Shri. Sharad v. Natu
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:6720-DB 1 FA2158/08IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD.FIRST APPEAL NO.2158 OF 2008Sumitrabai w/o. Madhavrao Naik,Deceased – Her LRs :1/1. Madhavrao s/o. Yeshwant NaikAge : 80 years, Occu : Agril,1/2.Vijay Madhavrao NaikAge : 46 years, Occu : Agril,1/3.Hemant s/o. Madhavrao Naik,Age : 46 years, Occu : Agril,1/4.Yeshwant s/o. Madhavrao NaikAge : 44 years, Occu : Agril,2.Hemant s/o. Madhavrao Naik,Age : 46 years, Occu : Agril,All R/o. Nilanga, Tal. Nilanga, .. AppellantsDist. Latur (Orig. Claimants)Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through : Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,(P.W.D.) Latur3.The Special Land Acquisition Officer,(P.T.I.T.), Latur4.The Superintendent of Police,Dist. Latur … Respondents……ANDFIRST APPEAL NO.2159 OF 2008 Yeshwant Madhavrao Naik, Age : 44 Years, Occu.: Service,R/o. Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, … Appellant Dist. Latur (Original Claimant)Versus
Legal Reasoning
19 FA2158/0814.The following Chart in respect of the sale instances in LandAcquisition Reference No.505/2002 would give clear picture in respectof the necessary details.Sr.NoSurveyNo.AreaPlaceSale DeeddateAmount of considerationand RateExh.1.7/A60x50 ftDapaka25.08.1997Rs.2,10,000/-,(Rs.70/- per Sq. Ft.)242.86/B40x40 ftDapaka21.04.1999Rs.1,60,000/-(Rs. 100/- per Sq. Ft.)263.29260x40 ft.Nilanga14.03.1996Rs.2,70,000/-(Rs.112.50 Ps. Per Sq. Ft.)28 & 304.29722x20 ft.Nilanga17.03.1998Rs.66,000/-(Rs. 175/- per Sq. Ft.)4515.The provisions of Section 23 of the LA Act provide formatters to be considered in determining the compensation. From theabove Charts, which are based on the evidence available on record, it isclear that the sale instance dated 21.04.1999 was the latest in point oftime. It was from the very survey number, from which the lands wereacquired. The evidence goes to show that the other three (3) saleinstances, referred above, were from the different survey numbers andat some distance from the acquired lands ranging from 400 (fourhundred) feet to 1,000/1,500 (one thousand to one thousand fivehundred) feet. 16.There is no dispute that the said sale instances weregenuine. Out of the aforesaid sale instances, the sale instances at 20 FA2158/08Exhs.26, 23, 12 dated 21.04.1999 in First Appeal Nos. 2158 of 2008,2159 of 2008 and 2161 of 2008 respectively, is the best sale instance tobe considered to determine the compensation to the Appellants, as it isfrom the same survey numbers from which the lands were acquired. Noother sale instance, except the above, can form the basis to determinethe market price of the acquired lands. True it is, that in one of theJudgments relied by the learned Advocate for the Appellants, referredabove, the market rate of the land situated in the adjoining village andthe land at the distance of 1 (one) kilometer was considered todetermine the compensation, however, the said decision was on thefacts, circumstances and the evidence in that cases. When the sale-deedfrom the very survey number from which the lands are acquired isavailable, discarding it and considering the sale instances from the othersurvey numbers situated at some distance, though no far, would not bein consonance with the legal position. Considering the length of timebetween the said sale instance at Exhs.26 and 23 and the Notificationunder Section 4 (1) of the LA Act, 10% increase per year in the marketvalue of the acquired lands can conveniently be considered in FirstAppeal Nos.2158 of 2008 and 2159 of 2008, respectively, keeping inview the material on record that the acquired lands were surrounded bydevelopments and were having N.A. potential. 21 FA2158/0817.As far as First Appeal No.2161 of 2008 is concerned,Section 4 (1) Notification is dated 21.07.1998 and the sale instance(Exh.12) relied upon by the learned Reference Court is dated21.04.1999 which is post Notification. The learned Reference Courtwhile relying on the said sale instance at Exh.12 which is from the samesurvey number has observed thus:“27.The learned counsel for the claimants placed reliancein the case of Chindha Vithal Sonawane –vs- Special LandAcquisition Officer, reported in 1975 Mah.L.J. 468, whereinit has been held that: Land Acquisition Act [1 of 1894], SS. 23 and 24 –Post notification sale - They are not irrelevant andcannot be discarded merely because they areeffected two or three years after relevant date.”Having going through the ratio laid down in theabove citation, it reflects that Their Lordships held that postnotification sale cannot be discarded merely because theyare effected two or three years after the relevant date.Herein the case, date of notification under section 4 of theL.A. Act is 15-12-1998 and date of sale-instance underExh.12 is 21-4-1999. Thus, considering