶246

21 of 23

¶247

22 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶248

In the case of P. Ram Reddy (supra) the Court considered the

¶249

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.

¶250

Learned Advocate for the Respondents strenuously argued that the Court ought to have allowed the reference in toto. This aspect will be considered while discussing the Appeal.

¶251

Keeping in view ratio of all the above Judgments this Court needs consider as to whether in the present case the Reference Court has properly considered and appreciated the evidence before him and the law while determining the amount of compensation.

¶252

Looking to the judgment, this Court finds that the learned Reference Court has rightly considered the judgments in the LAR Nos.5 of 2004 & 6 of 2004 passed by the District Court. Further it is considered that the lands are situated within the zone-1 of Pandharpur Municipality. Some part of land is already converted into non-agricultural land and buildings have already been constructed adjacent to the Respondent’s land. The Court has rightly considered that the land would fetch price of nonagricultural land. On the issue of limitation also the Court has rightly held in favour of the Claimants. This Court does not find in force in the arguments of the Appellants as well as Respondents/cross-objectionist.

¶253

Manoj

¶254

22 of 23

¶255

23 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶256