Laxman Malappa Chavan v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

*1* MIDC LATUR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 FIRST APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2010 MIDC Through it's Regional Manager

VERSUS

Dattatraya Vishwanath Bhumkar And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4986 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2010 Dattatraya Vishwanath Bhumkar And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Latur And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2512 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Dattatraya Vishwanath Bhumkar And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6303 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2010 Dattatraya Vishwanath Bhumkar And Ors

VERSUS

The Sate Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil D. Joshi.

...

*2* MIDC LATUR 902 FIRST APPEAL NO.2016 OF 2008 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Bashir Isulal Shaikh And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4543 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2019 OF 2008 Mustafa Waliullah Beg

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9366 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2024 OF 2008 Shivbai Nagnath Chavan

VERSUS

M I D C Latur And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15487 OF 2017 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.3976 OF 2016 Isulal Mahetab Shaikh Since Deceased Thr LRs Shaikh Ismail And Anr

VERSUS

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2024 OF 2008 M I D C, Latur

VERSUS

Shivbai Nagnath Chavan And Anr

*3* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2026 OF 2008 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Vasantrao Ambadasrao Jadhav And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2028 OF 2008 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Achalkumar Shivdas Gangale And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2029 OF 2008 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Limbraj Digamber Shinde And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2019 OF 2008 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Mustafa Waliullah Beg And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9685 OF 2015 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.23813 OF 2015 Ismail Issulal Shaikh

VERSUS

MIDC Latur And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2025 OF 2008 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

*4* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Ayubkhan Nasibkhan Pathan And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2017 OF 2008 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Mohmed Adil Mohd Sadiq Hadule And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2018 OF 2008 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Isulal Mahetab Shaikh And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2020 OF 2008 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Ismail Issulal Shaikh And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2021 OF 2008 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Sudhakar Prabhu Swami And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2031 OF 2008 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur.

VERSUS

Chandrakant Ambadas Jadhav And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2032 OF 2008

*5* MIDC LATUR M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Chunnumiya Isulal Shaikh And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2023 OF 2008 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Lalita Bankatrao Bhise And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2022 OF 2008 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Subhash Haribhau Bansode And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2027 OF 2008 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Anusayabai Dhondiram Kadam And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3766 OF 2008 Mustafa Waliullah Beg

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2030 OF 2008 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Premilabai Vijaykumar Jadhav Kinikar And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil D. Joshi.

*6* MIDC LATUR Advocate for the Claimants: in FA/2029/2008 and 3766/2008 Shri S.S. Thombre.

Advocate for the Claimants: in FA/2030/2008 Shri A.S. Lomte ...

903 FIRST APPEAL NO.3567 OF 2008 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Rajdeep Dindayal Agrawal And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8080 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3567 OF 2008 Rajdeep Dindayal Agrawal

VERSUS

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2371 OF 2008 Rajdeep Dindayal Agrawal

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri C.R. Deshpande, Shri V.D. Gunale and Shri K.D. Bade Patil ...

904 FIRST APPEAL NO.3972 OF 2008 Limbraj Tukaram Kaile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8559 OF 2017 IN

*7* MIDC LATUR FIRST APPEAL NO.2804 OF 2009 Limbraj Tukaram Kaile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9094 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2804 OF 2009 Limbraj Tukaram Kaile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Collector, Latur and Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2804 OF 2009 M I D C Through Regional Officer MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Limbraj Tukaram Kaile And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire ...

905 FIRST APPEAL NO.4292 OF 2008 Sayyad Ibrahim Hasansab And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8906 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.4292 OF 2008 Sayyad Ibrahim Hasansab And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

*8* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.349 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2332 OF 2009 Sayyed Ibrahim Hasansab And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Officer At Latur And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2332 OF 2009 M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Sayyed Ibrahim Hasansab And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Gunale ...

906 FIRST APPEAL NO.37 OF 2009 Kailash Gurunathrao Birajdar

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.145 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Kailash Gurunathrao Birajdar And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri S.V.Warad ...

907 FIRST APPEAL NO.494 OF 2009 Rajkumar Ramchandra Warma And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

*9* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13312 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1975 OF 2010 Rajkumar Ramchandra Warma And Ors

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1975 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Rajkumar Ramchandra Varma And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

908 FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Dnyanoba Namdeo Sarvade And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2662 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009 Dhanraj Shankar Darkase

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Through The Regional Officer, Latur And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2343 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009 Bhaurabai Sidheshwar Sarvade

*10* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

MIDC Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1851 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009 Shiddeshwar Mahada Sarvade (died) Thr LRs Sunanda And others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14046 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009 Dnyanoba Namdeo Sarode

VERSUS

MIDC Thr Regional Officer Latur And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri S.S.Halkude, Shri C.V.Thombre, Shri M.V.Deshpande, Shri R.D. Biradar, Ms. Madne (Narwate) Savita E. and Shri Narwadkar Mrigesh D. Advocate for Applicants in CA/2662/2021 : Shri A.A. Joshi h/f Shri Sharad V. Natu ...

909 FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Mohmedsab Dadansab Kabade LRs Chabanbee Mohmedsab Kabade And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1542 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2009

*11* MIDC LATUR Mohmedsab Dadansab Kabade LRs Chabanbee Mohmedsab Kabade And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9475 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 2009 Riyajoddin Chandsaheb Shaikh And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Collector, Latur and Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3156 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 2009 Shaikh Khajoddin S/o Chand Sab

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.288 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2009 Mahommad Dadansab Kabade (died) Thr LRs Chabanbee Andors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3036 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2009 Shabir Aminsab

VERSUS

*12* MIDC LATUR The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13307 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2009 Mohamad Dadasaheb Kabade Died Through His L R S Chabanbee W/o Mohmedsab Kabade And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Khajoddin Chandsab And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri C.D. Biradar, Shri R.D.Biradar and Shri Deshpande Amit S.

...

910 FIRST APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Khajamiya Bashumiya Pathan And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1031 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Shrimant Rama Upade And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.629 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

*13* MIDC LATUR Dattu Vitthal Chame And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9446 OF 2021 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.24104 OF 2021 Dattu Vitthal Chame And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Collector, Latur And ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.536 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Proposed Hindu Khatik Magasvargiya Shakair Gruh Nirman Sanstha And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.336 OF 2009 Proposed Hindu Khatik Magaswargiya Sahakari Graha Nirman Sanstha

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9453 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2009 Khajamiya Bashumiya Pathan Since Deceased Thr His LRs And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale, Shri R.B.Deshmukh and Shri Katneshwarkar P.R. a/w Shri Fayaz Patel.

Advocate for the Claimants: in FA 1031/2009 and 336/2009 Shri

*14* MIDC LATUR S.N. Lale Yelwatkar.

...

911 FIRST APPEAL NO.1866 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Chandrakant Limbaji Patil LRs Usha Chandrkant Patil and Ors WITH CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.616 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1866 OF 2009 Chandrakant Limbaji Patil Died Thrugh LRs Usha Chandrakant Patil And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Gunale V.D. ...

912 FIRST APPEAL NO.2690 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Udaykumar S/o. Vainjnath Pensalwar And Ors.

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri More P. P.

...

913 FIRST APPEAL NO.2715 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Bhimrao Babruwan Kamble And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2731 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

*15* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Abdul Rashid Haji Shaikh And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2717 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Manjusha Shrikrishna Disit And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2724 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Ajay Vinayakrao Hamadapurkar And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2725 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Safiabegum Imansab Sahaik And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4734 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2717 OF 2009 Manjusha Shrikrishna Dixit

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3057 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2726 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Atul Vinayakrao Hamdapurkar And Ors

*16* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3061 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2725 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Safiabegum Imansab Sahaik And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3069 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2727 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Dnyanoba Gangaram Kamble And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3079 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2716 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Mrunal Shrikrishna Dixit And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2716 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Mrunal Shrikrishna Dixit And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2726 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Atul Vinayakrao Hamdapurkar And Ors

*17* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2727 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Dnyanoba Gangaram Kamble And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2730 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Abhijeet Ramvilas Mandhane And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4731 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2724 OF 2009 Vinayakrao Hamdapurkar

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2968 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2726 OF 2009 Vinayakrao Hamdapurkar

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3083 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2730 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Abhijeet Ramvilas Mandhane And Ors

*18* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3089 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2724 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Ajay Vinayakrao Hamadapurkar And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3087 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2731 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Abdul Rashid Haji Shaikh And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4732 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2716 OF 2009 Mrunal Shrikrishna Dixit

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Anuj Fulpagar, Shri Fayaz Patel, Shri Amol Vasmatkar and Swapnil D. Joshi ...

914 FIRST APPEAL NO.2720 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Dattatraya Pamparao Jawalkar And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3071 OF 2009

*19* MIDC LATUR IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2720 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Dattatraya Pamparao Jawalkar And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3535 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2720 OF 2009 Dattatraya Pamparao Jawalkar And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra, Through District Collector, Latur And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Gunale V.D. ...

915 FIRST APPEAL NO.2767 OF 2009 M I D C Through Divisional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pandurang Tulshiram Chame And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Gunale V.D. ...

916 FIRST APPEAL NO.3137 OF 2009 Madhav Digambarrao Suryawanshi

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimant Shri Pawar D.B.

...

917 FIRST APPEAL NO.649 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

*20* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Chanda Madanlal Deshadla And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.653 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Kamladevi Gopikishan Agrawal And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.652 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Ranoji Mahadeo Katke And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.654 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bharti Sanjay Kotecha And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.655 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Rekha Vishnu Shirole And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Patil G.N. and Shri Patil Indrale Anand V.

...

918 FIRST APPEAL NO.722 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Divisional Officer, Latur

VERSUS

Hemant Jaywantrao Vaidya and Ors

*21* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.727 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager Latur

VERSUS

Pandharinath Raosaheb Deshmukh WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2021 OF 2012 Dr Pandharinath Raosaheb Deshmukh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2020 OF 2012 Hemant Jayantrao Vaidya And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Patil N. P. Jamalpurkar ...

919 FIRST APPEAL NO.1141 OF 2010 MIDC Throug Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bashir Nabisaheb Shaikh And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1145 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bharatbai Kisan Kharose And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2010

*22* MIDC LATUR MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bhagirathibai Gyanoba Boke And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3371 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2010 Bhagirathibai Gyanoba Boke

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra, Thr Collector, Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3417 OF 201 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2010 Mubarak Nabisaheb Shaikh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Ad Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1144 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Shivram Hanmant Chavan And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1143 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Tukaram Lingappa Utage (died) LRs Shakuntalabai And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1147 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

*23* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Shankar Tukaram Aayalane And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1149 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Trimbak Digamber Tigle And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Mubarak Nabisaheb Shaikh And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3370 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2010 Mubarak Nabisaheb Shaikh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr Collector, Latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1148 OF 2010 MIDC Throug Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Nandanbai Narayan Ghodke And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate h/f Shri Gundre Suraj V.

...

920 FIRST APPEAL NO.1146 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Divisional Officer, Latur

*24* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Sidramappa Bhujangrao Birajdar And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kale Ajeet B. and Shri V.D. Gunale ...

921 FIRST APPEAL NO.1150 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Salar Ismailkhan Pathan And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Gunale and Shri V.G.Godale ...

922 FIRST APPEAL NO.1229 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vishnu Kishanrao Shinde And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2530 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1229 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vishnu Kishanrao Shinde And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.S.Deshpande and Shri Swapnil D. Joshi ...

923 FIRST APPEAL NO.1232 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sayyad Mohd. Jahid Hussin S/o Kifayat Hussain And Ors

*25* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17750 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1221 OF 2010 Vasant Vishnuram Sadanande And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6630 OF 2011 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.13061 OF 2011 Mathurabai Pandurng Bansode

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2514 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1232 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sayyad Mohd. Jahid Hussin S/o Kifayat Hussain And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2516 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1233 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Jagdish Vishnudasji Dhoot And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2524 OF 2010 IN

*26* MIDC LATUR FIRST APPEAL NO.1221 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vasant Vishnuram Sadanande And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1220 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Mathurabai Pandurng Bansode And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1230 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Anandibai Uddhavrao Sarkale Adn Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1233 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Jagdish Vishnudasji Dhoot And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1247 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bharat Vijay Ranjankar And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2520 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1230 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

*27* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Anandibai Uddhavrao Sarkale and Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1221 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vasant Vishnuram Sadanande And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2522 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1247 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bharat Vijay Ranjankar And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2526 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Nagnath Vitthal Chame And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Nagnath Vitthal Chame And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1225 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2010 Nagnath Vitthal Chame And Ors

*28* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Shri A.S.Deshpande, Shri Swapnil D. Joshi and Shri Amol Vasmatkar ...

924 FIRST APPEAL NO.1303 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Radhabai Vaijinath Utage And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8786 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1309 OF 2010 Shaikh Mujamil Miyalal

VERSUS

Divisional Manager, MIDC Latur And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12325 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1315 OF 2010 Kausalyabai Marut Khaimode

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1313 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Radhabai Limbaji Adane And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1314 OF 2010

*29* MIDC LATUR MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Keshav Tukaram Gaikwad And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1315 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Kausalyabai Marut Khaimode And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14004 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1315 OF 2010 Kausalyabai Maruti Khaimode (died), through LRs And others

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and another.

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14845 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1313 OF 2010 Radhabai Limbaji Adane

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14108 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1309 OF 2010 Shaikh Miyalal Mohammad Hasan Died Thr LRs Shaikh Saberabee Miyanlal Died Thr LRs Fazal And Ors

VERSUS

The MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12331 OF 2011

*30* MIDC LATUR IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1307 OF 2010 Somnath Ramling Waghmare

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12323 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1312 OF 2010 Ramkunwarbai Badrinarayan Samani And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1307 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Somnath Ramling Waghmare And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1312 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Ramkunwarbai Badrinarayan Samany And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1309 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sk. Ismail S/o Miyalal And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1317 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

*31* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Bhimrao Laxman Kale And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kale Ajeet B. and Shri V.D. Gunale ...

925 FIRST APPEAL NO.1310 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Pandurang Gopal Ubale And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12326 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1310 OF 2010 Pandurang Gopal Ubale

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12334 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1316 OF 2010 Mohan Suryabhan Shikhare

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1316 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Mohan Suryabhan Shikhare And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kale Ajeet B. ...

*32* MIDC LATUR 926 FIRST APPEAL NO.2040 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Tatabbabi Rahman Sayyed Abdul Rahman And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9091 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1626 OF 2010 Vijaykumar Dattatray Kulkarni (deceased) Thr Lrs. Trimbak Vijaykumar Kulkarni

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur Andanother WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13564 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2039 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Vijaykumar Dattatrayarao Kulkarni And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13566 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2040 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Tatabbabi Rahman Sayyed Abdul Rahman And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2039 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

*33* MIDC LATUR Vijaykumar Dattatrayarao Kulkarni And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1626 OF 2010 Vijaykumar Dattatraya Kulkarni

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1577 OF 2010 Tayababi Rahman Sayyed Abdul Rahman

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Shri Anuj Fulfagar and Shri Fayaz K. Patel ...

927 FIRST APPEAL NO.2144 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Indrajeet Marutirao Waghmare And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9219 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2145 OF 2010 Prasad Prabhakarrao Udgrkar And Anr

VERSUS

The Regional Officer MIDC Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9134 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2144 OF 2010

*34* MIDC LATUR Indrajeet Marutirao Waghmare And Ors

VERSUS

The Regional Officer MIDC Latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2145 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Prasad Prabhakarrao Udgrkar And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Deshmukh Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Ms.Ashwini Sahastrabudhe i/by Shri Devang R. Deshmukh ...

928 FIRST APPEAL NO.2315 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Madhav Nagorao Pinate And Ors WITH CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.20738 OF 20 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2308 OF 2010 Mir Shabbir Ali S/o Mir Sr Ali Sayyad

VERSUS

The MIDC, Latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2308 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Shabbir Ali Mirsaheb Ali And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2314 OF 2019

*35* MIDC LATUR IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2315 OF 2010 Shivaji Nagorao Pinate

VERSUS

The MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer, Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3124 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2315 OF 2010 Madhav Nagorao Pinate (died) Thr LRs Sham And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Divisional Officer And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8728 OF 2015 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.18459 OF 2014 Madhav Nagorao Pinate Died LRs Sham And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur And Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar and Shri Adgaonkar Ravibhushan ...

929 FIRST APPEAL NO.2316 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Laxman Malappa Chavan And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6184 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2312 OF 2010 Prakash Daulatrao Mane

*36* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2306 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Shaikh Khalil Ahmed Mohammad Shaboddin And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2307 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Baburao Ramrao Bhalerao And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2311 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Manohar Limbaji Pisal And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2312 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Prakash Daulatrao Mane And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2313 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pandhari Shivaji Bhandare And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2318 OF 2010

*37* MIDC LATUR MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Ajay Dhullappa Abmesange And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8185 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2318 OF 2010 Ajay Dhullappa Ambesange And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2310 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Bhanudas Vitthal Walse And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2304 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Maruti Annappa Shinde And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2305 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Mohd. Hasan Turab Saheb Fakir And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2319 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Narayan Shankar Sangekar And Ors

*38* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2320 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Ramrao Raosaheb Mane And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2309 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Tayappa Brama Gaikwad And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2317 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Hiridas Narayan Panchal And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Patil N. P. Jamalpurkar ...

930 FIRST APPEAL NO.2463 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Jayawantrao Narayanrao Indurkar And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13905 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2523 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Chandsultan Walikhan Pathan And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14354 OF 2017

*39* MIDC LATUR IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2528 OF 2010 Rameshwar Gopal Sude U/g Of Anjana Gopal Sude

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Office At Latur And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2528 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Tulshiram Namdeo Sude And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13911 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2471 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Vilas Ramchandra Pethe And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13889 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2470 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Bhagwan Dattatraya Kulkarni Died Th LRs Deelip Bhagwanra Kulkarni And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2523 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Chandsultan Walikhan Pathan And Anr WITH

*40* MIDC LATUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18522 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2528 OF 2010 Tulshiram Namdeo Sude And Anr

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13893 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2528 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Tulshiram Namdeo Sude And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13895 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2529 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Jsubhash Shivram Sadafule (died) LRs Anita Subhash Sadafule And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2524 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Walikhan Hamidkhan Pathan And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2525 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Jugalkishore Shrikrishna Darak And Anr

*41* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2465 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3093 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Uddhav Narayan Dandime And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2471 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Vilas Ramchandra Pethe And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2529 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Jsubhash Shivram Sadafule (died) LRs Anita Subhash Sadafule And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13909 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2465 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Uddhav Narayan Dandime And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13915 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2524 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Walikhan Hamidkhan Pathan And Anr

*42* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2470 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Bhagwan Dattatraya Kulkarni Died Th LRs Deelip Bhagwanra Kulkarni And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Satish S. Manale Advocate for the Claimants: in FA 2470/2010 Shri A.A. Joshi h/f Shri Sharad V. Natu ...

931 FIRST APPEAL NO.2487 OF 2010 Pradeep Laxmanrao Reddi

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And O Rs ...

Advocate for the Appellant/ Claimant Shri V.D.Gunale ...

932 FIRST APPEAL NO.2526 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Pandurang Govindrao Komatwad And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13907 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2526 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Pandurang Govindrao Komatwad And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Satish S. Manale ...

933 FIRST APPEAL NO.2604 OF 2010

*43* MIDC LATUR Prasad Prabhakarrao Udgirkar And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9095 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2605 OF 2010 Indrajit Marutirao Waghmare And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Latur And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2605 OF 2010 Indrajit Marutirao Waghmare And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Deshmukh Rajendra S., Senior Advocate a/w Ms.Ashwini Sahastrabudhe i/by Shri Devang R. Deshmukh ...

934 FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation Through Divisional Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Mhammad Khayyum Rukmoddin Patel Th Power Of Attorney Mhammad Salim Through LRs Mohd Salim And Ors WITH CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.22287 OF 20 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 2011 Mhammad Khayyum Rukmoddinatel Th Power Of Attorney

*44* MIDC LATUR Mhammad Salim Th LRs Mohd Salim And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra and Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13694 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corpn Through Divnl Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Mhammad Khayyum Rukmoddin Patel Th Power Of Att Mhammad Salim Th LRs Mohd Salim And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13780 OF 2011 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.21110 OF 2011 Madhav Gyanoba Padole

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13702 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.30 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corpn Through Divnl Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Mohammad Ismail Rukmoddin Patel And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2337 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corpn Through Divnl Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

*45* MIDC LATUR Madhav Gyanoba Padole And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.30 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corpn Through Divnl Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Mohammad Ismail Rukmoddin Patel And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar and Shri Fayaz K. Patel ...

935 FIRST APPEAL NO.29 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Babubhai Kondaji Bagwan And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13692 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.29 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Babubhai Kondaji Bagwan And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3312 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.29 OF 2011 Babubhai Kondaji Bagwan (died) Mumtajbi Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer Divisional Office Latur ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate h/f Shri Shri Gundre Suraj V. and Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar ...

*46* MIDC LATUR 936 FIRST APPEAL NO.219 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Govind Baburao Holkar And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14674 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.219 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Govind Baburao Holkar And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: : Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G. Sontakke ...

937 FIRST APPEAL NO.3562 OF 2011 MIDC Thr Divisional Officer, Latur

VERSUS

Pandurang Sopan Gurme And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14550 OF 2018 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.2214 OF 2013 Pralhad Nivrutti Panale And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2092 OF 2013 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.2214 OF 2013

*47* MIDC LATUR Pralhad Nivrutti Panale And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2788 OF 2013 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.4635 OF 2013 Pandurang Sopan Gurme

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11699 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3562 OF 2011 MIDC Thr Divisional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pandurang Sopan Gurme And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11707 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3565 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Laxman Shetiba Jadhav And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11709 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3563 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Pralhad Nivrutti Panal And Ors

*48* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3563 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Pralhad Nivrutti Panal And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3565 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Laxman Shetiba Jadhav And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3567 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Bhagirthibai Bhanudas Walse And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3568 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Pundlik Sangram Gobe And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11701 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3567 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Bhagirthibai Bhanudas Walse And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11703 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3568 OF 2011

*49* MIDC LATUR MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Pundlik Sangram Gobe And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar and Shri Anuj Fulfagar ...

938 FIRST APPEAL NO.3564 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Baburao Yashwantrao Birajdar And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1963 OF 2019 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.29793 OF 2017 Baburao Yashwantrao Birajdar And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11705 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3564 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Baburao Yashwantrao Birajdar And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar ...

939 FIRST APPEAL NO.20 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

*50* MIDC LATUR Maheshwar Shamrao Kulkarni And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.25 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Mushir Muniroddin Shaikh And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.27 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Ankush Gopinath Ghangave And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 2012 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Kamlakar Madhavrao Karyakarte And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.29 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Dadarao Dagadu Bhadake And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.972 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Prasad Padmakarrao Andurkar And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.974 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

*51* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Shankarappa Mahadappa Waghmare And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.973 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Sunanda Suresh Inamdar And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.26 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Prabhakar Mahadling Basmatkar And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.21 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Maharudra Shivrajappa Mathdev And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.22 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Namdeo Balaji Mandade(died) LRs Dhanajay Namdeo Mandade And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.23 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Kusumbai Jaiprakash Mane And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.24 OF 2012

*52* MIDC LATUR MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Dnyaneshwar Nagnath Jadhav And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.30 OF 2012 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Vinayak Pandurang Kulkarni And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Bhumkar R.P. ...

940 FIRST APPEAL NO.160 OF 2012 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Dilip Shankarrao Kulkarni (Lakhangaonkar) And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.161 OF 2012 MIDC Throug Regional Manager

VERSUS

Suresh Shankarrao Kulkarni And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri C.R.Deshpande ...

941 FIRST APPEAL NO.1233 OF 2013 Chandrakant Nagnath Birle

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3050 OF 2013

*53* MIDC LATUR Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Chandrakant Nagnath Birle And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.538 OF 2013 Nagnath Rama Yerme

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3047 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Laxman Gyana Tigile And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.539 OF 2013 Laxuman Gyana Tigile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.540 OF 2013 Shivaji Vithalrao Narhare

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.541 OF 2013 Suresh Nagnath Birle

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3048 OF 2013

*54* MIDC LATUR Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Sueh Nagnath Birle And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Gunale V.D. ...

942 FIRST APPEAL NO.1532 OF 2013 Suresh Ramchandra Varma

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2565 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Chandrakant Dnyanoba Sude And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6114 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2563 OF 2013 Ramchandra Sundaram Varma Died Thr LRs Suresh Ramchandra Varma

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1533 OF 2013 Ramchandra Sundaram Varma Died LRs Suresh Ramchandra Varma

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH

*55* MIDC LATUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6116 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2564 OF 2013 Suresh Ramchandra Varma

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1534 OF 2013 Chandrakant Dnyanoba Sude And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2564 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation through Regional Manager MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Suresh Ramchandra Varma And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2563 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Ramchandra Sundaram Varma And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate h/f Shri Deshpande Amit S.

...

943 FIRST APPEAL NO.225 OF 2016 MIDC Thr Its Regional Officer At Latur

VERSUS

Shantabai Kisanrao Saudagar Died Her LRs Kisan And Others WITH

*56* MIDC LATUR FIRST APPEAL NO.228 OF 2016 MIDC Thr Its Regional Officer At Latur

VERSUS

Kisanrao Ramchandra Saudagar Died His LRs Laxman Kisan Saudagar And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.229 OF 2016 MIDC Thr Its Regional Officer At Latur

VERSUS

Nagnath Kisanrao Saudagar And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri H.V.Patil and Smt.Sujata Puri ...

944 FIRST APPEAL NO.226 OF 2016 MIDC Thr Its Divisional Officer Division Office, Latur

VERSUS

Gyanoba Shivba Dandime And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16260 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.226 OF 2016 MIDC Thr Its Divisional Officer Division Office, Latur

VERSUS

Gyanoba Shivba Dandime And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri M.B.Jadhav, Shri S.C. Swami and Shri Fayaz K. Patel ...

945 FIRST APPEAL NO.624 OF 2016 Hariram Shivram Shelke

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

*57* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.626 OF 2016 Shrirang Hariram Shelke And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.627 OF 2016 Dhondiram Gyanba Ige

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1435 OF 2017 MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Hariram Shivram Shelke And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.625 OF 2016 Pandurang Narayanrao Shelke

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1434 OF 2017 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Pandurang Narayanrao Shelke And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N. Irpatgire ...

946 FIRST APPEAL NO.2481 OF 2016

*58* MIDC LATUR Regional Officer MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Shobha Nagnath Kaname And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2644 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2481 OF 2016 Shobha Nagnath Kaname And Others

VERSUS

Regional Officer MIDC Latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.4502 OF 2016 Shobha Nagnath Kaname And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N. Irpatgire ...

947 FIRST APPEAL NO.1253 OF 2017 MIDC Thr Divisional Officer, Division Office, Latur

VERSUS

Shivaji Ganpati Kamble And Anr ...

...

948 FIRST APPEAL NO.1436 OF 2017 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Dhondiram Gyanba Ige And Anr WITH

*59* MIDC LATUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4577 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1436 OF 2017 Dhondiram Gyanba Ige

VERSUS

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Manager At Latur And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire ...

949 FIRST APPEAL NO.3650 OF 2017 The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Girdhar Babu @ Malu Kamble And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13988 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3650 OF 2017 Girdhar Balu @ Malu Kamble (died), through his LRs And others.

VERSUS

MIDC, Latur and others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kulkrni Girish N. (Mardikar). ...

950 FIRST APPEAL NO.3932 OF 2017 Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Ors

VERSUS

Pradeep Dadarao Patil WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11002 OF 2017 IN

*60* MIDC LATUR FIRST APPEAL NO.3932 OF 2017 Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Ors

VERSUS

Pradeep Dadarao Patil WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11009 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3934 OF 2017 MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Balu Venkoba Ghodake (died) Thr LRs Venkat And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7232 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3934 OF 2017 Balu Venkoba Ghodake (died) Thr LRs Venkat And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur and Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11004 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3935 OF 2017 MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Dnyoba Piraji Pitle (died) Thr LRs Shivkanta (died) Pandharinath Dnyanoba Pitle And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3934 OF 2017 MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Balu Venkoba Ghodake (died) Thr LRs Venkat And Ors

*61* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3933 OF 2017 MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Kadir Fatrumiya Sahikh (died) Thr LRs Rukhiyabegum And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3935 OF 2017 MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Dnyoba Piraji Pitle (died) Thr LRs Shivkanta (died) Pandharinath Dnyanoba Pitle And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7230 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3933 OF 2017 Kadir Fatrumiya Sahikh (died) Thr LRs Rukhiyabegum And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur and Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7231 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3935 OF 2017 Dnyanoba Piraji Pitle (died) Thr LRs Shivkanta (died)pandharinath Dnyanoba Pitle And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur and Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11007 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3933 OF 2017

*62* MIDC LATUR MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Kadir Fatrumiya Sahikh (died) Thr LRs Rukhiyabegum And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7233 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3932 OF 2017 Pradeep Dadarao Patil

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur and Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil Joshi.

...

951 FIRST APPEAL NO.5027 OF 2017 The Regional Officer, MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Santram Babu @ Malu Kamble And Other WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4060 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.5027 OF 2017 Kiran Santram Kamble

VERSUS

Santram Babu @ Malu Kamble And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7234 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.5027 OF 2017 Gautami @ Asmita Amol Kamble

VERSUS

*63* MIDC LATUR The Maharashtra State Industrial Dev. Co., Latur Thr Regional Officer, Div. Latur And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9881 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.5027 OF 2017 Santaram Babu @ Malu Kamble

VERSUS

M.s.i.d.c., Thr Its Regional Officer, Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7235 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.5027 OF 2017 Gautami @ Asmita Amol Kamble

VERSUS

The Maharashtra State Industrial Dev. Co., Latur Thr Regional Officer, Div. Latur And Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kulkarni Girish N. ( Mardikar ) ...

952 FIRST APPEAL NO.5030 OF 2017 The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation At Latur

VERSUS

Devidas Nivarutti Kanje And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

953 FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018 The Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur

VERSUS

Dnyanoba Narsappa Panale And Ors

*64* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13514 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018 Dnyanoba Narsappa Panale And Anr

VERSUS

The MIDC, Thr Regional Officer, MIDC., Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2119 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018 Vatsala Subhash Sabde

VERSUS

The Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9641 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018 Vatsala Subhash Sabde @ Vatsala Dnyanoba Panae

VERSUS

The Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2578 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018 Yuvraj S/o Dnyanoba Panale (since Deceased), Thr Lrs. Rupali W/o Yuvraj Panale And Others

VERSUS

The Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14003 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018

*65* MIDC LATUR Vatsalabai Subhash Sabade and another

VERSUS

The Regional Officer, MIDC Latur and others.

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale Advocate for the Applicants in CA/2119/2020 and 9641/2018 Shri G.R.Syed ...

954 FIRST APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2021 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Shrirang Hariram Shelke And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1374 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2021 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Shrirang Hariram Shelke And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2653 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2021 Mangesh Baliram Shelke And Another

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Dev. Co., Latur Thr Regional Manager And Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N. Irpatgire, Shri Girish Kulkarni, Shri S. S. Manale and Shri S.C. Swami ...

*66* MIDC LATUR 955 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15691 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.35259 OF 2016 Chief Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur And Ors

VERSUS

Dastagir Turab Saheb Sayyed WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15692 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.35259 OF 2016 Chief Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur And Ors

VERSUS

Dastagir Turab Saheb Sayyed ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire ...

956 FIRST APPEAL NO.2883 OF 2008 Vithal Balu Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.4114 OF 2008 M I D C Latur.

VERSUS

Vitthal Balu Chame And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2475 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2883 OF 2008

*67* MIDC LATUR Vithal Balu Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

957 FIRST APPEAL NO.3005 OF 2008 Vijaykumar Mukundrao Kale And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3136 OF 2008 Vishwanath Irappa Kaile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2356 OF 2009 M I D C, Latur.

