High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
-1- FA No. 1466.2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1466 OF 2022Sudhakar S/o. Haribhau Muley,Age : 80 Years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o. “Purandar”, Rajnagar,Near Railway Station, Aurangabad. ….. Appellant VERSUS1.The Special Land Acquisition Officer,Jayakwadi Project No.1, Aurangabad.2.The Administrator,City and Industrial DevelopmentCorporation Ltd., Waluj MahanagarScheme, Aurangabad,Dist. Aurangabad. ….. Respondents…..Advocate for Appellant : Mr. G.K. Thigle (Naik) h/f Mr. Tejas C. SonawaneAGP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. R.B. DhawareAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S.V. Deshmukh….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. RESERVED ON : 23rd January 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 28th March 2025 JUDGMENT :1.This appeal is preferred against the judgment and Awardpassed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), -2- FA No. 1466.2022Aurangabad in Land Acquisition Reference No.338 of 2006, Dated19.05.2022, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894{hereinafter referred to as “The Act”}, dismissing the claim of theappellant for enhancement of compensation awarded by respondentNo.1. 2.Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :-The appellant is the owner of land bearing Block No.136,admeasuring 1 H. 23 R., situated at Mouje Waladgaon, Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad. The said land was acquired for the purpose ofDevelopment and Construction of Housing/Commercial Schemesunder Waluj Mahangar Project, Waluj at Aurangabad. A notificationunder Section 6 of the Act read with the provisions of Section 126(4)of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966 waspublished on 29.01.2000 and notification under Section 4 of the Actwas published on 13.05.2001. After completion of inquiry,on 26.06.2003, the respondents declared Award for compensation forthe acquired land. 3.A notice was issued under Section 12(2) of the Act to theappellant. The appellant received the amount of compensationoffered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short “the SLAO”)
Legal Reasoning
-3- FA No. 1466.2022under protest and filed land acquisition reference bearing No.338 of2006, before 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad. 4.The respondents denied the material contentions raisedin the Reference by the claimants. It is contended that the acquiredland is not non-agricultural land. No such application was given forpermission to the Revenue Authority. The compensation amount wasproperly carved out by considering all the factual aspects. It is lastlyprayed to dismiss the claim for enhancement of compensation.5.The learned Reference Court, by framing three issues,dismissed the claim application of the appellant. The appellantpreferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation on the groundthat the SLAO has not properly carved out the compensation amount.The learned Reference Court has not properly considered the marketrate of the acquired land and other properties adjacent to theacquired land. The acquired land is adjacent to the Aurangabad-PuneState Highway and Bajaj Auto Limited Company. Moreover, there arenumber of housing projects, educational institutions, petrol pumps,etc., in the vicinity of the acquired land. The acquired land is havingcommercial and non agricultural potentiality. -4- FA No. 1466.20226.During the course of arguments, learned Advocate for theappellant pointed out the grounds of objections of the appeal that theimpugned judgment and Award is not legal and correct. It is againstthe principle of natural justice as the due process of law was notfollowed. The learned Reference Court failed to consider the non-agricultural potentiality of the suit land, which is adjacent toAurangabad-Pune State Highway and Bajaj Auto Limited Co. as wellas Garware Polyesters Co., etc.7.Learned Advocate for the appellant further pointed outthat the learned Reference Court also failed to consider thesurrounding area of the acquired land which is industrial area andhaving commercial activities like production and manufacturing, etc.It failed to consider that there is a Municipal Corporation. TownPlanning Authority has submitted valuation of the acquired land@ Rs.240/- per Sq. Mtr. The learned Reference Court failed toconsider that the acquired land was only half kilometer away from theland acquired by the SLAO in L.A.R. No.290 of 2007, which wasperennially irrigated land. It