High Court
Facts
FA-1428-20+2.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1428 OF 2020Rajshekar Tamanappa UtgeAge: 57 years, Occu.: Agri.,R/o Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANTVERSUS1. State of Maharashtra Through its Collector, Latur2. Sub-Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Latur3. The Executive Officer, Public Works Department, Latur..RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 20201. Shrikant Tamanappa Utge Age: 63 years, Occu.: Agri.,2. Snehal Shrikant Utge Age: 36 years, Occu.: Agri., Both R/o Central Hanuman Road, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANTSVERSUS1. State of Maharashtra Through its Collector, Latur2. Sub-Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Latur3. The Executive Officer, Public Works Department, Latur..RESPONDENTSANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2073 OF 20201. Bajrang Hiralal Joshi Age: 66 years, Occu.: Agri.,1 / 11
Legal Reasoning
FA-1428-20+2.odtowners aware thereof. The record indicates that the land which wasconverted into non-agricultural assessment was converted within 3-4 monthsjust before possession of the land was taken over.18.The record indicates that the present appeals have been filedbelatedly i.e. by 806 days, after the period of limitation for preferring theappeal was over. In our view, the appellants, therefore, are not entitled forcomponent of interest for the period commencing from the date of award tothe date of the order condoning the delay in preferring the present appeals.19.In view of above, the appeals are partly allowed in terms offollowing order :-The award dated 27th April, 2017 impugned in these appeals ismodified increasing the amount of compensation from Rs.400/-per sq.ft. to Rs.620/- per sq.ft.. Rest of the terms of the impugnedaward to stand unaltered. However, the appellants shall not beentitled for component of interest for the period of delay i.e. from27th April, 2017 to 11th October, 2019, (806 days) in preferring thepresent appeals.( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) SSD11 / 11
Arguments
FA-1428-20+2.odt2. Shrinivas Motilal Joshi (Deceased) Through his L.Rs. 1. Gopal Shriniwas Joshi Age: 57 years, Occu.: Agri., 2. Giridhar Shriniwas Joshi Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agri., All R/o Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur..APPELLANTSVERSUS1. State of Maharashtra Through its Collector, Latur2. Sub-Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Latur3. The Executive Officer, Public Works Department, Latur..RESPONDENTS....Mr. S.S. Halkude, Advocate for appellantsMr. S.J. Salgare, A.G.P. for respondents....CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.RESERVED ON : 21st FEBRUARY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 01st APRIL, 2025JUDGMENT ( PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) :1.This group of three appeals takes exception to the commonjudgment and award dated 27th April, 2017 passed by the Court of CivilJudge Senior Division, Latur (‘reference Court’) in Land AcquisitionReference Nos. (‘L.A.R.’) 124 of 2016, 125 of 2016 and 123 of 2016respectively.2.The appellants had preferred the said L.A.Rs. for determination ofcompensation since their lands were acquired for public purpose2 / 11 FA-1428-20+2.odt(construction of ring road). The Land Acquisition Officer (‘L.A.O.’) hadoffered compensation @ Rs.70.62/- per sq.ft. as against claim of theappellants for Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft. The appellants, therefore, preferred theconcerned L.A.Rs. The reference Court, after hearing the parties concerned,enhanced the compensation to Rs.400/- per sq.ft. It also granted solatium @30% as per Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act of 1894)’and additional benefit and interest in terms of provisions of 23(1-A) of the Actof 1894. It also directed the respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annumfrom the date of notification and for further period @ 15% till the amount ofcompensation is paid.3.Having not been satisfied with the quantum of compensationawarded by the reference Court, the appellants preferred these appeals forgrant of compensation at least @ Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft.4.Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that thereference Court ought to have considered various aspects such as locationof the lands acquired, nature of the lands, its user, potentiality for commercialor residential or industrial purpose, development that took place surroundingthe lands acquired, rates of land located in the vicinity. He would furthersubmit that admittedly the lands were situated within the limits of MunicipalCorporation, Latur. Some portion of the acquired lands had already beenconverted into non-agricultural assessment. Latur-Kawa state highway runsby the side of the acquired lands. The purpose of acquisition has also notbeen considered. The owners of the lands abutting the lands acquired have3 / 11 FA-1428-20+2.odtdeveloped their lands with sanctioned lay-outs for residential and commercialpurpose as well. The government offices and public amenities have alreadybeen available in the vicinity of the lands acquired. He would further submitthat the appellants relied on the five sale exemplars. As per the settled legalproposition, the highest sale exemplar ought to have been considered. Hewould further submit that the government approved valuer had paid visit tothe lands acquired. He valued the lands on the basis of their location, useand considering the various sale instances and submitted the report. Thereference Court ought not to have discarded the said report.In short, according to learned counsel, since the lands acquiredwere situated within the municipal limits and have potential for commercialand residential purpose besides the fact that some of the lands acquiredwere already converted into non-agricultural assessment, compensation @Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft. be awarded. He relied on the following set of authoritiesto ultimately urge for allowing the appeals -(i)Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa & Anr., (2010) 13SCC 710;(ii)Horrmal (Deceased) though his Lrs. & Ors. Vs. State ofHaryana & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2990;(iii)Nelson Fernandes & Ors. Vs. Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, South Goa & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1414;(iv)Mehrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State ofPunjab & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2721;(v)State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Hans Raj (Dead) by Lrs.Sohan Singh & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 734;5.Learned A.G.P. would, on the other hand, submit that the L.A.O.had granted just and reasonable compensation. The reference Court4 / 11 FA-1428-20+2.odtenhanced it. Although the State did not prefer appeals against the judgmentand award impugned in these appeals, there is no reason for furtherenhancing the amount of compensation. According to learned A.G.P., thelands were assessed to agricultural purpose on the date of notification underSection 4 of the Act of 1894 due to which future proposed user of the landcould not be considered. He would further submit that the sale exemplars,relied on by the appellants, pertain to small pieces of land. Those pertain tothe land assessed to non-agricultural purpose. The sale exemplars (Exh.18and 23) would, therefore, be irrelevant for deciding the present appeals.Learned A.G.P. relied on the Apex Court’s judgment in case of Bijender andOrs. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2018) 11 SCC 180 to ultimately urgefor dismissal of the appeals.6.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the evidence onrecord. Let us advert thereto and appreciate the same.7.L.A.R. No. 123 of 2015 pertains to the land admeasuring 8300sq.mt. forming part of Gut No. 60/3, while L.A.R. No. 124 of 2016 pertains tothe land admeasuring 8000 sq.mts. and 5000 sq.mts. of lands from Gut Nos.164 and 167 respectively. L.A.R. No. 125 of 2016 pertains to the landadmeasuring 4040 sq. mts. of Gut No. 166. 1440 sq. mts. land thereof wasconverted into non-agricultural assessment.8.Some of the acquired lands were situated at Vasangaon, close toLatur town. It is reiterated that the lands were acquired for construction of5 / 11 FA-1428-20+2.odtring road. Notifications under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 were published on24th and 25th March, 2012, while the award/s was/were passed on 05thAugust, 2013.9.Learned counsel for the appellants first urged for grant ofcompensation in accordance with the report submitted by the governmentapproved valuer. Although the market price of the land acquired could beascertained on the basis of the valuer’s report, the method for determiningthe compensation on the basis of sale exemplars of the similarly situatedlands on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 orimmediately before there, is considered to be usual and better method. Aprivate valuer, who has been paid fees by the owners of the land, ispresumed to have given the report favourable to those persons who haveengaged him, unless a fair play is shown in his exercise. The referenceCourt has discarded the valuer’s report which determines the valuation of theland admeasuring 1400 sq.mtrs. @ Rs.11,524/- per sq.mtr. and of the landadmeasuring 2520 sq.mtrs. @ Rs. 14,029/- per sq.mtr. for the reason thatthe valuer did not place on record the notes prepared by him while he paidvisit to the lands and worked out the market rate. The valuer also did notplace on record sale exemplars considered by him for determining themarket value. The reference Court also found the sale exemplars relied onby the appellants to have pertained to large or small areas situated in the city(town) of Latur. The reference Court found the average market price of theacquired lands is Rs.400/- per sq.ft. Considering the sale instances referred6 / 11 FA-1428-20+2.odtby the L.A.O., the reference Court, therefore, enhanced the compensation tothat extent.10.In case of Anjani Molu Dessai (supra), the Apex Court held asunder :-“Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – S.23 – Compensation – Comparablesales method – Several exemplars – Method of working outaverage price – Held, in case of several exemplars, usually highestexemplar is to be considered – In case of several sales of similarlands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, average thereofcan be taken, as representing market price – Where values of twosales are markedly different, averaging cannot be resorted to”In paragraph no.16 of the said judgment it has observed thus:-“16.The Land Acquisition Collector however committed aserious error in deducting 45% from the sale price disclosed by thesale deed dated 30-8-1989 towards the cost of development. It iswell settled that deduction for development cost has to be madeonly where the value of a small residential/ commercial/ industrialplot of land in a developed layout is made the basis for arriving atthe market value of a nearly large tract of undeveloped agriculturalland. Where the land sold under the relied upon sale deed and theacquired lands are both of similar nature (as in this case whereboth are bharad lands) the question of making any deductiontowards development cost to arrive at the cost of “undevelopedland” would