Swarna Project, Latur v. Bhausaheb Pandhari RautraoAge
Legal Reasoning
fa3062.19--1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 3062 OF 20191.The Executive Engineer,Nimna Terna Project (Canal)Division No.2, LaturDistrict Latur Through Satyawan s/o Namdeorao BachpalleAge 56 years, Occ. Service asSub -Divisional Engineer,At Sakol Medium Project Sub DivisionWalandi, District Latur (Ori. R. No.2) 2.The State of MaharashtraThrough – The Collector, Latur(Ori. R. No.1) 3.The Special Land Acquisition Officer(Ori. R. No.3) Swarna Project, Latur ...Appellants Versus Bhausaheb Pandhari RautraoAge 38 years, Occ. AgricultureR/o. Chikalthana, (Ori. Claimant)Tq. and district Latur ...Respondent ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3063 OF 20191.The Executive Engineer,Nimna Terna Project (Canal)Division No.2, LaturDistrict Latur Through Satyawan s/o Namdeorao BachpalleAge 56 years, Occ. Service asSub -Divisional Engineer,At Sakol Medium Project Sub DivisionWalandi, District Latur (Ori. R. No.2) 2.The State of Maharashtra fa3062.19--2- Through – The Collector, Latur(Ori. R. No.1) 3.The Special Land Acquisition Officer(Ori. R. No.3) Swarna Project, Latur ...Appellants Versus Prabhavati w/o Limbraj Patil Age 65 years, Occ. AgricultureR/o. Chikalthana, (Ori. Claimant)Tq. and district Latur ...Respondent ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3064 OF 20191.The Executive Engineer,Nimna Terna Project (Canal)Division No.2, LaturDistrict Latur Through Satyawan s/o Namdeorao BachpalleAge 56 years, Occ. Service asSub -Divisional Engineer,At Sakol Medium Project Sub DivisionWalandi, District Latur (Ori. R. No.2) 2.The State of MaharashtraThrough – The Collector, Latur(Ori. R. No.1) 3.The Special Land Acquisition Officer(Ori. R. No.3) Swarna Project, Latur ...Appellants Versus 1.Ramesh Narayan Jadhav Age 46 years, Occ. Agriculture2.Dattatraya Narayan Jadhav Age 41 years, Occ. AgricultureBoth R/o. Chikalthana, (Ori. Claimants)Tq. and district Latur ...Respondents …..Mr. Shyam C. Arora, advocate for the appellant No.1Mr. B.B. Bhise, A.G.P. for appellant Nos. 2 and 3 fa3062.19--3- Mr. N.D. Kendre, advocate for respondents ….. ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 765 OF 2022 1.Ramesh Narayan Jadhav Age 54 years, Occ. Agriculture2.Dattatraya Narayan Jadhav Age 49 years, Occ. AgricultureBoth R/o. Chikalthana, ….Appellants Tq. and district Latur (Ori. Claimants) versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Collector, Laturdistrict Latur 2.The Special Land Acquisition Officer Swarna Project, Latur District Latur 3.The Executive Engineer,Nimna Terna Kalva Vibhag No.2 (Medium Project, Division No.2) Latur District Latur ...Respondents …..ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 766 OF 2022 Prabhavati w/o Limbraj Patil Age 74 years, Occ. AgricultureR/o. Chikalthana, ...Appellant Tq. and district Latur (Ori. Claimants) versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Collector, Laturdistrict Latur 2.The Special Land Acquisition Officer Swarna Project, Latur fa3062.19--4- District Latur 3.The Executive Engineer,Nimna Terna Kalva Vibhag No.2 (Medium Project, Division No.2) Latur District Latur ...Respondents …..ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 767 OF 2022 Bhausaheb s/o Pandhari RautraoAge 46 years, Occ. AgricultureR/o. Chikalthana, ...Appellant Tq. and district Latur (Ori. Claimants) versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Collector, Laturdistrict Latur 2.The Special Land Acquisition Officer Swarna Project, Latur District Latur 3.The Executive Engineer,Nimna Terna Kalva Vibhag No.2 (Medium Project, Division No.2) Latur District Latur ...Respondents …..Mr. N.D. Kendre, advocate for appellants Mr. B.B. Bhise, A.G.P. for appellant Nos. 1 and 2Mr. Shyam C. Arora, advocate for the appellant No.3 …..CORAM:SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 06.01.2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 04.04.2025JUDGMENT:- 1.The first appeal Nos. 3062 of 2019, 3063 of 2019 and 3064 fa3062.19--5- of 2019 are preferred by the acquiring body and the State ofMaharashtra against the common judgment and award dated 31stOctober, 2017, delivered by the learned Reference Court in L.A.R.Nos. 117 of 2012, 121 of 2012 and 122 of 2012, whereas the firstappeal Nos. 765 of 2022, 766 of 2022 and 767 of 2022 are filed bythe claimants against the same common judgment and award. Sincethe lands in question and the Land Acqusition References aredecided commonly, all these appeals are tagged together and arebeing disposed of by this common judgment. 