failed to apply the principle of parity. It issubmitted to allow the appeal by setting aside impugned judgmentand Award. -5- FA No. 1466.20228.Learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submittedthat while determining the amount of compensation, the SLAO hasconsidered all the aspects relating to the assessment of the land, etc.and there is no illegality in fixing the amount of compensation. TheSLAO has properly considered the market value of adjacent land andits sale instances and correctly fixed the market value and therefore,no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. There is nosuch permission for using the acquired land for non-agriculturalpurpose. The possession of the said land was not taken by the CIDCObefore the acquisition process. Therefore, the CIDCO is not liable topay the compensation. There was huge development in the area toprovide basic amenities like road, drainage line, electricity, etc. TheCIDCO has acquired 25% land compulsory under the compulsoryacquisition scheme. 75% of land is retained by the land owner.Aurangabad-Pune State Highway is five to six kilometer away fromthe acquired land. The evidence regarding sanction of layout of theadjacent land is produced by the claimant. The rates given by theAssistant Director of the Town Planning Authority are legal andcorrect, which are applicable to the said acquisition proceedings. It islastly prayed to dismiss the appeal as there is no merit and no legalground for interference. -6- FA No. 1466.20229.Following points emerged for consideration.“1)Was the compensation properly and correctlyawarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the learned Reference Court ?2)Is the appellant entitled for enhanced amount of compensation ?3)Is the impugned judgment illegal, incorrect and require interference ?”10.The appellant has adduced the evidence by filing hisaffidavit of examination-in-chief at Exh.37 and reiterated the materialcontentions raised in the application. He is relying upon the followingdocumentary evidence :i)Copy of power of attorney executed in favour of the applicant by one Sudhakarrao Mule (Exh.51).ii)Copy of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act (Exh.52).iii)Copy of the sale deed bearing No.2856 of 2000 of the plot situated at Waladgaon, dated 06.11.2000 of Rs.1,50,000/-, admeasuring 14888.5 Sq. Mtr. out of Block No.152 (Exh.54).iv)Copy of sale-deed bearing No.2434 of 2000, dated 13.10.2000 of plot No.3, admeasuring 279.35 Sq. Mtr., out of Block No.152 of Village Waladgaon for Rs.75,000/- (Exh.55). -7- FA No. 1466.2022v)Copy of judgment in LAR No.290 of 2007 delivered by 3rd Jt. CJSD, Aurangabad (Exh.56).vi)Map of Block No.136 of Mouje Waladgaon, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad showing the Nagar-Paithan Road, Pune-Aurangabad Highway adjacent to Block No.136, layout plan of Nagar-II Waluj project (Exh.57).11.To disprove the evidence of the appellant, on behalf ofrespondent No.2, Mrs. Pragati Chondekar, the Officer of CIDCO,Aurangabad adduced her evidence by filing her affidavit ofexamination-in-chief at Exh.46.12.The admitted facts emerging from the record are that thedisputed land has been acquired by the notification dated 04.12.1997.The compensation amount awarded by the respondents is withdrawnby the claimant/appellant.13.The findings of issue Nos.2 and 3 regarding filing of theland reference within the limitation is not challenged by therespondents. 14.As far as amount of compensation is concerned, it is wellsettled that it has to be determined by considering the facts and -8- FA No. 1466.2022circumstances of the case, particularly sale instances, N.A. potentialityand facilities available to such property, etc.15.The sale-deed at Exh.54 relied upon by the appellantshows that Block No.152, admeasuring 14888.5 Sq. Mtr., is N.A. plotand it was sold for Rs.1,50,000/- on 06.11.2000. The said sale-deedat Exh.55 is executed on 13.10.2000, out of Block No.152,admeasuring 279.35 Sq. Mtr. for consideration of Rs.75,000/-.16.The appellant in his examination-in-chief has deposedthat the acquired land is near to the Bus Stand, Pandharpur Road.There are government and private hospitals. There are commercialcomplexes. There are various schemes launched by the CIDCOauthority and other builders. There are so many educationalinstitutions surrounded to the acquired land. The acquired land isopposite to the Waluj MIDC Area. Adjacent lands are occupied forvarious housing societies. Industries, companies like Bajaj, GarwarePolyesters are in existence since 30 to 40 years. Therefore, the