the facts in handand ratio laid down in the above citation, I find substance inthe argument advanced by the learned counsel for theclaimants that post notification sale, which is within periodof five months of relevant date of notification under section4 of the L.A. Act cannot be discarded merely because it is apost notification sale. 32.The learned counsel for the claimants furtherpointed out that the sale-instance Exh.12, on whichrespondents also relied under Index-II vide Exh.40. Havinglook to the Index-II vide Exh.40, it reflects that respondentshave placed reliance on the said sale-instance dated 21-4-1999, on which claimants also placed reliance on the samesale-instance Exh.12. Admittedly, plot under sale-instanceExh.12 is out of same Sy. No.86, from which land of theclaimants has been acquired. The price estimated under theabove sale-instance for a plot area 40’x40’ ft. for aconsideration of Rs.1,60,000/-, which comes to Rs.100/- persq. ft. I have already discussed in detail and hold that the 22 FA2158/08learned counsel for the claimants have rightly pointed outthat though sale –instance Exh.12 is post notification sale, itcan be considered as a good guide, so as to determine theprevailing market rate of the acquired portion. He alsofurther rightly pointed out that the said sale-instance is afterfour months of the relevant date. The ratio laid down in1975 Mh.L.J. 868 (supra) reflects that there was postnotification sale of 2 or 3 years and Their Lordships in theforesaid citation held that post notification sale cannot bediscarded merely because they are effected after 2 or 3 yearsof the relevant date. Thus considering the ratio laid down inthe above citation, facts in hand that plot under sale-instance Exh.123 is out of same. Sy. No.86, from which landof the claimants has been acquired and respondents alsoplaced reliance on same sale-instance under Index-II videExh.40 and, therefore, in the above back-drop, I findsubstance in the argument advanced by the learned counselfor the claimants that the aforesaid sale-instance can beconsidered as a good guide, so as to determine theprevailing market price of the acquired portion.36.……………….. It is pertinent to note that on westernside of his purchased plot, acquired portion is shown locatedin the name of claimant – Hemant. Having look to thewestern side boundary mentioned in the sale-instanceExh.12, it supports the argument advanced by the learnedcounsel for the claimants that acquired portion is locatedjust adjacent to western side of the purchased plot undersale-instance Exh.12. Thus, after due consideration of thelocation, situation of the purchased plot and acquiredportion, I find substance in the argument advanced by thelearned counsel for the claimants that purchased plot is justadjacent to the acquired portion and it is from the same Sly.No.86, from which land of the claimants has been acquired.”18.The learned Reference Court has passed the impugnedJudgments and Orders / Awards on the basis of the evidence availableon record and after considering the Judgments relied upon by thelearned Advocate for the Claimants. We see no merit in the submissionsof the learned Advocate for the Appellants that the learned ReferenceCourt misread the Judgments cited by all the Claimants. The impugnedJudgments and Orders / Awards do no call for interference, except for 23 FA2158/08granting 10% increase per year in the market value of the acquiredlands from the date of sale instance i.e. 21.04.1999 till the date ofNotification under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act in First Appeal Nos.2158of 2008 and 2159 of 2008.19.Though it is the contention of the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader that the learned Reference Court has granteddeduction towards development charges @ 25% from the compensationamount was at lower side, admittedly there is no challenge to theimpugned Judgments and Orders / Awards by the State or the AcquiringBody and, therefore, the said submission cannot be considered and dealtwith.20.In the light of the above discussion, we proceed to pass thefollowing order.ORDER1(i)First Appeal Nos.2158 of 2008 and 2159 of 2008 are partly allowed. (ii)The Appellants in First Appeal Nos.2158 of 2008 and 2159of 2008 shall be entitled to increase @ 10% per year in the marketvalue of the acquired lands from the date of sale instance dated 21.04.1999 at Exhs.26 and 23 in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.505/2002 and 1/2004, respectively, till the date of the Notifications issued therein under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act. 24 FA2158/08(iii)Rest of the operative Orders of the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) Nos.505/2002 and 1/2004 shall stand as it is.2 (i)First Appeal No.2161 of 2008 is dismissed. (ii) Parties shall bear their own costs.( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )( R. G. AVACHAT, J. )GGP