not arise. Such a deduction would have beennecessary if the sale deed relied upon related to a developedresidential or commercial plot. ....”11.While in case of Horrmal (supra), it was observed thus :-“27.In the instant case, there are multiple sale deeds ofsmaller plots, and these represent the best available evidence forestimating compensation. Since there is no legal impediment toconsidering such sale deeds, the logical progression in the7 / 11 FA-1428-20+2.odtcompensation estimation process would be to identify the mostsuitable sale deed(s) for determining the market value andsubsequently, to apply adequate deductions on the same. Thesolution to this state of flux may thus be found in the case ofMehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432where this Court laid down as follows :-“… It is clear that when there are several exemplars withreference to similar lands, it is the general rule that thehighest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fidetransaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the landis being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitledto the highest value which similar land in the locality is shownto have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered intobetween a willing purchaser and a willing seller near aboutthe time of the acquisition.”12.The Apex Court in case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra) hasobserved that when many comparable sale transactions were relied on,highest comparable exemplar therefrom has to be accepted. The method ofdrawing average of various sale deeds not to be adopted.13.While in case of Bijender (supra), relied on by learned A.G.P., theApex Court held as under :-- Held, when courts are called upon to fix market value incompulsory acquisition, one type of evidence of value of propertyis sale of acquired land to which claimant is a party and in itsabsence, sale of neighbouring lands – Transactions relating toacquired land of recent dates or in neighbourhood lands thatpossessed of similar potentiality or fertility or other advantageousfeatures are considered to be relevant piece of evidence – In proofof sale transactions, relationship of parties to transactions, marketconditions, terms of sale and date of sale are to be looked into –These features need to be established by examining either vendoror vendee and if they are not available, attesting witnesses who8 / 11 FA-1428-20+2.odthave personal knowledge of transaction, etc. - Original or certifiedcopies of sale deeds are required to be tendered in evidence toprove such facts – One of the underlying principles to fix a fairmarket value with reference to comparable sale is to reduceelement of speculation- Held, it is held that in comparable sale, features are : (1) it mustbe within a reasonable time of date of notification, (2) it should bea bona fide transaction, (3) it should be a sale of land acquired orland adjacent to land acquired, and (4) it should possess similaradvantages; and these factors should be established by adducingmaterial evidence by examining parties to sale or persons havingpersonal knowledge of sale transactions – Proof thereof to focuson whether transactions relied on are genuine and bona fidetransactions or not- Value of the smaller plots, which is always on the higher side, isusually not taken into consideration for determining the largeblock of the land – one of the reasons being that the substantialarea of the large block is used14.Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations, we have to quantifythe amount of compensation on the basis of the facts and circumstancesobtainable in the case in hand. Admittedly, the land admeasuring 1440 sq.mts. was converted into non-agricultural assessment. Rest of the landacquired was assessed to agricultural purpose. It is true that the lands whichwere acquired for construction of ring road, were situated in Latur townand/or in the village adjacent thereto. Undisputedly, development of thelands in the vicinity in which the acquired lands were situated, did take place.15.The sale exemplars (Exh.18 to 23) are as follows :-ExhibitDate of sale-deedPriceArea sold1831.01.2011Rs.8,50,000/-1372 sq.ft.9 / 11 FA-1428-20+2.odt1921.08.2008Rs.16,50,000/-5871.71 sq.ft.2023.12.1994Rs.1,57,500/-300 sq.ft.2102.08.2008Rs.13,21,000/-2000 sq.ft.2216.05.2008Rs.7,74,000/-351.5 sq.ft.2316.05.2008Rs.64,68,000/-14000 sq.ft.The reference Court simply observed that it is prudent andjustifiable to grant the rate of Rs.400/- per sq.ft. It only considered the factthat some of the land was converted into non-agricultural assessment.16.All the aforesaid sale exemplars are of the date before issuance ofnotification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. First five sale exemplarspertain to very small pieces of land/s compared to sale exemplar Exhibit 23.We, therefore, rely on the sale exemplar (Exh.23). Rate thereof comes toRs.619.53/- per sq.ft. It is true that it pertains to four years before publicationof notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. We could have enhancedthe price by addition of 10% thereof every year, but we consider the same asdeduction for development of the land acquired and take the rate of the saidsale exemplar as it is which comes to Rs.620/- per sq.ft. (round off).17.The reference Court awarded interest from the date of publicationof notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. It in fact ought to haveawarded interest from the date of award since possession of the lands wassaid to have been taken over somewhat long before publication ofnotification. The fact that possession of the acquired lands was taken overbefore process of acquisition initiated, can be inferred to have the land10 / 11