2.The L.A.R. Nos. 117, 121 and 122 of 2012 were moved underSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the “LA Act”)for enhancement of compensation amount. All those land referencesarose out of one and the same land acquisition process in respect ofthe agriculture lands situated in village Chikalthana, Tq. and districtLatur vide Government notification under section 4 of LA Act, as perthe following chart.Sr.No.Name ofclaimants L.A.R.No.BlockNo.Areaacquired Totalcompensationpaid by L.A.O.per RAwarded byReferenceCourt per R1BhausahebRautrao122/1213144 R2,66,997/-13,610/-2PrabhavatiPatil117/121310 H 23 R1,49,002/-13,610/-3RameshJadhav andDattatrayaJadhav 121/121160 H 55 R4,27,815/- 13,610/- fa3062.19--6- 3.Those lands were acquired for the public purpose i.e.submergence of Khulgapur Upper level dam at village Chikalthana,Taluka and District Latur. The declaration under Sections 4 and 5 ofthe LA Act came to be published on 19.06.2009.4.The claimants claim in short is as under:- The claimants’ grievance is that the acquired agriculturelands are situated at village Chikalthana, Tahsil and district Latur atbank of Manjara river having black rich cotton soil with depth of morethan 80 feet. Those lands were having water facility through riverManjara. They used to cultivate those lands by getting water bypipeline from that river Manjara. The village Chikalthana is 8kilometers away from Latur city. There is State highway at halfkilometer away which passes from Latur to Nanded. The Latur city isdeveloping towards the acquired lands. Moreover, agriculturalcollege, agricultural university center are 5 kilometers away from theacquired lands. There are hotels, workshops, warehouses, biggodowns, automobile show rooms, service centers etc. near to thesaid lands. There is solvent extraction oil plant. There are othercommercial developments. Modern horticulture and floriculturecenters are developed in that area and vicinity. There is railwaystation at village Bhatangali having broad-gauge between Latur toHyderabad, which is two kilometers away from acquired land. The
Legal Reasoning
fa3062.19--7- acquired lands are having N.A. potentiality for residential, commercialand modern developments. There are surrounding villages such asBhatangali, Kasarkheda, Chikalthana, Kolpa and Bhatkheda, arewithin the vicinity of those lands and have scope for development. 5.It is also the case of the claimants that their lands are perennialirrigated lands. They were harvesting commercial crops, such asSugarcane, Banana, Chilly, Paddy, Rabbi Jawar, vegetables etc. Theacquired lands were capable of cultivating double crops i.e. rainy andwinter season crops. The claimants were getting handsome incomefrom the said lands, which are situated within the command area offour sugar factories. It is contended that the population of the saidvillage was having more than 4000 at the time of acquisition. Atvillage Bhatangali, there is Government Rural Hospital, which isadjacent to those acquired lands. There were facilities viz. telephone,school, bus-stand, veterinary hospital at Bhatkheda. There is postoffice, Gram Panchayat office, society etc. There are private as wellas public buildings, temples within the vicinity of the said village.There is State Highway between Latur to Beed via Kolpa, which isonly one and half kilometers away from the acquired lands. There isring road which is one kilometer away from the said lands. TheGovernment through the CIDCO declared the schemes ofdevelopments of Latur city in the vicinity of acquired lands. fa3062.19--8- 6.The claimants further contended that the S.L.A.O. has ignoredthe above vital aspects and awarded the compensation of Rs.2720/-per Are. According to the claimants, the said compensation isgrossly inadequate. According to the claimants, price of the acquiredland is Rs.87,500/- per Are and the claimants claimed enhancementof compensation accordingly with respect to the lands, trees, pipelineand also claimed other statutory benefits. 