Arguments
2 FA2158/081.The State of Maharashtra,Through - Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,[P.W.D.], Latur 3.The Deputy Collector andThe Land Acquisition Officer, Udgir 4.The Superintendent of Police,District - Latur. … Respondents ……ANDFIRST APPEAL NO.2161 OF 2008Madhavrao Yeshwantrao Naik,Since Died – Through LRs :1A. Vijay s/o. Madhavrao NaikAge : 63 years, Occu : Agriculture,R/o. Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga,Dist. Latur1B.Hemant s/o. Madhavrao NaikAge : 60 years, Occu : Agriculture,R/o. Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur1C. Yeshwant S/o. Madhavrao Naik,Age : 55 years, Occu : Agriculture,R/o. 01, Station View, Plot -19,Sector – 30, Vashi, Thane. 2.Hemant s/o. Madhavrao Naik,Age : 46 years, Occu : Service and Agriculture,R/o. Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur … Appellants (Orig. Claimants)Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Collector, Latur2.The Executive Engineer,(P.W.D.)… Respondents……In all the matters : Shri. Sharad V. Natu, Shri. Navin Shah a/w. Shri. Ashwin Thool,Shri. Ayesh Singh, Shri. Jaymangal Dhanraj, Shri. Archishmati, Advocatefor the AppellantsDr. Smt. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent /State. 3 FA2158/08CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.RESERVED ON : 07.02.2025PRONOUNCED ON : 07.03.2025COMMON JUDGMENT [ PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ] :1.As the acquired lands are from the same Survey / GatNumber situated at village Dapaka, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur, theevidence led before the learned Reference Court is common andcommon submissions are made by both the sides in all these three (3)Appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the LA Act), they are decided by this commonJudgment.1A]In First Appeal No.2158 of 2008, the impugned Judgmentand Order / Award is dated 05.03.2008, passed by the learned CivilJudge, Senior Division, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in Land AcquisitionReference (LAR) No.505/2002, partly allowing the Appellants’ claim forenhanced compensation.1B] In First Appeal No.2159 of 2008, the Judgment and Order /Award is dated 05.03.2008, passed by the learned III Jt. Civil Judge,Senior Division, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in Land Acquisition Reference(LAR) No.1/2004, partly allowing the Appellant’s claim for enhancedcompensation. 4 FA2158/081C]In First Appeal No.2161 of 2008, the Judgment and Order /Award is dated 28.03.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, SeniorDivision, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/1999), partly allowing the Appellants’claim for enhanced compensation. 2.The facts giving rise to the present Appeals are as under :2.1.In First Appeal No.2158 of 2008 :-I)The Appellants were the owners and possessors of landadmeasuring 2 Hector, 2 R from Gat No.86 located in village Dapaka,Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. The said land was acquired by the Respondents/ Acquiring Body for construction of the residential colony / quartersand other facilities for the police personnel. For the said acquisition,the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) issued the Notifications under therelevant provisions of the LA Act. The Appellants raised their claim inresponse to the notice received under the LA Act and claimedcompensation @ Rs.350/- (Rs. Three Hundred Fifty) per Sq. Ft. TheLAO, by considering all the aspects passed the Award and grantedcompensation @ Rs.14 to 15 /- (Rupees Fourteen to Fifteen) per Sq. Ft.(Rs.145/- [Rupees One Hundred Fourty Five] per Sq. Meter) to theAppellants. 5 FA2158/08 II)The Appellants preferred the Reference under Section 18 of the LAAct, contending that the acquired land is situated in the developed areaand adjacent to the Municipal limits of Nilanga. The acquired land washaving Non-agricultural (NA) potentiality. The LAO did not consider thedocuments submitted in support of claim for enhanced compensation.The Appellants led evidence in support of their claim before the learnedReference Court. The Appellants’ examined Witness No.1 – HemantMadhavrao Naik [Appellant No.1/3] at Exh.21, Witness No.2 – Vasants/o. Govindrao Naik at Exh.23 [Survey No.7/A, Sale deed dated25.08.1997], Witness No.3 - Ravishankar Sitarampant Sabnis at Exh.25[Survey No.86/B, Sale deed dated 21.04.1999], Witness No.4 – AchyutWamanrao Talikhede at Exh.27 [Survey No.292 Sale deed dated14.03.1996], and Witness No.5 – Sidramappa Bhimannappa Solapure atExh.29 [Survey No.292, Sale deed dated 14.03.1996] and brought thesale instances on record. III)The Respondents / Acquiring Body placed on recordcertified copies of Index