High Court
Legal Reasoning
First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.5148 OF 20171)Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation,through its Executive Engineer,Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur2)Executive Engineer, Minor IrrigationDivision, Latur… APPELLANTSVERSUS1)Nanasaheb s/o Apparao More,Died through L.Rs.1/1.Chandrakalabai w/o Nanasaheb More, Age 45 years, Occ. Household1/2.Lalasaheb s/o Nanasaheb More, Age 24 years, Occ. Agri.1/3.Baburao s/o Nanasaheb More, Age 24 years, Occ. Agri.2)Bhausaheb s/o Apparao More,Age 43 years, Occ. Agri.3)Balasaheb s/o Apparao More,Age 46 years, Occ. Agri.4)Vilas s/o Apparao More,Age 40 years, Occ. Agri. First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 2 ::All R/o Khopegaon/ Kava,Tq. & Dist. Latur5)The State of Maharashtrathrough Collector, Latur(Copy to be served on G.P.,High Court, Bench at Aurangabad)… RESPONDENTS.......Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellantsMr. P.P. More, Advocate holding for Mr. S.C. Swami, Advocate for R.No.1/1 to 1/3, 2 to 4Mrs. K.B. Patil Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for respondent No.5....…WITHCROSS-OBJECTION NO.48 OF 2022 INFIRST APPEAL NO.5148 OF 20171)Nanasaheb s/o Apparao More,Died, through L.Rs.1/1.Chandrakalabai w/o Nanasaheb More,Age major, Occ. Agri.1/2.Lalasaheb s/o Nanasaheb More,Age major, Occu. Agri.1/3.Baburao s/o Nanasaheb More,Age major, Occ. Agri.2)Bhausaheb s/o Apparao More,Age major, Occ. Agri.3)Balasaheb s/o Apparao MoreAge major, Occ. Agri.4)Vilas s/o Apparao More,Age major, Occ. Agri. First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 3 ::All R/o Khopegaon & Kava,Taluka and District Latur…CROSS-OBJECTORSVERSUS1)The State of Maharashtrathrough Collector, Latur2)The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Latur3)The Special Land Acquisition Officer,(M.I.W.) Latur,Taluka and District Latur … RESPONDENTS.......Mr. P.P. More, Advocate holding forMr. S.C. Swami, Advocate for Cross-Objectors Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for StateMr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent No.2....… CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDNEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.Date of reserving judgment : 20th December, 2024.Date of pronouncing judgment : 18th February, 2025.J U D G M E N T (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) : This is an appeal under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). The appellants arethe acquiring body. The agricultural land, bearing Gut No.68,admeasuring 2 Hectors 2 R (Gunthas), belonged to the First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 4 ::respondents (Cross-Objectionists). The land was situated atvillage Kava, Taluka and District Latur. The said land wasacquired for construction of “Katapur Minor Irrigation Tank”.The acquisition proceedings were initiated in April 1993 andconcluded in August 1997. The possession of the land wastaken over before publication of notification under Section 4 ofthe Act.2.The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) offeredcompensation at the rate of Rs.430/- per R (Guntha). Therespondents, therefore, preferred Land Acquisition Reference(LAR), No.28/2001. Learned Adhoc District Judge-III, Latur(Reference Court) decided the LAR, enhancing thecompensation to Rs.1000/- per R (Guntha), besides statutorybenefits. It directed to pay interest under Section 34 of the Actfrom the date of the Section 4 notification for the first year atthe rate of 9% p.a. and for further years at the rate of 15% p.a.3.The acquiring body, being aggrieved by thejudgment and award enhancing the compensation, haspreferred this Appeal. First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 5 ::4.Heard. Learned Advocate for the appellants wouldsubmit that, the Reference Court granted exorbitantcompensation. The interest under Section 34 of the Act oughtto have been awarded from the date of award and not from thedate of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Actsince the possession of the land had been taken over beforeSection 4 notification was published. According to him, theland Gut Nos.165 and 166 were situated within the Municipallimits of Latur Municipal Corporation and were also convertedto non-agricultural use. The land of the respondents would inno way be comparable with the said lands. The ReferenceCourt held the sale instances relied on by the respondents-claimants were pertaining to the lands situated within theMunicipal Corporation limits i.e. urban area. The distancebetween Latur and Kava was not less than 15 Kms. Locationof the acquired lands carried much importance. He wouldfurther submit that, the respondents proposed to rely on awardpassed in LAR Nos.711, 716, 719 and 327 of 1998, videjudgment dated 28/8/2015. Those awards have been underchallenge in First Appeal, No.408/2018 along with companion First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 6 ::First Appeals. As such, the quantum of compensation decidedtherein did not attain finality. Moreover, the lands covered bythose Land References were situated within the Municipallimits. The Reference Court considered non-agriculturalpotentiality of the land and, therefore, granted compensation atthe rate of Rs.28/- per sq.ft. The land of the respondents didnot have any proximity to the developed area. The burden ofproof was on the respondents. They did not discharge thesame. Merely relying on award passed in respect of someother land situated within the limits of other village would be ofno assistance to the respondents. The learned Advocate forthe appellants relied on the following judgments :-(1)Umesh Gupta Vs. State of Haryana2017 DGLS (SC) 1472(2)Spl. Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Lakhamsi GhelabhaiAIR 1960 Bom 78(3)Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & ors.5.According to learned Advocate for the appellants,the award passed in some other matters to which therespondents are not parties, may only be a piece of evidence First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 7 ::but not conclusive proof. The learned Advocate, therefore,urged for allowing the Appeal and rejection of the Cross-Objection.6.Learned Advocate for the respondents/ Cross-Objectionists, on the other hand, placed on record a map ofthe villages with land numbers covered by Katapur irrigationTank and some other lands which have been acquired forresettlement of project affected persons from the nearbyvillages. He has also relied on the judgment of learned SingleJudge of this Court in First Appeal No.3724/2017 and judgmentand award rendered in First Appeal No.1241/2013 with twocompanion appeals, decided on September 29, 2021.Moreover, the judgment and award passed by Reference Courtin LAR Nos.711/ 716, 719, 727 of 1998, dated 28/7/2015 hasalso been relied on. The learned Advocate would submit that,one of us (R.G. Avachat, J.) has decided First AppealNo.1241/2013 with two companion appeals grantingcompensation at the rate of Rs.28/- per sq.ft. Lands thereinwere situated at village Khopegaon, Taluka and District Latur.According to learned Advocate, the land of the respondents First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 8 ::was nearby the land bearing Gut No.165. The distancebetween Latur and the land of the respondents was not morethan 7 Kms. It has non-agricultural potential as well. He,therefore, urged for grant of equal compensation i.e. at the rateof Rs.28/- per sq.ft. with necessary statutory benefits.7.Considered the submissions advanced. Perusedthe impugned judgment and award. Some dates, material todecide the present proceedings are as follows : 1)Publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act 19/12/19932)Possession of the land was taken over Before publication of noticeunder Section 43)Date of award16/6/19978.The Reference Court, for enhancing compensationfrom Rs.430/- per R (Guntha) to Rs.1000/-, observed as under:“13.. . . . The data of sale instances referred in theAward will show that sale instances so collected byLAO have range of market price between 33,127/-to 81,300/- per H. Minute details of the same willfurther show that 21 sale instances had collected byLAO in respect of plots and lands right from10/03/1992 to 04/12/1992. here I find one more First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 9 ::mistake on the part of LAO that he has wronglymentioned date of notification as 22/04/1993 in factit should have been 19/12/1993. This date carriesmuch importance to the point that which saleinstance may be called as pre notification one andwhich may be called as post notification one. Notonly this date is also material for calculation ofstatutory benefits. At the end, LAO with the helpof exercise made by him pleased to awardcompensation at the rate of Rs.430/- per R. Ontaking turn to evidence led bythe claimants I with agreat surprise came to know that they have reliedupon sale instances of that plots and lands whichare part and parcel of Latur town. According tome, those can not be considered from enhancementpoint of view since one is required to draw a line ofdifference urban and Rural area. The distancebetween Latur and village Kawha is not less than15 Kms. The location of the acquired land carrymuch importance in order to assess the marketprice, but I am unable to draw any inference to thateffect since no map showing location of Gatnumber or survey number of village Kawha is filedon record. Claimants have filed judgment in earlierLARs Exhs.19 & 20 but I am declined to considerits relevancy since they are from different awardsand in respect of lands from other villages.According to me, I am of the firm opinion thatthere is no scope for enhancement with the help ofsale instances and judgments in earlier Awards. Ontaking turn to observations of the cited case I cameto know that the ratio therein is useful and I mustaccept the same when I am going to assess marketprice of the dry and irrigated land. Unfortunately,no case is made out by claimant to this effect thatacquired land is irrigated one, all lands are dry as ofpractice. The claimants have sought enhancementas per sq.ft. but I declined to accept the same forthe reasons stated supra. At the same time, I cameto know that, there is a scope for enhancement withthe help of sale instance of highest price so First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 10 ::collected by the LAO. Para No.7 of the AwardExh.15 will show that land at Sr.No.9 from the listof sale instances at village Kawha is sold at the rateof Rs.813/- per R. I find no hesitation to considerthis sale instance from enhancement point of viewwith 15% escalation because that sale instance is ofthe year 1992 and notification u/Sec. 4 of the Act isof the year 1993. In the result, I am of the opinionto fix the land value @ Rs.1,000/- (Rs. Onethousand) per R only.. . . . . .”9.Close reading of the aforesaid reasons lead us toconclude that the Reference Court has taken intoconsideration the sale instance pertaining to the land situatedin the very village (Kavha) whereat the land of the respondentswas located. The sale instance was also closer to the date ofnotification under Section 4 of the Act. The Reference Courtrounded up the figure of Rs.813/- per R to Rs.1000/- bygranting escalation of 15% since the sale instance wassomewhat prior to the date of notification. We, therefore, donot find any reason to reduce the rate of compensation grantedby the Reference Court.10.It has, however, committed a mistake in grantinginterest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of notification First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 11 ::under Section 4 i.e. from 19/12/1993. In view of the judgmentof this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash ShivaRangari [ (2016) 4 ALLMR 513 ], the interest ought to havebeen awarded from the date of award i.e. 16/6/1997 since thepossession of the land was taken over before publication ofnotification under Section 4. To this extent, we are inclined tomodify the order impugned herein. The respondents would beentitled to interest component at the rate of 9% p.a. for the firstyear and at the rate of 15% p.a. for the onward period until theamount of enhanced compensation is paid i.e. from the date16/6/1997 to 15/6/1998 at the rate of 9% p.a. and for furtherperiod till the amount is paid, at the rate of 15% p.a.11.Turning to the cross-objection preferred by therespondents/ land owner for enhancement of compensationare concerned, it is to be stated that, the impugned award hasbeen passed on 19/9/2008 while the cross-objections havebeen preferred in August 2017 i.e. about 9 years after theaward was passed. The same suggests that the respondents/land owners/ claimants were content with the amount ofcompensation awarded by the Reference Court. Be that as it First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 12 ::may. We have to decide the same on its own merits. Closereading of the impugned judgment and award would indicatethat the claimant had not relied on any of the sale exemplarbefore the Reference Court. The Reference Court referred toone of the sale deeds in the group of sale deeds considered bythe Land Acquisition Officer. The sale deed was from the veryvillage whereat the land acquired was situated. It was a saleinstance, wherein rate per R was Rs.813/-. The ReferenceCourt added 15% thereto towards escalation in price since thesale deed was of a year before the date of notification. Byrounding up the figure, the Reference Court awardedRs.1000/- per R.12.Before us, a map of the relevant villages wasproduced as an additional evidence. The learned Advocaterelied on copies of judgments passed by learned SingleJudges of this Court, in First Appeal Nos.3724/2017,1241/2013, 715/2019 and First Appeal Stamp No.33295/2014and related matters. In First Appeal No.3724/2017, decided on18/9/2017, the rate per R was granted at Rs.28/-. The saidjudgment and award was passed relying on the judgment and First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 13 ::order dated 6/2/2015, passed in First Appeal StampNo.33295/2014. The lands comprised therein were from thevillage Kanheri. Close reading of the judgment would indicatethat the Land Acquisition Officer had taken into considerationnon-agricultural potential value of the land and awardedcompensation at the rate of Rs.51/- per sq.mtr. The learnedAdvocate then relied on the judgment delivered by one of us(R.G. Avachat, J.) in First Appeal No.1241/2013 and twoconnected First Appeals. It was a case pertaining to the landsituated at village Khopegaon, Taluka and District Latur. Thelands were acquired for resettlement of the village. Rate ofRs.28/- per sq.ft. was granted therein for the followingreasons:-“3.Admittedly, the lands belonging to oneDagadu Saheb s/o. Limbaji Dhengale andBalbhim Dhengale were acquired for the verypurpose, for which the lands of the appellantsherein have been acquired. The lands of saidDagdu and Balbhim are from very village-Khopegaon. In the very land acquisitionproceedings, the lands of the appellants havebeen acquired. Both Dagadu and Balbhimpreferred L.A.R. Nos.215 of 1998 and 216 of1998, respectively. The reference court, vide itsjudgment and order dated 03.09.2015, enhancedthe amount of compensation granting it at the rateof Rs.28/- per sq. ft. Said judgment and award First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 14 ::was challenged by the State/acquiring body inFirst Appeal Nos.3724 of 2017 and 3725 of 2017.This Court, vide its order dated 18.09.2017,dismissed both the appeals. As such, the amountof compensation at the rate of Rs.28/- per sq. ft.has been confirmed. It has been observed by thisCourt in the order dated 18.09.2017 that thereference Court has also deducted 60% towardsdevelopment charges and it appears that thereference court awarded modest compensation.As such, the appellants herein, being similarlyplaced, are entitled to have compensation at therate of Rs.28/- per sq. ft.”13.The land owners would, therefore, not be benefitedby relying on the judgment in first Appeal No.1241/2013 andconnected appeals. The Reference Court has also observedthat the claimants have failed to prove the lands acquired tohave been irrigated one. The distance between Latur townand village Kava, whereat the acquired land is situated, wasthen stated to be 15 Kms. True, with the development of areaor inclusion of fringe villages within the limit of MunicipalCorporation, Latur, the distance might have been reduced. Wehave, however, to see the position as on the date ofnotification under Section 4 of the Act. So far as reliance onthe judgment in LAR No.638/1998 and connected matters areconcerned, the lands therein (Gut No.165) were situated within First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 15 ::the limits of Latur city. Those were surrounded by official andcommercial buildings. The lands had non-agricultural potentialfor residential purpose. So is not the case herein. On thecontrary, the map shows that the land of the claimants/respondents is beyond the brooklet.14.For all these reason, we are not inclined to grantcompensation either at the rate of R.20/- or Rs.28/- per sq.ft.We are, however, inclined to grant some more compensation.Admittedly, the State Government has a policy not to preferappeal in a case where the enhancement is not more than fourtimes of the amount awarded by the Special Land AcquisitionOfficer. In the case in hand, the Special Land AcquisitionOfficer granted compensation at the rate of Rs.430/- per R.Four times thereof comes to Rs.1720/- per R. While theReference Court granted the same at the rate of Rs.1000/- perR. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as anexception, we are inclined to enhance the same to Rs.1720/-per R, besides grant of necessary statutory benefits as havealready been granted by the Reference Court, subject to the
Decision
First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 16 ::dates stated hereinabove for deciding the acquiring body’sappeal.15.The claimants would not be entitled for thecomponent of interest for the delay of about 10 years and 10months in preferring the Cross-Objection i.e. from the date ofaward passed by the Reference Court i.e. 19/9/2008 till thedate of filing of the Cross-Objection16)In the result, the Appeal and Cross-objection aredisposed of in terms of the following order :- O R D E R(i)The First Appeal and Cross-Objection are partly allowed.The compensation granted by the Reference Court at the rateof Rs.1000/- per R is enhanced to Rs.1720/- per R, besides30% solatium and 12% additional component.(ii) The interest under Section 34 be paid at the rate of 9%p.a. for the first year from the date of award and for furtheryears until the amount is paid, at the rate of 15% p.a. exceptfor the period of about 10 years and 10 months i.e. from the First Appeal No.5148/2017 withX-Obj.No.48/2022:: 17 ::date of award (19/9/2008) to 11/7/2019 (the date of order ofregistration of the Cross-Objection is allowed). (Theregistration of the Cross-Objection was refused for want ofsteps/ attending to the proceedings).(iii)The appellants/ acquiring body shall pay the amount ofcompensation/ deposit with this Court, in terms of this modifiedaward within four months (since it is informed that no amounthas yet been paid to the respondents/ land owners). (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-