7.The respondents by their written statement Exh.9 and 11denied the material contentions raised by the claimants in their claimpetitions. It is not disputed that the lands were acquired by therespondents. It is contended that the said lands are having mediumtype of quality and claimants were cultivating those only in Kharipseason (rainy crops). According to the respondents there is nopermanent source of water for irrigating those lands. The materialfacts that the said lands are of rich black cotton soil having hugedepth and those were irrigated are denied. The respondents alsodenied the fertility and potentiality of the acquired lands. 8.The respondents-acquiring body further contended that theyvisited the site and verified the spot. They conducted enquiry andfixed the proper, adequate and reasonable price of the acquiredlands. The compensation amount was fixed on the basis of sale fa3062.19--9- instances and considering the assessment of the land revenue. It isspecifically denied that the possession of the acquired lands wastaken by the private negotiations. It was lastly prayed to dismiss theclaim petitions with other statutory benefits. 9.The learned Reference court framed five issues and held thatthe compensation awarded by the L.A.O. was inadequate. It alsoheld that the market price of the acquired land was Rs.13,610/- perAre. Lastly, the references were allowed by granting compensationat the rate of Rs.13,610/- per Are. 10.Learned advocate for the acquiring body submitted that theamount of compensation awarded by the Reference court is not legaland correct. He submitted that the evidence is not properlyappreciated and huge amount of compensation is awarded againstthe provisions of law and principles of natural justice. It is lastlyprayed to dismiss the appeals filed by the claimants and allow theappeals filed by the acquiring body and the State Government bysetting aside the impugned common judgment. It failed to considerentire evidence on record in its proper perspectives. The impugnedcommon judgment is to be set aside.11.The learned advocate for the claimants pointed out the oraland documentary evidence adduced by the claimants and prayed to fa3062.19--10- allow the appeals filed by them by enhancing the amount ofcompensation.12.Learned A.G.P. for the respondents/State submitted that theamount of compensation granted by the reference court isreasonable amount. It is in accordance with the evidence on record.Learned A.G.P. for the respondent State further submitted that thereasoned awards were passed against which the references werepreferred. 13.The following point emerged for consideration:-(1)Is impugned common judgment and award illegal, incorrectand requires interference ?14.The admitted facts are that in the reference case of LAR (G)No.122 of 2012 the amount of compensation at the rate ofRs.13,610/- per R was awarded. 15.This Court has perused the pleadings and entire evidence ofboth the sides. 16.The claimants have relied upon the documents particularly theawards passed by the LAO at Exh.22, in which all block numbers ofthe claimants which were acquired alongwith the area are mentioned. fa3062.19--11- The claimants have also relied upon the award, E-statement atExh.23. 17.Claimant/CW 1 Bhausaheb Rautrao adduced evidence by filinghis affidavit in support of his claim at Exh.28 and reiterated thematerial contentions as per claim petition. The claimants have reliedupon the receipt of payment made at Exh.57 and 58, the claimantshave relied upon the receipt of payment of land revenue at Exh.48 to59. They have also relied upon the certificate issued by theExecutive Director of Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar KarkhanaLimited and the details of the supply of the sugarcane at Exh.63 to65, the letter issued to Bhausaheb Rautrao by the said sugar factoryat Exh.66 and 67, the registration of sugarcane crop for ManjaraSugar Factory Exh.68, the bills for supply of sugarcane Exh.69 and70, the bills of A.P.M.C. Latur Exh.71 to 76, copy of claim made byone Prabhawatibai Patil in L.A.R. office in L.A.R. proceeding of2007L.A./Swarna/CR/14 at Exh.77, notice issued to BhausahebRautrao by the acquisition authority under Section 9 of the LA Act1894 at Exh.78, the communication for spot inspection along with itsreport is at Exh.79, copy of notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act1894 is at Exh.80, the papers of receiving of the amount ofcompensation at Exh.81 to 83, the sale deeds of the said property atEx.84 to 86, the 7x12 extract of agriculture land of claimant fa3062.19--12- Bhausaheb Rautrao is at Exh.87, the 7x12 extract of Ramesh Jadhavand Dattatraya Jadhav is at Exh.88, the 7x12 extract ofPrabhavatibai Patil Exh.89, the