II and the sale-deed and submitted pursis thatthey do not want to examine any witness.IV)Considering the evidence available on record and afterhearing both the sides, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the 6 FA2158/08Reference by accepting the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq. Ft. and deducting @25% towards development charges and held the Appellants entitled toreceive the compensation @ Rs.75/- per Sq. Ft. The operative Order ofthe learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)No.505/2002, reads as under :“1.Reference is hereby partly allowed.2.Claimants namely – Hemant s/o Madhavrao Naik, Vijays/o. Madhavrao Naik, Madhavrao s/o. Yeshwantrao Naik,Yeshwantrao s/o. Madhavrao Naik, L.Rs. Of deceased originalclaimant namely – Sumitrabai w/o. Madhavrao Naik, all R/o.Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur in LAR No.505/2002 dorecover excessive enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.1,83,90,699/- from the respondents, with interest @ 9% p.a.for one year from the date of notification u/Section 4 of the L.A.Act i.e. 2/08/1999 till 1/08/2000 and @ 15% p.a. for thesubsequent years till depositing the amount by the respondents,in the court.3.Respondents do bear their own costs and pay the cost tothe claimants.4.Deficit court fee be recovered from the claimants, if any.5.Decree be drawn accordingly.”2.2.In First Appeal No. 2159 of 2008 :- I)The Appellant was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring1 Hector, 60 R from Gat No.86 located in village Dapaka, Tq. Nilanga,Dist. Latur. The said land was acquired by the Respondents / AcquiringBody for construction of the residential colony / quarters and otherfacilities for the police personnel. For the said acquisition, the LandAcquisition Officer (LAO) issued the Notifications under the relevantprovisions of the LA Act. The Appellant raised his claim in response tothe notice received under the LA Act and claimed compensation 7 FA2158/08@ Rs.400/- (Rs. Four Hundred) per Sq. Ft. The LAO, by considering allthe aspects passed the Award and granted compensation @ Rs.17/-(Rupees Seventeen) per Sq. Ft. (Rs.178/- [Rupees One Hundred SeventyEight] per Sq. Meter). II)The Appellant preferred the Reference under Section 18 of the LAAct, contending that the acquired land is situated in the developed areaand adjacent to the Municipal limits of Nilanga. The acquired land washaving Non-agricultural (NA) potentiality. The LAO did not consider thedocuments submitted in support of claim for enhanced compensation.The Appellant led evidence in support of his claim before the learnedReference Court.The Appellant examined himself as Witness No.1 –Yashwant s/o. Madhavrao Naik at Exh.18, and also examined WitnessNo.2 – Vasant s/o. Govindrao Naik at Exh.20, [Survey No.7/A, Sale deeddated 25.08.1997], Witness No.3 – Ravishankar Sitarampant Sabnis atExh.22 [Survey No.86/B, Sale deed dated 21.04.1999], Witness No.4 -Achyut Wamanrao Talikhede at Exh.24 [Survey No.292 Sale deed dated14.03.1996], and Witness No.5 – Sidramappa Bhimannappa Solapure atExh.26 [Survey No.292, Sale deed dated 14.03.1996] and brought thesale instances on record. 8 FA2158/08III)The Respondents / Acquiring Body placed on recordcertified copies of Index II and the sale-deed and submitted pursis thatthey do not want to examine any witness. IV)Considering the evidence available on record and afterhearing both the sides, the learned Reference Court partly allowed theReference by accepting the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq. Ft. and deducting @25% towards development charges and held the Appellant entitled toreceive the compensation @ Rs.75/- per Sq. Ft. The operative Order ofthe learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)No.1/2004 reads as under :“1.Reference is hereby partly allowed. 2.Claimant namely – Yeshwant s/o. Madhavrao Naik,R/o. Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, District – Latur in L.A.R. No.1/2004do recover excessive enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.1,39,19,905/- from the respondents, with interest @ 9%p.a. for one year from the date of notification u / Section 4 ofthe L.A. Act i.e. 22-6-2001 till 21-6-2002 and @ 15% p.a. forthe subsequent years till depositing the amount by therespondents, in the court.3.Respondents do bear their own costs and pay the costto the claimant.4.Deficit court-fee be recovered from the claimant, if any.5.Decree be drawn accordingly.”2.3.In First Appeal No.2161 of 2008 :-I)The Appellants were the owners and possessors of landadmeasuring 1 Hector, 51 R and 49 R from Gat No.86 located in villageDapaka, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. The said land was acquired by the 9 FA2158/08Respondents / Acquiring Body for construction of the quarters forOfficers and staff