High Court
Facts
(1) 906-fa-1472-2024 & ors..odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1472 OF 2024BHAGAJI DAGADU BHANGAREVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1805 OF 2024KISAN BHORU BHANGAREVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1471 OF 2024BHIMAJI BHAGAJI BHANGAREVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1470 OF 2024PANDURANG GOVIND SAMEREVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR…Mr. Dnyaneshwar A. Bide, Advocate for Appellants.Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 29th JANUARY, 2025.P.C.:- 1.The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and awarddated 22.03.2016 dismissing Reference Petitions of the appellantsfiled under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.(Hereinafter, parties are referred to by their original status for thesake of convenience and brevity).
Legal Reasoning
(4) 906-fa-1472-2024 & ors..odtfoundational facts to show that it is comparable sale instance forlands of the appellants.5.Having considered submissions advanced and perusal ofreasoning adopted by Reference Court, certain admitted facts canbe summarized as under:The appellants' lands have been acquired for construction ofMinor Irrigation Tank, Titavi, Taluka Akola, District Ahmednagar.The lands from four different villages have been acquired for thatproject. The lands of appellants have been acquired underNotification dated 13.06.2002 from village Deogaon. Similarly,lands from village Shelvihire, Titavi and Pimparkane wereacquired for the same project.The Reference Petitions for enhancement of compensationwere filed independently by villagers from different villages. TheLand Acquisition Reference No.40/2012 and other connectedmatters are pertaining to acquisition of lands from villageShelvihire. The appellants had also filed Reference under Section18 of the Land Acquisition Act and they rely upon sale deed dated17.10.2000 from village Pimparkane as comparative sale instance,wherein sale instance depicts transaction at rate of Rs.2,43,902/-per hector. In Land Acquisition Reference No.40/2012 filed by landowners from village Shelvihire they relied upon sale instance dated17.10.2000. The Reference Court granted compensation at the rateof Rs.2,93,000/- per hector. However, References filed byappellants are rejected holding that sale instance dated 17.10.2000is not comparable sale instance.6.The Reference Court while deciding Land AcquisitionReferences from village Shelvihire specifically observed that landfalls in the tribal area and comparable sale instances are not (5) 906-fa-1472-2024 & ors..odtavailable. Therefore, finds it fit to rely upon the sale instance fromadjacent village. Pertinently, Acquiring Body has accepted thoseAwards and released compensation amount by recordingcompromise in group of First Appeals along with Civil ApplicationNo.8885/2018 in First Appeal (Stamp) No.15401/2018 and others.Such compromise is recorded in Lok Adalat dated 14.12.2019.7.In that view of the matter, appellants deserve similartreatment and similar compensation for acquired lands. Therecannot be dispute over the preposition of law as espoused by theSupreme Court of India in case of Basant Kumar And Ors.(supra) and normally this Court would not have accepted case ofclaimants on the basis of rate awarded to land holders fromadjacent village. However, for aforesaid admitted facts, whenappellants are from tribal area where sale instances are sparinglyavailable in each and every village, the reliance can be certainlyplaced on sale instances from the adjacent villages and justcompensation can be awarded. In present case, when AcquiringBody has accepted rate as per Award passed in Land AcquisitionReference No.40/2012 and other connected matters for acquisitionof the same project, there is no reason to deny similar treatment tothe appellants. In that view of the matter, Appeals succeed.Hence, following order:ORDERa.First Appeals are partly allowed.b.The judgment and award dated 22.03.2016 passed inrespective Land Acquisition References, is hereby quashed and setaside.c.The respondents are directed to pay to the appellants theenhanced compensation for respective acquired lands at the rate of (6) 906-fa-1472-2024 & ors..odt2,93,000/- per hector after deducting the compensation alreadypaid.d.The respondents are further directed to pay the appellants30% solatium on the enhanced compensation as per provisions ofSection 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after deducting thesolatium already paid.e.The respondents are directed to pay the appellants additionalcomponent @ 12% per annum on the enhanced compensation fromthe date of Notification under Section 4 sub-section (1), after thedate of award of Special Land Acquisition Officer as per theprovisions of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.f.The respondent are further directed to pay the appellantsinterest on the amount of enhanced compensation, solatium andadditional component @ 9% per annum for first year from the dateof land acquisition award i.e. 12.08.2004 and thereafter @ 15% perannum for subsequent years till payment of enhancedcompensation amount.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/January-2025
Arguments
(2) 906-fa-1472-2024 & ors..odt2.The appellants are agriculturists. They are holding land atvillage Deogaon, Taluka Akola, District Ahmednagar. TheNotification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issuedfor acquisition of lands for construction of Minor Irrigation Tank,Titavi. The Land Acquisition Officer passed final award dated12.08.2004 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. Theappellants were awarded inadequate compensation. Hence, theymade References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.The appellants rely upon sale deed dated 17.10.2000 at Exhibit-23pertaining to the land Survey No.100/2 admeasuring 0-20.5 R forconsideration at the rate of Rs.50,000/- as comparable saleinstances. The Reference Court declined to rely upon said evidencefor want of proximity of the land and that it is not discernible fromthe contents of the sale deed if land is irrigated or dry. The Courtobserved that village Deogaon is 35 kilometer away from talukaplace i.e. Akola and the sale deed, which is in respect of land fromvillage Pimparkane cannot be considered as comparative saleinstance. Eventually, dismissed the Reference vide impugnedjudgment and order dated 22.03.2016.3.Mr. Bide, learned Advocate appearing for the appellantssubmits that lands from four villages were acquired for Titaviproject under different Notifications. So far as lands from villagePimparkane is concerned, Award under Section 11 was passed on12.08.2004, whereas Notification under Section 4 was issued on13.06.2002 i.e. the same date of Notification for acquisition of landfrom village Deogaon. He submits that in LAR No.40/2012 filed byland holders from village Shelvihire very same sale instance dated17.10.2000 was placed at Exhibit-21. In that, Reference Courtobserved that although sale instance is from Pimparkane that canbe considered as comparative sale instance, as sale instances arenot available from tribal villages. Consequently, relying upon sale (3) 906-fa-1472-2024 & ors..odtinstance dated 17.10.2000, Reference Court awarded compensationat the rate of Rs.2,93,000/- per hector. Mr. Bide would submit thatAcquiring Body has accepted those Awards by recordingcompromise in Lok Adalat before this Court. Consequently, therate granted under Award in Land Acquisition ReferenceNo.40/2012 and other connected matters has attained finality.According to him, appellants needs parity in rate of compensation.4.Per contra, Mr. Sangle, learned Advocate appearing forAcquiring Body vehemently opposes contentions of Mr. Bide. Heinvites attention of this Court to the observations made by theReference Court, whereby it is observed that sale deed in questionrelied upon by the appellants cannot be considered as comparativesale instance for want proximity as to distance between acquiredland and land under sale deed. In support of his contentions herelies upon decision of the Supreme Court of India in case ofBasant Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.1 tocontend that while appreciating comparative sale instance, Judgesshould not have adopted the principle that the entire lands in thevillage shall be treated as one unit and the compensation shalluniformly be determined on that basis. He would also rely uponobservation that states as under:"The doctrine of equality in determination and payment ofsame compensation for all claimants involved in the samenotification is not good principle acceptable for theaforestated reasons when both the lands are proved to bepossessed of same advantages, features etc., then only equalcompensation is permissible."He would, therefore, urge that merely because in someReferences sale instance dated 17.10.2000 has been relied, theappellants cannot claim similar treatment in absence of necessary11996 (11) SCC 542.