saidland is having commercial and residential value. He has deposedabout two sale-deeds of Block No.152, in which, the land was sold @Rs.560/- per Sq. Mtr. and Rs.268/- per Sq. Mtr., respectively whichwere considered by the learned Reference Court in LAC No.290 of2007. -9- FA No. 1466.202217.The evidence of Mrs. Pragati Chondekar (RW1) is in theform of denial of the appellant’s case.18.On perusal of the entire evidence and by applying theprinciple of parity, the reasons given by the learned Reference Courtin land reference case No.290 of 2007 are legal and correct, which isin respect of the land adjacent to the land of the appellant. However,the learned Reference Court in para No.19 by giving improper reasonsheld that though the land in that reference case was acquired for oneand same purpose, the notification and final Award was different andtherefore, the rule of parity is not applicable. These reasons andfindings are not legal and correct and not sustainable in the eyes oflaw.19.Only formality of obtaining of N.A. order is not done bythe claimant regarding the acquired land. Otherwise the evidence ofthe appellant is not disproved. This aspect was not considered by thelearned Reference Court. Even the evidence of the appellant andrespondents was not discussed by the learned Reference Court. Theevidence is not properly appreciated. The reasons and findings are notproper and legal. The sale-deeds of Block No.152 were not reliedupon which are adjacent to the land of the appellant. There was no -10- FA No. 1466.2022justification for not granting the compensation on the basis of parityas per the the judgment of the learned Reference Court delivered inland reference case No.290 of 2007.20.Considering these two sale-deeds relied upon by theappellant, the judgment in land reference case No.290 of 2007 andfact that the acquired land Block No.136 is adjacent to the NationalHighway, there is Waluj M.I.D.C. and there are many factories.Moreover, there are commercial complexes which establishes that theland Block No.136 in question is having N.A. potential andcommercial value. Therefore, considering the law laid down in thecase of State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Wasudeo Deodhar, 2008 (4)Mh.L.J. 897, the aspect that whether the land is adjacent to thehighway is to be considered. It was neither considered by the SLAOnor by the learned Reference Court. The market price of the acquiredland was not properly carved out. But, for that technical reasons,injustice cannot be caused to the appellant by considering his case ondifferent footing as held by the learned Reference Court. Therefore,the interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. Thus, thisCourt answers point Nos.1 to 3 that the compensation was notawarded properly by the SLAO. The SLAO and learned ReferenceCourt erred in not awarding proper amount of compensation. The -11- FA No. 1466.2022appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of compensation. TheAward of Special Land Acquisition Officer and impugned judgmentand Award deserves to be set aside. The appeal deserves to beallowed. Hence, the following order.ORDER I)The appeal stands allowed.II)The impugned judgment and Award in LandReference Case No.338 of 2006, dated 19.05.2022stands set-aside.III) LandReference Case No.338 of 2006 is allowed as under :-a)The respondents do jointly and severally pay theenhanced amount of compensation to the appellant@ Rs.555/-per Sq. Mtr., for the area of 1 H. 23 R.,by deducting previously granted compensationamount by the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e.Rs.68,26,500/- - Rs.4,05,900/- = Rs.64,20,600/-(Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand SixHundred Only).b)The respondents do jointly and severally pay thesolatium @ 30% vide Section 23(2) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 and amount of additionalcomponent @ 12% per annum vide Section23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to theappellant, from the date of Notification underSection 4 of the Act i.e. from 04.12.1997, till thedate of Award or date of possession whichever isearlier. -12- FA No. 1466.2022c)The Respondents do pay interest @ 9% p.a. for thefirst year on the enhanced compensation amountincluding solatium and additional component fromthe date of Award or from the date of possessionwhichever is earlier and thereafter @ 15% p.a. tillrealization of the amount under Section 28 of theActto the appellant. d)Deficit Court fees, if any, be paid by the appellant.[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGEasd