High Court
Legal Reasoning
FA-1459-20.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1459 OF 2020Nirmalabai Bhausaheb DeshmukhAge: Major, Occu.: Agri.,R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANTVERSUS1. State of Maharashtra Through the District Collector, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Work, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..RESPONDENTSAND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1460 OF 2020Subhash Sadappa BhandareAge: Major, Occu.: Agri.,R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANTVERSUS1. State of Maharashtra Through the District Collector, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Work, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..RESPONDENTSAND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1461 OF 2020Narsingh Rangnath DeshmukhAge: Major, Occu.: Agri.,R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANT1 / 10 FA-1459-20.odtVERSUS1. State of Maharashtra Through the District Collector, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Work, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..RESPONDENTSAND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1462 OF 2020Lalasaheb Narayan MuleAge: Major, Occu.: Agri.,R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANTVERSUS1. State of Maharashtra Through the District Collector, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Work, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..RESPONDENTSAND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3050 OF 20191. State of Maharashtra Through the District Collector, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Work, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANTS2 / 10 FA-1459-20.odtVERSUSLalasaheb Narayan MuleAge: Major, Occu.: Agri.,R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur..RESPONDENTSAND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3051 OF 20191. State of Maharashtra Through the District Collector, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Work, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANTSVERSUSNarsing Rangnath DeshmukhAge: Major, Occu.: Agri.,R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur..RESPONDENTSAND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3052 OF 20191. State of Maharashtra Through the District Collector, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Work, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANTSVERSUSNirmalabai Bhausaheb DeshmukhAge: Major, Occu.: Agri.,R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur..RESPONDENTS3 / 10 FA-1459-20.odtAND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3053 OF 20191. State of Maharashtra Through the District Collector, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Work, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Section Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANTSVERSUSSubhash Sadappa BhandareAge: Major, Occu.: Agri.,R/o Babhalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur..RESPONDENTS....Mr. S.V. Gundre, Advocate for appellants in FA/1459/2020 to FA/1462/2020Mrs. K.B. Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl.G.P. for appellant – State inFA/3050/2019 TO FA/3053/2019....CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.RESERVED ON : 13th MARCH, 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 02nd MAY, 2025JUDGMENT ( PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) :1.All these first appeals are taken up together for decision since thechallenge therein is to a common judgment and award dated 27th September,2018 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur (‘referenceCourt’) in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 899 of 2009, 902 of 2009, 900 of2009 and 894 of 2009. The first group of four appeals has been preferred bythe original land owners, whose lands have been acquired for constructionof, “Sulabh Jal Sanvardhan Yojana Pazar Kalva, Babhalgaon” (‘percolation4 / 10
Legal Reasoning
FA-1459-20.odttank’). The Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘S.L.A.O.’) offeredcompensation @ Rs.1150/- per R (gunthas). The appellants in the firstgroup of four appeals (land owners) claimed compensation @ Rs.300/- persq.ft. They, therefore, preferred aforesaid LARs. The reference Court partlyallowed them by granting compensation @ Rs.166/- per sq.ft. Theappellants/original land owners are, therefore, before this Court in theappeals forming first group. The State too preferred the other four appeals(second group) for reduction of the rate of compensation awarded by thereference Court.2.We have heard learned counsel for the land owners and learnedAddl.G.P. for the State.3.Learned counsel for the appellants / land owners would submitthat the lands were located close to Latur town. Some of the lands from GutNo.28 and surrounding lands were acquired by the State for construction ofpolice parade ground. The Division Bench of this Court in State ofMaharashtra and Anr. Vs. Digambar Manik Kalyankar, First Appeal No.1668 of 2014 and connected matters, granted compensation @ Rs.371/- persq.ft. He, therefore, strongly relied on the said judgment and urged for grantof compensation @ Rs.300/- per sq.ft.4.Learned Addl.G.P. would, on the other hand, submit that the rategranted by the reference Court was exorbitant. The reference Court, also5 / 10 FA-1459-20.odterred in awarding interest from the date of possession of the land was taken.She, therefore, relied on the Full Bench judgment in case of State ofMaharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari; 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457, to urge fordismissing the appeal of the land owners and allowing the State’s appeals.5.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the judgmentand awards impugned herein.6.Details of the lands acquired are as under :-Sr.No.L.A.R. No.Name of ClaimantAcquired LandGat No.AcquiredArea1894/2009Lalasaheb2812 R.2899/2009Nirmalabai1065 R.3900/2009Narsing2814 R.4902/2009Subhash49121 R.Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19thFebruary, 2005. The S.L.A.O. passed the award on 09th August, 2007. TheS.L.A.O. considered number of sale-deeds and drew average ofconsideration for which those sale-deeds were executed and offeredcompensation @ Rs.1150/- per R. The relevant observations made by thereference Court are as under :-20. In the case of "Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally -v/s-Nookala Raja Mallu & Ors." (2004(1) BCJ 467), the Hon'bleApex Court has held that;"The element of speculation is reduced to minimum if theunderlaying principles of fixation of market value withreference to comparable sales are made.