members of Civil Court at Nilanga. For the saidacquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) issued the Notificationsunder the relevant provisions of the LA Act. The Appellants raised theirclaim in response to the notice received under the LA Act and claimedcompensation @ Rs.300/- (Rs. Three Hundred) per Sq. Ft. The LAO,by considering all the aspects passed the Award and grantedcompensation @ Rs.14/- (Rupees Fourteen) per Sq. Ft. (Rs.145/-[Rupees One Hundred Fourty Five] per Sq. Meter). II)The Appellants preferred the Reference under Section 18 of the LAAct, contending that the acquired land is situated in the developed areaand adjacent to the Municipal limits of Nilanga. The acquired land washaving Non-agricultural (NA) potentiality. The LAO did not consider thedocuments submitted in support of claim for enhanced compensation.The Appellants led evidence in support of their claim before the learnedReference Court. The Appellants’ examined Witness No.1 – HemantMadhavrao Naik at Exh.19, Witness No.2 – Vasant Govindrao Naik atExh.22 [Survey No.7/A, Sale deed dated 25.08.1997], and Witness No.3- Achyut Wamanrao Talikhede at Exh.23 [Survey No.292, Sale deeddated 14.03.1996]. 10 FA2158/08III)The Respondents / Acquiring Body placed on recordcertified copies of Index II and the sale-deed and submitted pursis thatthey do not want to examine any witness.IV)Considering the evidence available on record and afterhearing both the sides, the learned Reference Court partly allowed theReference by accepting the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq. Ft. and deducting @25% towards development charges and held the Appellants entitled toreceive the compensation @ Rs.75/- per Sq. Ft. The operative Order ofthe learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/1999) reads as under :“1.Reference is hereby partly allowed.2.Claimants namely – Madhavrao s/o. Yeshwantrao Naikand Hemant s/o. Madhavrao Naik, R/o. Udgir, Tq. Udgir,Dist. Latur in L. A R. No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/99) dorecover excessive enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.1,80,84,873/- from the respondents, with interest @ 9%p.a. for one year from the date of notification u/section 4 ofthe L.A. Act i.e. 21-7-1998 till 20-7-1999 and @ 15% p.a. forthe subsequent years till depositing the amount by therespondents, in the court.3.Respondents do bear their own costs and pay the costto the claimants.4.Deficit court-fee be recovered from the claimants, if any.5.Decree be drawn accordingly.”3.It is submitted by learned Advocates for the Appellants thatthe sale instances at Exhs.26/23/12 in the respective Land Acquisition 11 FA2158/08References dated 21.04.1999, wherein transaction took place forRs.100/- (Rupees Hundred) per Sq. Ft. cannot be the sole criteria fordetermining the market value of the acquired lands. There were othersale instances brought on record with higher market value and havingclose proximity with the acquired lands. The potentiality of the acquiredlands were not considered. The learned Reference Court ought to haveconsidered the highest sale instance and per year increase in the value ofland and allowed the References. The rejection of other sale instanceson the ground that they were not within the reasonable proximity of theacquired lands, was against the legal position. The Court can awardhigher compensation than claimed in the light of the settled legalposition. In support of the submissions, they relied on the decisions ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which would be considered in thelater part of the Judgment. They submitted that the Appeals be allowedby considering and granting the rate as per the highest sale instance.4.It is submitted by the learned Addl. G.P. appearing for theRespondents / State that, one of the sale instance which was relied uponby the Claimants before the LAO and the learned Reference Court wasfrom the same survey number which was the subject matter ofacquisition and therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightlyconsidered and accepted the said sale instance. The other sale instanceswere in respect of the lands having different survey numbers and those 12 FA2158/08lands were located away from the acquired lands. All the relevantaspects have been considered by the learned Reference Court i.e. NApotentiality, proximity of the acquired land etc. The deduction towardsdevelopment charges by the learned Reference Court should have beenon the higher side by taking into consideration the purpose for whichthe lands are acquired. In support of her submissions, she cited theJudgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mala Etc. Etc. vs. State ofPunjab and Others in Civil Appeal Nos.3992-4000/2011, 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 663. She submitted