map of village Chikalthana districtLatur is at Exh.90, the draft development map notified fringe areaalongwith common measurement report is at Exh.91, the bills ofM.S.E.B. Exh.95 to 97, the 7x12 extract of the land of claimantBhausaheb Rautrao at Exh.98, Prabhavatibai Patil a Exh.99,Ramesh Jadhav and Dattatraya Jadhav Exh.100, the StateGovernment relied upon the award, E statement alongwith the mapof the Tahsil Latur showing names of village at Exh.104, copy of theorder passed by the Land Reference court in LA Case No. 5 of 2012at Exh.109, in which compensation of Rs.13610/- was granted by thesaid Court in L.A.R. No. 5 of 2012 etc. for the land acquired of thesame village for submergence of Khulgapur Upper level dam.18.The learned reference court in para 27 of the impugnedjudgment and award compared the sale deeds at Exh.84 to 86 aswell as the award passed in Exh. 109 LAR No. 5/12 dated 18.9.2007and concluded as per that judgment and award that the claimants areentitled for compensation of Rs.13,610/- per Are on the principle ofparity. 19.The question before this court is that whether the agricultureland acquired by the respondents are irrigated or dry crop lands. fa3062.19--13- Whether the market price of the said lands considered and grantedby the reference court in earlier Land Reference No.5 of 2012 etc. iscorrect or not ?20.Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body has reliedupon the sale instance at Exh.85. The sale-deed of the land situatedat village Chikalthana, Taluka and District Latur bearing block No.45admeasuring 0.45 R land was sold for Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. @Rs.13,610/- per R. It has also relied upon the judgment of thereference court of the same designation regarding same type of theproperty of the same village at Exh.109 in LAR No.5 of 2012 in whichthe sale-deed at Exh.85 was also considered and relied upon. Onthat basis, the market price of the acquired lands was finalized. 21.Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body furthersubmitted that the sale-deed may be relied upon, however, it has tobe considered with the settled position of law, particularly, thejudgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs.Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, reported in, (2008) 14Supreme Court Cases 745, in which the Honourable SupremeCourt held as under:-“Whether the increase should be at a cumulative rate or fa3062.19--14- a flat rate?18. The increase in market value is calculated withreference to the market value during the immediatepreceding year. When market value is sought to beascertained with reference to a transaction which took placesome years before the acquisition, the method adopted is tocalculate the year to year increase. As the percentage ofincrease is always with reference to the previous year'smarket value, the appropriate method is to calculate theincrease cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. Thedifference between the two methods is shown by thefollowing illustration (with reference to a 10% increase over abasic price of Rs 10 per square metre): Year By flat rate increase method By cumulative increase method1987(Base year)10.0010.00198810 + 1 =11.0010.00 + 1.00 =11.00198911 + 1 =12.0011.00 + 1.10 =12.10199012 + 1 =13.0012.10 + 1.21 =13.31199113 + 1 =14.0013.31 + 1.33 =14.64199214 + 1 =15.0014.64 + 1.46 =16.1019. We may also point out that application of a flat rate willlead to anomalous results. This may be demonstrated withfurther reference to the above illustration. In regard to thesale transaction in 1987, where the price was Rs 10 persquare metre, if the annual increase to be applied is a flatrate of 10%, the increase will be Rs 1 per annum during eachof the five years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. If theprice increase is to be determined with reference to saletransaction of the year 1989 when the price was Rs 12 persquare metre, the flat rate increase will be Rs 1.20 perannum, for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the priceincrease is determined with reference to a sale transaction ofthe year 1990 when the price was Rs 13 per square metre,then the flat rate increase will be Rs 1.30 per annum for the fa3062.19--15- years 1991 and 1992. It will thus be seen that even if thepercentage of increase is constant, the application of a flatrate leads to different amounts being added depending uponthe market value