VERSUS

Vishwanath Irappa Kale And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13391 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3005 OF 2008 Vijaykumar Mukundrao Kale And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3873 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2356 OF 2009

*68* MIDC LATUR Vishwanath Irappa Kale

VERSUS

M I D C, Latur. And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2215 OF 2010 M I D C, Latur.

VERSUS

Vijaykumar Mukundrao Kale And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri K.D. Bade Patil ...

958 FIRST APPEAL NO.136 OF 2009 M I D C Through Regional Officer MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Babu Santosh Walse LRs Gunda Babu Walse And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11614 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.143 OF 2009 Ram Ambadas Kaile And Ors

VERSUS

M I D C Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.143 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Ram Ambadas Kaile And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.139 OF 2009 M I D C Through Regional Officer MIDC Latur

VERSUS

*69* MIDC LATUR Dhondiram Bhaguram Kaile And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.141 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Bhanudas Mahadu Kaile And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.138 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Baliram Vitthalrao Kaile And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.137 OF 2009 M I D C Through Regional Officer MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Ashok Harishchandra Kaile And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

959 FIRST APPEAL NO.140 OF 2009 M I D C Latur.

VERSUS

Harigir Nagendra Giri Thr LRs Gundugir And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9294 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.140 OF 2009 Amol Gundgir Giri And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur And Others

*70* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9295 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.140 OF 2009 Gundugir Harigir Giri (died) Thr LRs Surekha And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

960 FIRST APPEAL NO.1844 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Hariba Vithal Padile And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1838 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Raghu Balaji Maske And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1837 OF 2009 MIDC thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Mariba Limba Maske And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1839 OF 2009 MIDC thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Ambadas Balu Maske And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1841 OF 2009

*71* MIDC LATUR MIDC Thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Mohan Madhav Maske And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1843 OF 2009 MIDC thru Regional Managar At Latur

VERSUS

Nagnath Rama Malewad LRs Meera Nagnath Malewad And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1836 OF 2009 MIDC Thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Subhash Bankat Maske And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1840 OF 2009 MIDC Thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Dattatraya Khaderao Khandapurkar And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1842 OF 2009 MIDC Thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Bhanudas Pandurang Sude And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire ...

961 FIRST APPEAL NO.2348 OF 2009 M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Milind Khanderao Aurandkar And Ors

*72* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2246 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2349 OF 2009 Laxman Narsing Boke Minor U/g Nat Padminbai Narsing Boke And Anr

VERSUS

Thr Maharashtra Indutrial Dev Corpn Through Regional Officer Divisional At Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18428 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2350 OF 2009 Ramchandra Sopan Kaile And Anr

VERSUS

The Divisional Manager/regional Officer MIDC And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2350 OF 2009 M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Ramchandra Sopan Kaile And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18429 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2351 OF 2009 Baburao Eknath Kale LRs Laxman Baburao Kaile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1799 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2350 OF 2009

*73* MIDC LATUR Ramchandra Sopan Kaile

VERSUS

M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2349 OF 2009 M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Kisan Mahadu Boke And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14006 OF 2021 IN CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.38034 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2349 OF 2009 Kisan Mahadu Boke (died), through LRs Narsing and others

VERSUS

MIDC, Latur and others.

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2351 OF 2009 M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Baburao Eknath Kale LRs Laxman Baburao Kaile And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18426 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2352 OF 2009 Balu Chima Kaile And Ors

VERSUS

The Divisional Regional Officer M I D C Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2352 OF 2009

*74* MIDC LATUR Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Balu Chima Kaile And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

962 FIRST APPEAL NO.2568 OF 2009 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager Latur

VERSUS

Ashadulla Abdul Raheman Shaikh (died) Through LRs Andors WITH CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.20023 OF 20 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3108 OF 2009 Pandhari Vithal Chame Andnr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3108 OF 2009 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager Latur

VERSUS

Pandhari Vithal Chame And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5119 OF 2016 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.23143 OF 2015 Wajidmiya Abdulraheman Shaikh And Others

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager Latur And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5116 OF 2016

*75* MIDC LATUR IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.29363 OF 2015 Ashadulla Abdul Rahman Shaikh Died Through LRs Khairunbee And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6285 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1967 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional/manager At Latur

VERSUS

Kashinath Basappa Janapure And Anr.

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1967 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional/manager At Latur

VERSUS

Kashinath Basappa Janapure And Anr.

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Urgunde Suhas P., Shri Vijay B. Patil, Shri Deshmukh Rajeev B. and Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate h/f Shri Shri Gundre Suraj V.

...

963 FIRST APPEAL NO.1302 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Uddhav Khanderao Kale And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1311 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

*76* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Shivaji Bhairu Tekale And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12332 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2010 Bhagwat Devidas Panchal

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12330 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1308 OF 2010 Bharat Vitthal Adsule

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12324 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1302 OF 2010 Uddhav Khanderao Kale

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5171 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1305 OF 2010 Sachin Umakant Patil

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1305 OF 2010

*77* MIDC LATUR MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sachin Umakant Patil And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bhagwat Devidas Panchal And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1308 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Bharat Vitthal Adsule And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1306 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Kashinath Kondiba Kadam And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12329 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1306 OF 2010 Kashinath Kondiba Kadam

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kale Ajeet B. ...

964 FIRST APPEAL NO.2123 OF 2010

*78* MIDC LATUR MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Baburao Nivrutti Chame And Anr WITH CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.22056 OF 20 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2127 OF 2010 Sopan Madhav Ghar

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8726 OF 2015 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.22054 OF 2015 Baburao Nivrutti Chame

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2125 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Gopinath Eknath Sude And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2124 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pralhad Vithoba Chame And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2126 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

*79* MIDC LATUR Bhagwan Madhavrao Ghar Died Th LRs Gayabai Bhagwan Ghar And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2127 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Sopan Madhav Ghar And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8714 OF 2015 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.22066 OF 2015 Gopinath Ekanath Sude

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8724 OF 2015 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.22078 OF 2015 Pralhad Vithoba Chame

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8725 OF 2015 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.22074 OF 2015 Vishvanath Madhau Boke Died Thr LRs Baba Vishvanath Boke And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2128 OF 2010

*80* MIDC LATUR MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Vishvanath Madhau Boke Died Th LRs Baba Vishvanath Boke And O Rs WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2129 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Balbhim Nivarti Tele And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2131 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Maroti Apparao Tele (deceased) Th LRs Kalawati Marutitele And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8715 OF 2015 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.22060 OF 2015 Shrirang Madhav Ghar

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2130 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Shrirang Madhav Ghar And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

*81* MIDC LATUR 965 FIRST APPEAL NO.2339 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Barkatunnisa Ismail Patel And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9373 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1482 OF 2010 Barkatnisa Ismail Patel(died) LRs Sadik Ismail Patel

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Dev. Corp. MIDC Latur Thr Regional Manager, MIDC Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1482 OF 2010 Barkatnisa Ismail Patel(died) LRs Mohd. Sadik Ismail Patel

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar and Shri Fayaz K. Patel ...

966 FIRST APPEAL NO.2462 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Premalbai Bharat Todkari And Anr WITH CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.35607 OF 20 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2462 OF 2010 Premalbai Bharat Todkari D Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

*82* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13899 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2462 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Premalbai Bharat Todkari And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Satish S. Manale ...

967 FIRST APPEAL NO.2527 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Tulshiram Eknath Irle And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13901 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2527 OF 2010 MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Tulshiram Eknath Irle And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Satish S. Manale ...

968 FIRST APPEAL NO.3566 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Prabhu Deorao Bansode Died Th LRs Devabai Prabhu Bansode And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15306 OF 2010 IN

*83* MIDC LATUR FIRST APPEAL NO.3566 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Prabhu Deorao Bansode Died Th LRs Devabai Prabhu Bansode And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale and Shri Patil N.P. Jamalpurkar ...

969 FIRST APPEAL NO.227 OF 2016 MIDC Thr Regional Officer, Latur

VERSUS

Digambar Keshavrao Kulkarni Died Thr LRs Kamal Died Ramesh And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14839 OF 2018 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.26455 OF 2017 Digambar Keshavrao Kulkarni (died) Thr LRs Kamal (died) Ramesh And Others

VERSUS

Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14840 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.227 OF 2016 Digambar Keshavrao Kulkarni Died Thr LRs Kamal Died Ramesh And Others

VERSUS

The Regional Officer, Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7236 OF 2021 IN

*84* MIDC LATUR FIRST APPEAL NO.227 OF 2016 Digambar Keshavrao Kulkarni (died) Thr LRs Kamal (died) Thr Lrs. Ramesh And Others

VERSUS

Regional Officer, MIDC , Latur And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh ...

970 FIRST APPEAL NO.1305 OF 2016 Regional Manager, MIDC Latur Division, Latur

VERSUS

Venkatrao Vithal Valse And Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate h/f Shri Gundre Suraj V.

...

971 FIRST APPEAL NO.1616 OF 2016 MIDC Thr Divisional Office, Division Office, Latur

VERSUS

Tukaram Balu Chame And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9093 OF 2021 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.10029 OF 2016 Tukaram Balu Chame (died) Thr Lrs. Vaijnath Tukaram Chame And Others

VERSUS

MIDC Thr Divisional Office, Division Office, Latur And Anr WITH CROSS-OBJECTION NO.10029 OF 20 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1616 OF 2016

*85* MIDC LATUR Tukaram Balu Chame Thr His Attorney Holder Vaijinath Tukaram Chame

VERSUS

MIDC Thr Divisional Offic Division Office, Latur And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Satish S. Manale, Shri Milind Patil and Shri Kulkarni Girish N. (Mardikar) ...

972 FIRST APPEAL NO.1641 OF 2016 Gopinath S/o Rama Sarole

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

973 FIRST APPEAL NO.2216 OF 2016 MIDC Thr Divisional Office, Division Office, Latur

VERSUS

Satyanarayan Pannalalji Ladda And Anr WITH CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.10030 OF 20 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2216 OF 2016 Satyanarayan Pannalalji Ladda

VERSUS

MIDC Thr Divisional Office Division Office, Latur And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kulkrni Girish N. (Mardikar) ...

974 FIRST APPEAL NO.2268 OF 2016 MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Shetiba Gurappa Chogule And Anr

*86* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.293 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2268 OF 2016 Shetiba Gurappa Chogule

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

975 FIRST APPEAL NO.3820 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Namdeo Vithoba Chame And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G. Sontakke ...

976 FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 2017 Regional Officer, MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Nagorao Vitthalrao Salunke And Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire ...

977 FIRST APPEAL NO.6 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Deelip Tukaram Dhotre And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.257 OF 2009

*87* MIDC LATUR IN FIRST APPEAL NO.6 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Deelip Tukaram Dhotre And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2838 OF 2017 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.23472 OF 2016 Deelip Tukaram Dhotre And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

978 FIRST APPEAL NO.90 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.350 OF 2014 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Achut Baburao Pandhare And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2373 OF 2008 Habib Ladlesaheb Sayyad And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2374 OF 2008 Nivratti Tatya Sarwade

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

*88* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.92 OF 2009 M I D C Latur.

VERSUS

Fattu Mohammad Sayyed And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.94 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Habib Ladsaheb Sayyad And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7968 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.93 OF 2009 Nivrutti Tatya Sarwade

VERSUS

M I D C Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7963 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.92 OF 2009 Fattu Mohammad Sayyed And Ors

VERSUS

M I D C Latur.

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1895 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.90 OF 2009 Achut Baburao Pandhare And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

*89* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2127 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.92 OF 2009 Fattu Mohammad Sayyed And Another

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.93 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Nivrutti Tatya Sarwade And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2372 OF 2008 Fattu Mohammad Sayyad And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2375 OF 2008 Achut Baburao Pandhare And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9092 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2375 OF 2008 Achut Baburao Phandare And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur Andanother ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale, Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar and Shri Fayaz K. Patel

*90* MIDC LATUR ...

979 FIRST APPEAL NO.91 OF 2009 M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Ladlesab Abdulsab Sayyad And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10753 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.91 OF 2009 Ladlesab Abdulsab Sayyad And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector Latur Andanr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale, Shri Abdul Aziz, Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar and Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate h/f Shri S.V.Gundre ...

980 FIRST APPEAL NO.2723 OF 2009 Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Md Chandkhan Babukhan And Ors ...

981 FIRST APPEAL NO.1481 OF 2010 Yejaj Khayum Patel And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9372 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1481 OF 2010

*91* MIDC LATUR Yejaj Khayum Patel And Anr

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Dev. Corp. MIDC Latur Thr Reginonal Manager, MIDC Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2338 OF 2010 Mah State Industrial Development Corpn Through Divnl Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Vejai Khayum Patel And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar and Shri Fayaz K. Patel ...

982 FIRST APPEAL NO.1718 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Shivaji Sadhu Jadhav And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7213 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1729 OF 2010 Baliram Sheshrao Pandhare Died Thr LRs Satish Baliram pandhare

VERSUS

The MIDC Through Regional Manager, Latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1716 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Officer, Divisional Atlatur

VERSUS

Maheboob Vazir Shaikh And Anr.

*92* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1735 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Ankush Shivaji Jadhav And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1734 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer

VERSUS

Yakub Suleman Sayyed And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1731 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Shivaji Mahadeo Sarwade And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1733 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pandhari Irappa Lotkar And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1736 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Dagdu Mahadeo Sarwade And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1720 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Maimuddin Ladlesab Sayyed And Anr

*93* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1726 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Govind Pandurang Jadhav And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1721 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Lahu Shivaji Jadhav And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1729 OF 2010 MIDC through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Baliram Sheshrao Pandhare And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1728 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Rangnath Mahadeo Sarwade And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1722 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Bhagwan Shivaji Gawali And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1737 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Uttam Pandurang Jadhav And Anr

*94* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1724 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Rahmunissa Begam Abdul Wajid And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1717 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Shrirang Santaram Khaire And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1725 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Gopinath Irappa Lotkar And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7629 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1734 OF 2010 Shakenabee Rasulsaheb Sayyad And Anr

VERSUS

MIDC, Thr. Regional Officer, Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13606 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1733 OF 2010 Pandhari Irappa Lotkar

VERSUS

The Regional Manager, MIDC Latur And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Khandagale Kalidas D, Shri

*95* MIDC LATUR Vijay B. Patil, S.C. Swami and Shri Gundre Suraj V. ...

983 FIRST APPEAL NO.1730 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pushpabai Bapusaheb Pandhare And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Khandagale Kalidas D. and Shri S.C. Swami ...

984 FIRST APPEAL NO.2122 OF 2010 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Babu Nama Maske And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale, Shri More P. P. and Shri Sandip Swami ...

985 FIRST APPEAL NO.2267 OF 2016 MIDC Through its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Ramling Nama Maske And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6405 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3979 OF 2017 MIDC through Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Nagnath Nama Maske And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2006 OF 2021 IN

*96* MIDC LATUR CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.12690 OF 2019 Nagnath Nama Maske

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.292 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2267 OF 2016 Ramling Nama Maske

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.291 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3979 OF 2017 Nagnath Nama Maske

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3979 OF 2017 MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Nagnath Nama Maske And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

986 FIRST APPEAL NO.2508 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Chandar Maruti Pitale And Ors

*97* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2509 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Narhar Kishanrao Kulkarni And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6605 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2516 OF 2016 Vitthal Mahada Walse Died Thr LRs Rukminibai Vitthal Walse And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4645 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2511 OF 2016 Vithoba Ramji Pitale Died Thr His LRs Narayan Vithoba Pitale And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6606 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2513 OF 2016 Bhaguram Rama Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6603 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2518 OF 2016

*98* MIDC LATUR Jankibai Gopinath Gautam Died Thr His LRs Gopinath Jaiwant Gautam And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2511 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Vithoba Ramji Pitale Died Thr His LRs Narayan Vithoba Pitale And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6607 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2512 OF 2016 Kondiba Nama Gautam Died Thr His LRs Laxmibai Kondibagautam And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2513 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Bhaguram Rama Chame And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2515 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Bhima Hanmant Hadgile Died Thr His LRs Venkat Bhima

*99* MIDC LATUR Hadgile And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2516 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Vitthal Mahada Walse Died Thr LRs Rukminibai Vitthal Walse And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4638 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2515 OF 2016 Bhima Hanmant Hadgile Died Thr His LRs Venkat Bhima Hadgile And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4648 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2516 OF 2016 Vitthal Mahada Walse Died Thr LRs Rukminibai Vitthal Walse And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4649 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2512 OF 2016 Kondiba Nama Gautam Died Thr His LRs Laxmibai Kondibagautam And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr

*100* MIDC LATUR WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4650 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2508 OF 2016 Chandar Maruti Pitale

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4652 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2513 OF 2016 Bhaguram Rama Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4646 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2509 OF 2016 Narhar Kishanrao Kulkarni

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4647 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2518 OF 2016 Jankabai Gopinath Gautam Died Thr His LRs Gopinath Jaiwant Gautam And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6601 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2511 OF 2016

*101* MIDC LATUR Vithoba Ramji Pitale Died Thr His LRs Narayan Vithobapitale And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6602 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2509 OF 2016 Narhar Kishanrao Kulkarni

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2518 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Jankabai Gopinath Gautam Died Thr His LRs Gopinath Jaiwant Gautam And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.281 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2515 OF 2016 Venkat Bhima Hadgile And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13656 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2515 OF 2016 Bhima Hanmant Hadgile Died Thr His LRs Venkat Bhima Hadgile And Ors

VERSUS

*102* MIDC LATUR The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2512 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Kondiba Nama Gautam Died Thr His LRs Laxmibai Kondiba Gautam And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil Joshi.

...

987 FIRST APPEAL NO.2680 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Thr Divisional Officer, Latur

VERSUS

Dashrath Nama Maske Died Thr His LRs Chandrabhagabai and Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8325 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2680 OF 2016 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Thr Divisional Officer, Latur

VERSUS

Dashrath Nama Maske Died Thr His LRs Chandrabhagabai and Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2174 OF 2019 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.28818 OF 2018 Navnath Dashrath Maske

VERSUS

*103* MIDC LATUR Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Thr Divisional Officer, Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3523 OF 2019 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.6580 OF 2019 Chandrabhagabai Dashrath Maske And Ors

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Thr Divisional Officer, Latur And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: : Shri Satish S. Manale, Shri Ghute Suhas B., Shri Sarawade Patil Dattatray D. and Shri G.J.Kare ...

988 FIRST APPEAL NO.3841 OF 2017 The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Babu Eknath Lad ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G. Sontakke ...

989 FIRST APPEAL NO.3568 OF 2008 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Gurunath Sangramappa Birajdar And Ors WITH CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.22849 OF 20 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3568 OF 2008 Gurunath Sangramappa Biraar And Anr

VERSUS

*104* MIDC LATUR The State Of Maharashtra and Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9566 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3568 OF 2008 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Gurunath Sangramappa Birajdar And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri R.K.Ashtekar ...

990 FIRST APPEAL NO.2768 OF 2009 Sanjay Rajabhau Udgirkar LRs Suman Rajabhau Udgirkar And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar i/by Shri Kulkarni Girish N. (Mardikar) ...

991 FIRST APPEAL NO.656 OF 2010 MIDC, Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Kamladevi Gopikishan Agralwal And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale and Smt.Dube Anjali (Bajpai) ...

992 FIRST APPEAL NO.2314 OF 2010 MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Siddappa Baswant Malge And Ors ...

*105* MIDC LATUR Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar ...

993 FIRST APPEAL NO.218 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Nivratti Nagnath Barure And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.230 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Kashibai Kisan Barure And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.220 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Radhabai Vishnu Pate And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.221 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Ramchandra Nivratti Barure And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.222 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Saraswatibai Bharat Barure And Anr

*106* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.223 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Bharat Tulshiram Barure And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.224 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Sanjay Niwarti Barure And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.225 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Harishchandra Niwarti Barure And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.226 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Ganpati Nagnath Barure And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.227 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Rashid Nabbisab Shaikh

*107* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.228 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Uddhav Nagnath Baure And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.229 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Kishan Rama Barure LRs Nivrutti Nagnath Barure And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G. Sontakke ...

994 FIRST APPEAL NO.2673 OF 2011 MIDC Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Gurappa Venkat Dandgule And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1488 OF 2019 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.26111 OF 2017 Gurappa Venkat Dandgule

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17375 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2673 OF 2011 MIDC Through Regional Manager At Latur

*108* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Gurappa Venkat Dandgule And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil Joshi.

...

995 FIRST APPEAL NO.2803 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Krishnabai Ramvilas Agrawal And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Girish Kulkarni N. (Mardikar) ...

996 FIRST APPEAL NO.3089 OF 2015 Venkat Mallikarjun Waghmare

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1525 OF 2017 Regional Officer Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Venkat Mallikarjun Waghmare And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13845 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1525 OF 2017 Venkat Mallikarjun Waghmare

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G. Sontakke

*109* MIDC LATUR ...

997 FIRST APPEAL NO.3097 OF 2015 Mallikarjun Baswant Waghmare And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13846 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2017 Mallikarjun Baswant Waghmare And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2017 Regional Officer, MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Mallikarjun Baswant Waghmare And Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G. Sontakke ...

998 FIRST APPEAL NO.3098 OF 2015 Bankat Mallikarjun Waghmare And Another

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13847 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1524 OF 2017 Bankat Mallikarjun Waghmare And Anr

VERSUS

*110* MIDC LATUR The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1524 OF 2017 Regional Officer Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Bankat Mallikarjun Waghmare And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G. Sontakke ...

999 FIRST APPEAL NO.2805 OF 2016 Achalkumar Shivdas Gangle Died Thr Lr Shakuntalabai And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2806 OF 2016 Chunnumiya Isulal Shaikh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2814 OF 2016 Ayub Khan Nasib Khan Pathan

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2810 OF 2016 Vasantrao Ambadasrao Jadhav

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

*111* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2808 OF 2016 Parmilabai Vijaykumar Jadhav (Kinikar)

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.4501 OF 2016 Mohamedsab Dadasab Kabade Died Thr.lrs. Chabanbee Mohamedsab Kabade And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.4362 OF 2016 Khajoddin Chandsab Shaikh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2813 OF 2016 Bashir Isulal Shaik Died Thr His LRs Jahidabee And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2807 OF 2016 Isulal Mahtab Shaikh Died Thr His LRs Chunnumiya And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2811 OF 2016 Sudhakar Prabhu Swami

*112* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2812 OF 2016 Lalita Bankatrao Bhise

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil Joshi.

Advocate for the Claimants: in FA 2808/2016 Shri A.S. Lomte ...

1000 FIRST APPEAL NO.2675 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Nandkishor Indrajeet Agrawal And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17371 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2679 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Manager Latur

VERSUS

Pandurng Hanmant Chame And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2677 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Venkat Bhima Hadgile And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2678 OF 2011

*113* MIDC LATUR MIDC Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Santaram Nivarti Chame And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2679 OF 2011 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Manager Latur

VERSUS

Pandurng Hanmant Chame And Ors WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2680 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vithal Dhondiram Chame And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2681 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Babu Moka Maske And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17367 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2676 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sambha Eknath Walse (died) LRs Sajabai Sambha Walse And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17369 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2675 OF 2011

*114* MIDC LATUR MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Nandkishor Indrajeet Agrawal And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17373 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2680 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vithal Dhondiram Chame And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17377 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2677 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Venkat Bhima Hadgile And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17379 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2681 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Babu Moka Maske And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17381 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2678 OF 2011 MIDC Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Santaram Nivarti Chame And Anr WITH

*115* MIDC LATUR FIRST APPEAL NO.2676 OF 2011 MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sambha Eknath Walse (died) LRs Sajabai Sambha Walse And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol Vasmatkar, Shri Deshmukh Rajiv B., Shri Swapnil Joshi ...

1001 FIRST APPEAL NO.306 OF 2018 Babu Suleman Sayyed Died through LRs Maidabee And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.777 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.306 OF 2018 Shakerabi Rasoolsaheb Sayed And Anr

VERSUS

Babu Suleman Sayyed Died through LRs Maidabee And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.310 OF 2018 Chandar Maruti Pitale And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1146 OF 2018 Narhar Kishanrao Kulkarni

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH

*116* MIDC LATUR FIRST APPEAL NO.309 OF 2018 Kondiba Nama Gautam Died Thr LRs Lakshmibai And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1145 OF 2018 Bhima Hanmant Hadgile Died Thr LRs Venkat And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1147 OF 2018 Vithal Mahada Walse Died Thr LRs Rukmini And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.307 OF 2018 Bhau Venkoba Ghodke Died Thr LRs Chandrabhagabai And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.308 OF 2018 Jankibai Gopinath Gautam Died Thr LRs Gopinath And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1144 OF 2018 Bhaguram Rama Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

*117* MIDC LATUR ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil Joshi.

...

1002 FIRST APPEAL NO.888 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industril Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Ghininath Nagnath Birle An Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.889 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Nagnath Tukaram Birle, LRs Zingabai And Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Gunale V.D. ...

1003 FIRST APPEAL NO.2097 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Gundabai Hanmantrao Javir Nd Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8858 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2102 OF 2013 Baburao Narayanrao Sabde (died) Thr Lrs. Kaushalyabai(died) Suryakant Baburao Sabde And Another

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Dev. Co. Thr The Regional Officer, Latur And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2102 OF 2013

*118* MIDC LATUR Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Baburao Narayanrao Sabde And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4391 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.8215 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Bhanudas Laxman Sude And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4392 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.8215 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Bhanudas Laxman Sude And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2098 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Sambhaji Tukaram Iyanale And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2100 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Mangala Shrikant Malshe And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2101 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

*119* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Nirmalabai Govindrao Andurkar And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2099 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Shantadevi Jagdishprashad Bhansali And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate and Shri G.N. Kulkarni ...

1004 FIRST APPEAL NO.2797 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Tukaram Sangappa Chame And another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2800 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2797 OF 2013 Venkat Sangappa Chame

VERSUS

MIDC Latur Through Executive Engineer And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2799 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Kishan Baburao Gope And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2793 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

*120* MIDC LATUR Zhakiyabi Mohamad Kashim And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2800 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Bhagwat V Tandale (died) LRs Seema B Tandale And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15395 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2800 OF 2013 Bhagwat V Tandale (died) LRs Geet Bhagwat Tanadale

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Div Officer, Div Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14526 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2798 OF 2013 Baliram Gyna Kutwad And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8316 OF 2014 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.15381 OF 2014 Tukaram Sangappa Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2796 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

*121* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Manohar Sopan Barure And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2798 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Baliram Gyna Kutwad And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2801 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2797 OF 2013 Venkat Sangappa Chame

VERSUS

MIDC Latur Thr Ex. Engineer, Latur Division, Latur and Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire Advocate for the Respondent in FA/2800/2013 Shri G.N. Kulkarni ...

1005 FIRST APPEAL NO.2801 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Muktabai Sopan Shelke And Nother WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2802 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Machindra Santram Kutwad And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4455 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2802 OF 2013

*122* MIDC LATUR The Regional Officer, MIDC Latur

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8341 OF 2014 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.15439 OF 2014 Machindra Santram Kutwad

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire ...

1006 FIRST APPEAL NO.3043 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Nagnath Rama Yerme And Anoher WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3044 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Shivaji Vithalrao Narhare And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3049 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Ankush Nagnath Birle And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3051 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

*123* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Ganpati Panda Alapure Died LRs Baburao And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8847 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3043 OF 2013 Nagnath Rama Yerme (died) Thr LRs Kamalbai And Ors

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3045 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Baburao Gyana Tigile And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale and Shri Wagh Mukulanand R.

...

1007 FIRST APPEAL NO.318 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Veerbhadra Sidappa Malage and Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3408 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.279 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Shobhabai Baliram Kamble And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3406 OF 2013

*124* MIDC LATUR IN FIRST APPEAL NO.283 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Ganpati Gayanba Narwad And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3415 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.282 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Baburao Bapurao Iylane And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.278 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Bhimrao Bapurao Iylane And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3399 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.318 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Veerbhadra Sidappa Malage And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3411 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.278 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Bhimrao Bapurao Iylane And Another

*125* MIDC LATUR WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.279 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Shobhabai Baliram Kamble And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.282 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Baburao Bapurao Iylane And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.283 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Ganpati Gayanba Narwad And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.324 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Laxuman Venka Sude, LRs Bhanudas And Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.N.Kulkarni ...

1008 FIRST APPEAL NO.1040 OF 2014 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Narayan Narsappa Panale, Lrs. Jijabai And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1041 OF 2014 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

*126* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Pundlik Sangramappa Gobe And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1042 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Vishnudas Mohanlal Tiwari And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire Advocate for the Respondents in FA 1041/2014 and 1042/2014 : Shri G.N. Kulkarni ...

1009 FIRST APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Bharat Trimbak Malwadkar and Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3286 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2014 Vijaykumar Trimbakrao Malawadkar

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7181 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1168 OF 2014 Pratibha @ Pratima W/o Nagnath Mashalkar And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC , Thr Its Div. Officer, Latur And Anr WITH

*127* MIDC LATUR FIRST APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Trimbak Sangramappa Kadge Died LRs Shakundalabai And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3287 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.799 OF 2015 Vijaykumar Trimbakrao Malawadkar

VERSUS

Mah State Industrial Dev Corpn Thr Divnl Officer MIDC Latur And And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7169 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2014 Bharat Trimbak Malwadkar

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1168 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Dr. Nagnath Kumarappa Mashalkar, LRs Pratibha And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7184 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2014 Shakuntalabai Trimbakappa Kadge And Ors

*128* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Natu Sharad V. and Shri A.A. Joshi ...

1010 FIRST APPEAL NO.641 OF 2015 MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Chandar Bapu Kotwad Died Trough LRs Jijabai Chandar Kotwad And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1802 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Harishchandra Vaijanath Chatekar And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10109 OF 2016 IN CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.18242 OF 2015 Harishchandra Vaijnath Chatekar

VERSUS

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Regional Manager And Others WITH CROSS-OBJECTION NO.16817 OF 20 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.641 OF 2015 Chandar Bapu Kotwad Died Rough LRs Jijabai Chandar Kotwad And Others

VERSUS

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

*129* MIDC LATUR Regional Manager And Others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire ...

1011 FIRST APPEAL NO.1637 OF 2013 Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Sanjay Balwantrao Pande And Another WITH CROSS-OBJECTION NO.32 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1637 OF 2013 Sanjay Balwantrao Pande

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar h/f Shri C.R.Deshpande ...

1 FIRST APPEAL NO.3813 OF 2008 Bharat Vithalrao Halwai And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13302 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.4176 OF 2008 Bharat Vitthalrao Halwani (died) Through LRs Charushila And Ors

VERSUS

*130* MIDC LATUR MIDC , Through Regional Officer, MIDC Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2036 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.4176 OF 2008 Bharat Vithalrao Halwai Died Through LRs Charushila Bharat Halwai And Another

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.4176 OF 2008 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Bharat Vithalrao Halwani And Ors ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale and Shri Panale Sachin S.

Advocate for Respondent Nos.2AIII: Shri Vinod B. Jadhav Advocate for Respondent Nos.2AIII, IV: Shri A.N. Sabnis ...

2 FIRST APPEAL NO.4028 OF 2008 M I D C Latur.

VERSUS

Rajendra Uttamrao Nade And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.4049 OF 2008 Rajendra Uttamrao Nade

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale ...

*131* MIDC LATUR FIRST APPEAL NO.767 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11030 OF 2021 Baburao Narayanrao Sabde

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and another ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate h/f Shri S.V. Gundre ...

FIRST APPEAL NO.672 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.951 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.672 OF 2011 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1367 OF 2010 Baburao Govindrao Gaikwad and another

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and others ...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Y.B. Gaikwad, Shri G.S. Patil and Shri B.V. Thombre.

...

1 FIRST APPEAL NO.2972 OF 2013 Prabhu Dadarao Bansode (died), through LRs Devaibai and others

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur and others WITH 2 FIRST APPEAL NO.10 OF 2014 Laxman Malappa Chavan

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and another ...

*132* MIDC LATUR Advocate for the Claimants: Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar ...

...

Advocates for the MIDC in all matters:- Shri Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Advocate General a/w Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Shri Akshay P. Shinde, Shri S.S.Dande, Ms.M.S. Mhase, Shri Mayank Agnihotri, Ms.Ashwini Mate and Shri G.S. Khaire AGPs for the State of Maharashtra:- Shri B.V. Virde (in Sr.No.901 to 930), Shri S.R.Yadav (in Sr.No.931 to 970), Shri S.G. Sangle (in Sr.No.971 to 1011, in FA No.2972/2013 and FA 10/2014) and Shri S.B. Yawalkar (in Sr.Nos.1, 2 and in FA Nos.767/2013, 672/2011 and 1367/2010) ...

CORAM RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, JJ.

Judgment reserved on:- 26th October, 2021 Judgment pronounced on:- 23rd December, 2021 JUDGMENT ( Per Court) :- 1.

In all these First Appeals, most of which are admitted, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur (MIDC) is the appellant. Several cross appeals have been filed by the original claimants. On the request of all the litigating parties, all these appeals are taken up together for final hearing.

*133* MIDC LATUR 2.

Being aggrieved by the impugned awards, the appellant/ MIDC has approached this Court contending that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) (District Collector) had granted total compensation of Rs.11,61,30,586/- (Rupees Eleven Crores Sixty One Lacs Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Six). By the impugned awards, the Reference Courts have granted a total enhancement of more than Rs.840 crores. Some appeals are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in compensation.

3.

The oral submissions in the combined hearing of all these appeals, by consent, commenced on 26.08.2021 and concluded on 26.10.2021. By the consent of the parties, these appeals have been heard almost everyday, in the afternoon after the urgent admissions board was over. We have recorded the submissions of the learned Advocate General and the learned Advocates on behalf of the appellant and the learned Advocates on behalf of the respondents/ claimants, date-wise, in our notes register. Both the sides advanced oral submissions on propositions of law. They also tendered brief synoptical notes/ charts/ maps and details of lands in each appeal. The large colour shaded/ colour code map tendered by the learned Advocate

*134* MIDC LATUR General is undisputed and hence, the same is marked as Annexure "X-1" to this judgment. It shall be a part and parcel of this judgment.

4.

In this judgment, we have discussed the law applicable to these cases at the beginning of this judgment so as to make it convenient for us to draw our conclusions on the impugned awards and arrive at the appropriate quantification of the market rates of the lands acquired on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence.

5.

The learned Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra Shri Ashutosh Kumbhakoni has opened the final oral submissions on behalf of the appellant.

6.

He has presented a large colour map with colour codes (Annexure X-1) of the entire area from which the MIDC has acquired various parcels of land from three villages, namely, Harangul (Budruk), Chincholirao Wadi and Khandapur. The Railway Station is situated at the south side of Harangul (Budruk). He has then placed before us a second map showing zigzag red lines which mark the boundaries of various portions falling in the new additional Industrial Area for which the lands are acquired. He explains that the zigzag red line marks of such

*135* MIDC LATUR boundaries are owing to the exclusion of the irrigated lands from acquisition for setting up of the additional industrial area, keeping in view that such irrigated lands would require a high compensation and hence, the Government of Maharashtra took a conscious stand of dropping such lands from acquisition. The extent of the lands acquired from these three villages is 1073.61 Hectares, which is 2652.948 Acres.

7.

Shri Kumbhakoni has relied on the scheme of law under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short "the MID Act"). He has referred to the preamble, which reads as under :- "An Act to make special provision for securing the orderly establishment in industrial areas and industrial estates of industries in the State of Maharashtra, and to assist generally in the organization thereof, and for that purpose to establish an Industrial Development Corporation, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

WHEREAS, it is expedient to make special provision for securing the orderly establishment in industrial areas and industrial estates of industries in the State of Maharashtra, and to assist generally in the organisation thereof, and for that purpose to establish an Industrial Development Corporation, and for purposes connected with the-matters aforesaid; It is hereby enacted in the Twelfth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-"

8.

He refers to Section 1(3) of the MID Act, which

*136* MIDC LATUR reads thus:- "Section 1(3) This Act, except Chapter VI, shall come into force at once; Chapter VI shall take effect in such area, from such date as the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in that behalf.

Provided that, if in the opinion of the State Government any area or any part thereof, where Chapter VI has been brought into force, is not required or is not likely to be required for the purpose of development as an industrial area, the State Government may, by like notification, direct that Chapter VI shall cease to be in force in that area or in any part thereof on such date as may be specified in the notification, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such date: Provided further that, no notification shall be issued by the State Government under the first proviso after the expiry of such period from the date of bringing into force of Chapter VI as may be prescribed; and different periods may be prescribed for the area in which Chapter VI has been brought into force before the commencement of the Maharashtra Industrial Development (Amendment) Act; 1974 and for the areas in which that Chapter may be brought into force after such commencement."

9.

He then submits that Chapter VI under the MID Act pertains to it's applicability and for which, a separate notification has to be issued under the said chapter. It deals with acquisition and disposal of lands. Such notification was published in the State Gazette on 07.05.1992 and Chapter VI was made applicable from 08.05.1992.

*137* MIDC LATUR 10.

He has then referred to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as under :- "4.

Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.

(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification."

11.

He then submits that the notification declaring the intention of acquiring the land for the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (for short "the MIDC"), was issued on 24.04.1992. It was published in the gazette on 07.05.1992. This is the first golden date, which is extremely relevant. On 04.03.1993, the notice under Section 32(2) of the MID Act was published. This is the second golden date and as per Chapter VI of the MID Act, the period from 07.05.1992 till 04.03.1993, is very crucial. Sale Deeds that may have been executed between this period, both days inclusive, will have to be viewed with due

*138* MIDC LATUR circumspection and be scrutinized very carefully. 12.

He has then referred to Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the MID Act and Sections 6 and 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These provisions read as under :- Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the MID Act:- "Section 31 - Application The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such areas from such dates as have been notified by the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 1.

Section 32 - Compulsory acquisition (1) If, at any time in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development by the Corporation, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may acquire such land by publishing in the Official Gazette a notice specifying the particular purpose for which such land is required, and stating therein that the State Government has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section.

(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the State Government shall by another notice call upon the owner of the land and any other person who in the opinion of the State Government may be interested therein, to show cause, within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. The State Government shall also cause public notice to be given in the manner laid down in section 53 and in the Official Gazette.

Provided that ..........

Explanation ..........

(3) After considering the cause, if any shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit. (4) When a notice under sub-section (1) is published

*139* MIDC LATUR in the Official Gazette, the land shall on and from the date of such publication vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances : Provided that, if before actual possession of such land is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, it appears for the State Government that the land is no more required for the purposes of this Act, the State Government may, by like notice, withdraw the land from acquisition and on the publication of such notice in the Official Gazette, the land shall revest with the retrospective effect in the person in whom it was vesting immediately before the publication of the notice under sub-section (1), subject to such encumbrances, if any, as may be subsisting at that time. The owner and other persons interested shall be entitled to compensation for the damage, if any, suffered by them in consequence of the acquisition proceedings as determined in accordance with the provisions of section 33.

(5) Where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (4), the State Government may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.

(6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the State Government may take possession of the land, and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.

(7) Where the land has been acquired for the Corporation or any local authority, the State Government, shall, after it has taken possession thereof, by notification published in the Official Gazette, transfer the land to the Corporation or that local authority, as the case may be, for the purpose for which it was acquired, and the provisions of section 43-1A shall apply to any land so transferred.

33.

Compensation.

(1) Where any land is acquired by the State

*140* MIDC LATUR Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be determined in accordance with such agreement.

(3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the State Government shall refer the case to the Collector for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid : Provided that, no compensation exceeding such amount as the State Government may by general order specify, to be paid for such acquisition shall be determined by the Collector without the previous approval of the State Government or such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.

Provided further that, the State Government while issuing the general order under the preceding proviso shall adhere to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 relating to the determination of amount of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families.

(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), if after the case is referred to the Collector under that sub-section but before he has finally determined the amount of compensation, such amount is determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, the compensation shall be determined by the Collector in accordance with such agreement.

(4) Before finally determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall give an

*141* MIDC LATUR opportunity to every person to be compensated to state his cease as to the amount of compensation.

(5) In determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in sections 26 to 30 and other relevant provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, subject to the modifications that, the reference in section 26 to "the date on which notification has been issued under section 11"shall be the reference as "the date of the service of publication of the notice under sub-section (2) of section 32 of this Act in the manner for the time being laid down under this Act", and the reference in section 28 to "the time of the publication of the declaration under section 19"shall be the reference as "the date of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 32 of this Act in the Official Gazette." Explanation.

- For the purposes of this subsection, the date of the service of a notice under sub-section (2) of section 32 of this Act shall before the 8th day of June, 1967 mean the date on which the notice is served in the manner laid down in section 52 of this Act; and on and after the 8th day of June, 1967 the date of the publication of a notice under the said sub-section (2) of section 32 shall be the date on which the notice is published in the Official Gazette.

(6) For the purpose of determining the amount of compensation - (a) the Collector shall have power to require any person to deliver to him such returns and assessments as he considers necessary;

(b) the Collector shall also have power to require any person known or believed to be interested in the land to deliver to him a statement containing, as far as may be practicable, the name of every other person having any interest in the land as co-owner, mortgagee, tenant, or otherwise, and the nature of such interest, and of the rents and profits (if any) received or receivable on account thereof for three years next preceding the date of the statement.

*142* MIDC LATUR (7) Every person required to deliver a return, assessment or statement under sub-section (6) shall be deemed to be legally bound to do so within the meaning of section 175 and section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.

(8) The Collector may hear expert witnesses if it be necessary to do so in any particular case.

(9) The Collector or any officer authorised by him in this behalf shall be entitled to enter on and inspect any land which is subject to proceedings before him.

(10) The Collector shall dispose of every case referred to him under sub-section (3) for determination of compensation as expeditiously as possible and in any case within such time as may be prescribed by rules.

(11) The Collector shall determine the amount of cost incurred in any case disposed of by him under the section, and by what persons and in what proportions they are to be paid.

(12) Where any case is referred to any Collector under sub-section (3), the State Government may, at any stage, by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded therein, transfer it to any other Collector, and upon such transfer, unless some special directions are given in the order, the Collector to whom the case is transferred may hear and dispose of the case from the stage at which it was transferred, or the case may be heard and disposed of by him de novo."

13.

Sections 6 and 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :- "6.

Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.

(1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the

*143* MIDC LATUR signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5-A, sub-section (2):

Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1)- (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification: Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.

Explanation 1. - In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.

Explanation 2. - Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues.

(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and

*144* MIDC LATUR the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which It is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.

(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing." "16.

Power to take possession.

When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances."

14.