that the Judgments and Orders / Awards ofthe learned Reference Court require no interference and the Appeals bedismissed.5.Heard both the sides. Scrutinized the evidence available onrecord. The learned Advocates for the Appellants placed reliance on theJudgments in the case of :-(a)U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad vs. Asha Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others, (2021) 17 SCC 289(b)Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana and Others (2010) 12 SCC 51(c)Pehlad Ram and Others vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 778(d)V. Subrahmanya Rao vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, (2004) 10 SCC 640(e)Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 432 13 FA2158/08(f)Himmat Singh and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (2013) 16 SCC 392(g)Kasturi and Others vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354(h)Ashok Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2015) 15 SCC 200(i)Major General Kapil Mehra and Others vs. Union of India and Another, (2015) 2 SCC 262(j)Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, (1988) 3 SCC 751(k)Bhag Singh and Others vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh Through The Land Acquisition Collector,Chandigarh, (1985) 3 SCC 737(l)Bhimasha vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 797(m)Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2990(n)Special Land Acquisition Officer (North Goa), Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Anr. vs.Dr. Edgar Silveira, 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1570. (o)Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda and Others, (2010) 5 SCC 708.6.The aforesaid Judgments reiterate the following legalprinciples in respect of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :-(i)The potentiality of the acquired land is one of the primary factors to be taken into consideration to determine the market value ofthe land. The market value of a property has to be determinedwhile having due regard to its existing conditions with all theexisting advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The existing amenities like water,electricity as well as the possibility of their further extension, forinstance whether nearby town is developing or has prospects ofdevelopment have to be taken into consideration. It alsodepends upon the connectivity and the overall development of thearea. 14 FA2158/08(ii)Comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighbourhoodat or about the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the LAAct are the best guide for determination of the market value of the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of compensation payable to a landowner.(iii)A cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in the market valueof the land may be accepted unless the State agencies or acquiringauthority prove otherwise.(iv)The best evidence of market value would be the sale transactionsin respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is aparty; the time at which the property came to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out, these are the relevant factors. If those are not available, then the saletransactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity ofthe acquired land have to be taken into consideration.(v)When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. (vi)In respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which haspotential value for housing commercial purposes, normally 1/3 amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount ofcompensation payable on the acquired land subject to certainvariations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditureinvolved for development and the area required for roads andother civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plotsfor the residential or commercial purposes. There may be variousfactual factors which may have to be taken into considerationwhile applying the cut in payment of compensation towardsdevelopmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3and in some cases less than 1/3.(vii)The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceedingbefore it and determine the market value afresh on the basis ofthe material produced before it. (viii)The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances haveto be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximityfrom time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle. 15 FA2158/087.Coming to the cases in hand, there is no dispute on thefollowing aspects :-(A)The Appellants were the respective owners and possessors of the acquired lands situated at village Dapaka, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.