in the base year. On the other hand, thecumulative rate method will lead to consistency and morerealistic results. Whether the base price is Rs 10 or Rs 12.10or Rs 13.31, the increase will lead to the same result. Thelogical, practical and appropriate method is therefore to applythe increase cumulatively and not at a flat rate.For what period should the increase be calculated?20. The Reference Court has stated that the gapbetween 6-1-1987 (the date of transaction covered by Ext.15) and 15-9-1992 (the date of acquisition underconsideration) was six-and-half years. It therefore calculatedthe increase for six-and-half years. This is obviouslyerroneous. The actual gap is five years and eight months andnot six-and-half years. However, for the purpose ofcalculation, we have to exclude the year of the relied-upontransaction, which is the base year. If the year of relied-upontransaction is 1987, the increase is applied not from 1987itself, but only from the next year which is 1988. If the ratewas Rs 10 per square metre in 1987, and the cumulative rateof increase is 7.5% per year, the price will be Rs 10.75 in1988, Rs 11.56 in 1989, Rs 12.42 in 1990, Rs 13.35 in 1991and Rs 14.35 in 1992. Thus, the calculation of increase isonly for five years and not for six-and-half years.”22.Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body further reliedupon the judgment of this Court delivered in State of MaharashtraVs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in, 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457, in fa3062.19--16- which this Court held as under:-“32. ….(i)….(ii) The interest as provided under section 34 of thesaid Act shall start running from the date ofpossession, only if the possession is taken by theCollector in exercise of his powers under section17 of the said Act which would obviously be afterissuance of notice under section 9(1) of the saidAct. If the possession is taken under section 17,the interest payable under section 34 of the saidAct shall start running from the date ofpossession and not from the date of award.“33. ….(a)If the possession is taken before the notificationunder section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ispublished and/or before the award is passed, thelandowner would be entitled for interest as persection 34 necessarily from the date of passing ofthe award under section 11 of the said Act,except in cases where the possession is taken inaccordance with section 17 of the said Act, and inthat situation only, the provision of section 34 ofthe said Act shall start operating from the date ofpossession.”23.Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body submittedthat the year of reckoning the amount of compensation is to be fa3062.19--17- calculated by excluding the year of the sale transaction andescalation is to be reckoned from the year subsequent to the date ofthat relied sale transaction. 24.In the case in hand, considering the ratio laid down in theabove two authorities and the reasons given by the reference court,this court is of the view that the amount of compensation granted onthe basis of sale-deed at Exh.85 must be deducted i.e. 10% for theyear 2006-2007. Thus, if 20% amount is deducted from the saidamount of Rs.13,610/- per R. that amount comes to Rs.13,334/- perR, which is proper and correct amount of compensation.25.Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body submittedthat the statutory interest granted as per Section 28 of the LandAcquisition Act, is not properly and correctly granted. It has to beawarded from the date of award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act forthe first year. He pointed out para 4 of final / operative order of theimpugned order.26.On perusal of the judgment of this court and the law laid downby this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash ShivaRangari (supra), the payment of interest is to be computed from thedate of taking of possession of acquired land and not from the date of fa3062.19--18- award. The said interest is to be granted from the date of award bythe reference court, which is not legal and correct, in view of the lawlaid down in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash ShivaRangari (supra). 