(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of6 / 10 FA-1459-20.odtnotification under Sec.4(1);(ii)it should be a bonafide transaction;(iii)it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent tothe land acquired; and(iv)it should possess similar advantages. It is only when thosefactors are present, it can merit a consideration as acomparable case."21. In view of the observations and settled position of law, whiledetermining the market value of the land, comparable saleinstance is the best method in determination of market valueafresh. The sale instances relied by the claimants through saledeeds is as under:-Exh.No.GatNo.VillageAmountArea inSq.ft.Date ofsale-deedRate persq.ft.2128Babhalgaon330000/-140009.12.2002235.712228Babhalgaon380000/-1907.531.10.2002199.212328Babhalgaon330000/-140001.11.2002235.712428Babhalgaon330000/-140008.11.2002235.712528Babhalgaon400000/-140029.10.2002285.7122. Thus, it is seen that the rate of sale instances is not the same.They vary from Rs.199/- to Rs.285/- per sq.ft. It appears that thevalue varies due to internal location of the plots in the lay-out.Therefore, this minus factor has also to be taken intoconsideration. Because it shows that every piece of land or plotdoes not fetch same price. Perusal of all these sale-deeds revealsthat said sale-deeds are of different plot numbers situated in GatNo.28. All these sale-deeds are of plots of which N.A. order wassanctioned. Due to sanction of N. A., said plots were sold at therate which is mentioned in those sale-deeds. Admittedly, GatNo.28 is one of the Gat number in the present claim. So also, thevillage map filed at Exh.33 reveals that said plots are somewhatnear to each other. But, at this time, it is necessary to considerthat in the present claims although N. A. potentiality of said landsare seen, but N.A. order of those lands is not sanctioned andsame is not produced by the claimants in this claim. Therefore,sale-deeds which are produced by claimants are not acceptablewhile determining the market price of acquired lands.7 / 10 FA-1459-20.odt23. But, the claimants have filed on record three judgmentsdelivered by different courts while granting the L.A.R. groups ofsaid village. The judgment at Exh.28 and 29 are passed in L.A.R.(G.) No.279/2008 and 664/2009. These judgments are relating toacquisition of lands at village Babhalgaon for police trainingcentre and are of different award. Said judgments are of differentacquisition proceedings. So, those judgments cannot be basis forthe decision of market price of acquired land in the presentclaims.”The reference Court, however relied on the judgment and orderpassed in another L.A.R. No. 289 of 2008 and granted the same rate.7.The question is whether the appellants / land owners are entitledfor enhancement of compensation in terms of the rate granted by this Courtin case of acquisition of lands for police parade ground.8.The lands which were the subject matter of case of DigambarManik Kalyankar (supra) were from Block/Gut Nos.28, 29 and 34 from villageBabhalgaon itself. In the present appeal as well, the land Gut No. 28 iscommon in two of the four appeals from first group. As per the village map,land Gut No.491 and 10 are some-what away from Gut No.28. However, onone side of Land Gut No.491 there is a road. While the land adjoining GutNo. 10 appears to have been small plots of land.9.It is not in dispute that the lands acquired are close to Latur town.The lands have been acquired for percolation tank. The land, Gut No. 288 / 10 FA-1459-20.odthad N.A. potential. Some of the land in Gut No.28 has been converted intonon-agricultural assessment. Residential plots have been formed of the landin Gut No.28. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things to grantcompensation per square foot rate. The reference Court did the same.10.We have perused the judgment in case of Digambar ManikKalyankar (supra). Notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of landcovered in the said appeal was issued on 17th May, 2006, while in the case inhand, notification is dated 19th February, 2005. The sale instances thereinwere all of the period from October to December 2002. Those pertain tosmall pieces of land such as 400 sq.ft. and 1619 sq.ft. Since it was a case ofsmall portion of land, the Court directed to deduct 1/3rd of the amount ofcompensation towards development charges. There is a gap of little overtwo years between the sale instances and the date of notification.Considering the fact that most of the lands acquired were agricultural on thedate of publication of notification, we propose to grant compensation close tothe rate granted by the Division Bench in the above referred judgment i.e. therate per sq.ft. granted by the reference Court as enhanced to Rs.371/- persq.ft. with rider to deduct 33% thereof since the sale instances relied onpertain to very small pieces of land. 33% of Rs.371/- approximately comesto Rs.125/-. Compensation per sq.ft., therefore, be Rs.240/- (round off).11.The record indicates that possession of the lands acquired wastaken over before publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The9 / 10 FA-1459-20.odtreference Court, therefore, ought to have awarded interest from the date ofaward. To that extent, Clause (4) of the awards impugned herein would beset aside.12.For all the aforesaid reasons, appeals of the original land ownersare partly allowed in terms of following order :-ORDER(I)First appeal Nos. 1459 of 2020, 1460 of 2020, 1461 of 2020and 1462 of 2020 filed by the land owners are partly allowed.(II)The appellants / land owners be paid compensation @Rs.240/- per sq.ft. (inclusive of the compensation granted bythe reference Court).(III)Clause (3) of the awards impugned herein stand maintained.(IV)First appeal Nos. 3050 of 2019, 3051 of 2019, 3052 of 2019and 3053 of 2019 filed by State are partly allowed.(V)Interest on the amount of enhanced compensation be paid @9% p.a. for the period of first year from the date of award i.e.09th August, 2007 and @ 15% p.a. for the subsequent yearsonwards until the entire amount of compensation is paid.( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. )( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) SSD10 / 10