(B)The aforesaid lands of the Appellants were acquired for the purposes of construction of facilities for the police personnel and Officers and staff of Civil Court. (C)The Notifications under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act were published in the Government Gazette on :-(a)02.08.1999 in First Appeal No.2158 of 2008,(b)14.06.2001 in First Appeal No.2159 of 2008, and (c)21.07.1998 in First Appeal No.2161 of 2008.(D)The LAO granted the compensation :-(a)@ Rs.14 to 15/- (Rupees Fourteen to Fifteen) per Sq. Ft. (Rs.145 [Rupees One Hundred Fourty Five] per Sq. Meter) in Land Acquisition Reference No. 505/2002, (b)@ Rs.17/- (Rupees Seventeen) per Sq. Ft. (Rs.178/- [Rupees One Hundred Seventy Eight] per Sq. Meter) in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1/2004, and (c)@ Rs.14 /- (Rupees Fourteen) per Sq. Ft. (Rs.145/- [RupeesOne Hundred Fourty Five] per Sq. Meter) in Land Acquisition Reference No.1/2008. 16 FA2158/08(E)The Appellants in First Appeal No.2158 of 2008 claimed the enhanced compensation @ Rs.350/- (Rupees Three Hundred Fifty) per Sq. Ft., the Appellant in First Appeal No.2159 of 2008 claimed the enhanced compensation @ Rs.400/-(Rupees Four Hundred) per Sq. Ft. and the Appellants in First Appeal No.2161 of 2008 claimed the enhanced compensation @ Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred) per Sq. Ft., with statutory benefits. (F) The Respondents resisted the claims of the Appellants before the learned Reference Court by filing Written-statements in the respective References.8. The learned Reference Court framed the following issues inLand Acquisition Reference No.505/2002 at Exh.11 and recorded thefindings on the issues as under :-“ISSUESFINDINGS1)Whether claimant proves that thecompensation awarded by theSpecial L.A.O. is inadequate ?In the Affirmative.2)Whether claimant proves that themarket price of the acquired landwas @ Rs. 350/- per sq. ft. at therelevant time ?In the Affirmative, tothe extent of Rs.75/-per sq. after deducting25% form awardedcompensation.3)Whether claimant is entitled forenhanced amount of compensation? If yes, at what rate ?In the affirmative,above.4)What order and decree?As per final order.” 17 FA2158/089. The learned Reference Court framed the following issues inLand Acquisition Reference No.1/2004 at Exh.8 and recorded thefindings on the issues as under :-“ISSUES FINDINGS1)Whether claimant proves that thecompensation awarded by theSpecial L.A.O. is inadequate?In the Affirmative. 2)Whether claimant proves that themarket price of the acquired landwas @ Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. at therelevant time? In the affirmative, tothe the extent ofRs. 75/- per sq. ft.after deducting 25%awarded compensation3)Whether claimant is entitled forenhanced amount ofcompensation? If yes, at whatrate ?In the affirmative, asabove.4)What order and decree?As per final order.” 10.The learned Reference Court framed the following issues inLand Acquisition Reference No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/1999) atExh.8 and recorded the findings on the issues as under :-“ISSUESFINDINGS1)Does the claimant prove that theland acquisition officer has awardedinadequate compensation to theacquired land?In the Affirmative.2)If yes, what will be the reasonablecompensation to the claimant inrespect of the land ?@ Rs.75/- per sq. ft. afterdeducting 25% awardedcompensation.3)Does the claimant is entitled to get30% solatium, 12% increase andinterest in the compensationamount ?In the affirmative, as percalculation Sheet.4)What order ?As per final order.” 18 FA2158/0811.Before the Reference Court, the Appellants examined thewitnesses and brought on record the sale instances in support of theirclaims for enhanced compensation.12.The following Chart in respect of the sale instances in LandAcquisition Reference No.1/2004 would give clear picture in respect ofthe necessary details.Sr.NoSurveyNo. Area Place Sale Deeddate Amount of considerationand Rate Exh. 1.7/A60x50 ft Dapaka25.08.1997 Rs.2,10,000/-,(Rs.70/- per Sq. Ft.) 212.86/B40x40 ftDapaka21.04.1999Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs. 100/- per Sq. Ft.) 233.29260x40 ft.Nilanga14.03.1996Rs.2,70,000/-(Rs.112.50 Ps. Per Sq. Ft.) 25 &274.29722x20 ft.Nilanga17.03.1998Rs.66,000/-(Rs. 175/- per Sq. Ft.) 4013.The following Chart in respect of sale instances in LandAcquisition Reference No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/1999) would giveclear picture in respect of the necessary details.Sr.NoSurveyNo.AreaPlaceSale DeeddateAmount of considerationand RateExh.1.86/B40x40 ftDapaka21.04.1999Rs.1,60,000/-(Rs. 100/- per Sq. Ft.)122.7/A60x50 ftDapaka25.08.1997Rs.2,10,000/-,(Rs.70/- per Sq. Ft.)133.29722x20 ft.Nilanga17.03.1998Rs.66,000/-(Rs. 175/- per Sq. Ft.)144.29260x40 ft.Nilanga14.03.1996(Exh.15)04.04.1996(Exh.16)Rs.2,70,000/-(Rs.112.50 Ps. Per Sq.Ft.)15 & 16