27.This court has re-appreciated entire evidence. Afterconsidering the grounds of objections raised in the appeals preferredby the claimants, this court do not find that all lands are irrigatedlands. Therefore, the sale instance at Exh.85 relied upon by thelearned reference court though found correct, it was not consideredin view of the law laid down in the case of General Manager, Oiland Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Rameshbhai JivanbhaiPatel and another (supra) i.e. 10% deduction for two years, whichremain to be corrected. The learned trial court thus, come to the rightconclusion, except these two grounds discussed above. It has rightlydisbelieved the sale instance at Exh.109.28.The third important aspect Mr. Arora, learned counsel for theacquiring body pointed out that initially an amount of Rs.16,36,323/-was deposited by the acquiring body, which was withdrawn by theclaimants. Thereafter, the claimants preferred special leave petitionbefore the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable SupremeCourt directed the acquiring body to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- more. Itwas deposited accordingly. It was also withdrawn by the claimants as fa3062.19--19- per the order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.3062 of 2019.He submits that there is excess payment of amount to the claimants,to which they are not entitled in view of the law laid down in theauthority of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLimited Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another (supra). Itis submitted that while passing the final order, necessary directionsare to be given to the claimants to repay the excess amount. Oncareful perusal of the order passed by the Honourable SupremeCourt and as held above, the amount of compensation is to bereduced by 10% from the year 2006 and 2007. Therefore, aftercalculation of that amount and after considering the date ofnotification and rate of interest as per Section 28 of the LA Act,certain amount which is excessively withdrawn by the claimants,needs to be repaid to the acquiring body. 29.In view of the above reasons, this court is of the view that thelearned trial court rightly decided the quantum of compensation onthe market rate. It failed to deduct 10% amount for two years.Therefore, interference is partly warranted in the impugned commonjudgment and award.30.There is no substance in the grounds of objections raised inthe appeals preferred by the claimants and on re-appreciation of theevidence and the grounds of objections, this court is of the view that
Decision
fa3062.19--20- there is no justifiable ground to enhance the amount ofcompensation. In view of the above, the appeals preferred by theclaimants deserve to be dismissed, the appeals preferred by theacquiring authority deserve to be partly allowed and the impugnedcommon judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside.Hence, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative. 31.In the result, the following order:- O R D E RI.The appeals preferred by the claimants aredismissed.II.The appeals preferred by the acquiring authority arepartly allowed and the impugned common judgmentand award is partly set aside in respect of clause (2)and part of clause (5) of the final operative order.The same are corrected as follows:-2)The enhanced market value of theacquired lands is fixed @ Rs.13,334/- perR. Accordingly, the Registry shall calculatethe amount and pay it to the claimants. Ifthe claimants have withdrawn excessamount, the difference amount be adjustedas paid and the excess/balance amount bepaid to the appellant / acquiring authority. 5)Respondent / acquiring authority shall pay fa3062.19--21- interest @ 9% per annum to the claimantson the enhanced amount of compensationfrom the date of award under Section 11 ofthe Land Acquisition Act for the first year.And at the rate of 15% per annumon the amount of compensation for thesubsequent period till the date of depositof enhanced amount of compensation inthe Court under Section 28 of the LandAcquisition Act.III.The claimant in First Appeal No.3062 of 2019 isdirected to repay the excess amount withdrawn byhim to the acquiring body within four months fromtoday with interest @ 5% per annum as per theorder of this Court dated 1st December, 2021 passedin Civil Application No.3776 of 2021. If it is not paid,it be recovered according to law.IV.The bank guaranty submitted by the claimant in FirstAppeal No.3062 of 2019 is discharged on recoveryof excess amount to be paid to the acquiringauthority. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/