He then submits that the publication in the gazette under Section 32(1) of the MID Act will have an equivalent effect to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He points out that the award was delivered by the SLAO on 03.01.1998. 15.

Shri Kumbhakoni has then delved upon the theory of legislation by incorporation and the theory of legislation by reference and the difference between the two. He submits that sub-section (5) to Section 33 of the MID Act, as regards compensation, has undergone an amendment due to the

*145* MIDC LATUR introduction of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, "the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013"). For all purposes, an un-amended sub-section (5) will have to be relied upon while deciding this case.

16.

Section 33(5) of the MID Act reads as under :- Section 33(5) of the MID Act "33(5) In determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in sections 26 to 30 and other relevant provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, subject to the modifications that, the reference in section 26 to "the date on which notification has been issued under section 11"shall be the reference as "the date of the service of publication of the notice under sub-section (2) of section 32 of this Act in the manner for the time being laid down under this Act", and the reference in section 28 to "the time of the publication of the declaration under section 19"shall be the reference as "the date of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 32 of this Act in the Official Gazette."

Explanation.- For the purposes of this subsection, the date of the service of a notice under sub-section (2) of section 32 of this Act shall before the 8th day of June, 1967 mean the date on which the notice is served in the manner laid down in section 52 of this Act; and on and after the 8th day of June, 1967 the date of the publication of a notice under the said sub-section (2) of section 32 shall be the date on which the notice is published in the Official Gazette."

*146* MIDC LATUR 17.

Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:- "23. Matters to be considered on determining compensation. - (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration -- first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1)];

secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;

thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land from his other land;

fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;

fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change, and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.

(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-

*147* MIDC LATUR section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.] (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."

"24.

Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. - But the Court shall not take into consideration - first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition;

secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;

thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit;

fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;

fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired;

sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;

seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1); [or] [eighthly, any increase to the value of the

*148* MIDC LATUR land on account of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy.] ." 18.

In support of his contentions that Section 1(3) of the MID Act is comparable, not equivalent to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, he relies upon Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (5) Mh.L.J. 330, Gajanan Damodhar Shingare and another vs. Sub- Registrar Class-I, Karanja Ghadge and others, 2015 (4) Mh.L.J. 339 and Shaikh Kalim Shaikh Mohammad and another vs. the State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.10895/2017 (Aurangabad) judgment dated 25.09.2017.

19.

In Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 15 and 19 as under :- "15.

That, so far as locus standi of petitioners to raise objection to the acquisition proceedings, is concerned, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that a notification, as contemplated by Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961, has been issued on 15.04.1998 whereby, by virtue of provisions of Section 31, provisions of Chapter VI of the Act are made applicable. A notification under Section 1(3) is comparable with notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Once a notified area is declared, post notification sales of the land, situate in the notified area, are illegal and such transfers shall not bind the State. The purchasers of the land post notification do not get entitlement to challenge the acquisition proceedings."

"19.

Thus, since petitioners are purchasers of small

*149* MIDC LATUR plots of land after publication of notification under Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961, which is comparable to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, they do not have entitlement to challenge acquisition proceedings."

(Emphasis supplied) 20.

In Gajanan Damodhar Shingare (supra), it has been held in paragraph 6 as under :- "6.

The later Division Bench judgment in Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors., supra, considered the provisions of Section 1(3), 31 and 32 of MIDC Act and then held that the notification under Section 1(3) is equivalent to notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act. This observation appears in paragraph 15 of the said judgment."

21.

In Shaikh Kalim Shaikh Mohammad (supra), it has been held in paragraph 8 as under :- "8.

Similar facts were before this Court in Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde & others (supra). Taking into consideration the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioners therein, who were the buyers, do not have legal entitlement to challenge the acquisition proceedings since the petitioners are purchasers of small pieces of plots. It was held that the notification under Section 1(3) read with Section 30 of the MID Act, which is comparable with notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not confer any such right. Though, in this case, the distinguishing factor is that the petitioners, who are the sellers, are not challenging the acquisition, but they want the agreement to sell to be executed definitely with an

*150* MIDC LATUR intention to create a right in favour of the prospective purchaser."

22.

Shri Kumbhakoni has then referred to Section 23(1) (firstly) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and has canvassed that it is equivalent to Section 32(2) of the MID Act. He has then referred to Section 24 (firstly) and has canvassed that the Court should not take into consideration the degree of urgency, which has led to the acquisition. He has also referred to Section 24 (fifthly) to contend that any increase in the value of the land of the person interested, likely to accrue from the use which the land acquired will be put to, is not to be taken into consideration by the Court. In this context, he has relied upon the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs. Bhagatdasi Rajendrakumar Verma, 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 252 and Rajashekar Sankappa Taradandi and others vs. Asstt. Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1996) 9 SCC 642. 23.

In Bhagatdasi Rajendrakumar Verma (supra), it has been held in paragraph 6 as under :- "6.

There is absolutely no evidence laid by the respondents-claimants to establish all these facts. The persons from the concerned department have not been called as witnesses. The rates mentioned in the ready-recknor have not been placed on record. In terms of Section 24 of the Land

*151* MIDC LATUR Acquisition Act, the Court is prohibited from taking into consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired. Hence, the future development and potential prospective use of the acquisition are not the relevant circumstances to be taken into consideration by the Court to determine the market value of the land as has been held by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Tarlochan Singh and another vrs. State of Punjab and others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 424."

(Emphasis supplied) 24.

In Rajashekar Sankappa Taradandi (supra), it has been held in paragraph 6 as under :- "6.

The High Court has rightly rejected the approach adopted by the Reference Court. In view of the fact that as on the date of the notification there was no development in that area, though the lands were capable to be put to non agricultural use and that Section 24, clause fifthly prohibits taking into consideration of the future potentiality because of acquisition in determining compensation, the High Court rightly had determined the compensation at Rs.65,000/- per acre. As the State did not file any appeal, we confirm the High Court order and find no justification to further enhance the market value."

(Emphasis supplied) 25.

With regard to Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, he submits that even a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 including a copy given under Section 57 of the Land Acquisition Act, may be

*152* MIDC LATUR accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. He points out that the 13 sale deeds produced by the MIDC, were rejected and 23 sale deeds produced by the State were discarded, lock stock and barrel, by the Reference Court. 26.

He relies upon Cement Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Purya and others, (2004) 8 SCC 270, especially paragraphs 1 to 5, 18 to 29, 31, 32, 34 and 35, which read as under :- "1.

Noticing a conflict between two 3-Judge Benches of this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, (1997) 6 SCC 41 and Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530, another 3-Judge Bench of this Court on 31st of July, 2001 considered it appropriate to place C.A.No.6986/99 for consideration by a larger Bench. It is in this background, the above appeal and other connected appeals are now before us. 2.

In Kurra Sambasiva Rao's case (supra), this Court held that by introducing Section 51A in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter LA Act) the Legislature only facilitated the parties concerned to produce a certified copy of a sale transaction in evidence and nothing more. This is what the Court observed in the said case:

"Section 51-A only dispenses with the production of the original sale deed and directs to receive certified copy for the reason that parties to the sale transaction would be reluctant to part with the original sale deed since acquisition proceedings would take long time before award of the compensation attains finality and in the meanwhile the owner of the sale deed is precluded from using the same for other purposes vis-a-vis this land. The marking of the certified copy per se is not admissible in evidence unless it is duly proved and the witnesses, viz., the vendor or the vendee, are

*153* MIDC LATUR examined."

3.

According to the above judgment Section 51-A only dispenses with the production of the original sale deed and permits the receiving of a certified copy of such document in evidence. It is further held that the marking of certified copy per se does not make the contents of such document admissible in evidence unless it is duly proved and witnessed, that is, by the examination of the vendor or the vendee.

4.

In the subsequent case of V.Narasaiah (supra), though this Court did not notice earlier judgment in Kurra Sambasiva Rao's case noticing certain other judgments which took similar view disagreed with the said view and held that the object of the Act was not only to permit the production of certified copy of the sale transactions but was also to accept the same as evidence of the transactions. This is what the courts had to say in V.Narasaiah's case in regard to the insertion of Section 51-A in the LA Act:- "11. If the only purpose served by Section 51-A is to enable the court to admit the copy of the document in evidence there was no need for a legislative exercise because even otherwise the certified copy of the document could have been admitted in evidence.

Section 64 of the Evidence Act says that "documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned". Section 65 mentions the cases in which secondary evidence can be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document.

"65. (f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India, to be given in evidence";

12.

Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908 enables anyone to apply for a copy of the entries in Book No. 1 (the said Book is meant for keeping the register of the documents as well as non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property). When any person applies for a copy of it

*154* MIDC LATUR the same shall be given to him. Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of that Act says that:

"57.(5) All copies given under this section shall be signed and sealed by the registering officer and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original documents."

13.

If the position regarding admissibility of the contents of a document which is a certified copy falling within the purview of Section 57(5) of the Registration Act was as adumbrated above, even before the introduction of Section 51-A in the LA Act, could there be any legislative object in incorporating the said new provision through Act 68 of 1984? It must be remembered that the State has the burden to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which the State may have to depend upon the prices of lands similarly situated which were transacted or sold in the recent past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbouring areas. The practice had shown that for the State officials it was a burden to trace out the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the sale deeds and then to examine them in court for the purpose of proving such transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51-A was introduced in the LA Act."

5.

From the above, we notice that in the latter judgment of V.Narasaiah, this Court interpreted the scope of Section 51-A to include the production of certified copy of sale transaction and to make the same admissible in evidence without having to examine the vendor or the vendee of the said document to prove the contents of the document." "18.

From the above, it is seen that till the judgment of the three Judge Bench in V. Narasaiah's case (supra), the consensus of judicial opinion was that Section 51-A was enacted for the limited purpose of enabling a party to produce certified copy of a registered sale transaction in evidence only and for proving the contents of the said document the parties had to lead oral evidence as contemplated in the Evidence Act.

*155* MIDC LATUR 19.

A careful perusal of the judgment in Kurra Sambasiva Rao's case and other cases which fall in line with the said view discloses that they proceeded on the basis that prior to the insertion of Section 51-A in the LA Act, the Evidence Act did not permit the production of a certified copy of the registered sale transaction in evidence. Therefore, by the insertion of Section 51-A the legislature merely enabled a party to get over that problem. Thereafter, according to the said judgments, the party concerned had to prove the contents of the document by adducing oral evidence separately to prove the contents of the document.

20.

The above view of the Court in Kurra Sambasiva Rao's case, in our opinion, is not the correct position in law. Even prior to the insertion of Section 51-A of the Act the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Registration Act did permit the production of a certified copy in evidence. This has been clearly noticed in the judgment in Narsaiah's case wherein the court relying on Sections 64 and 65(f) of the Evidence Act read with Section 57(5) of the Registration Act held that production of a certified copy of a registered sale document in evidence was permissible in law even prior to insertion of Section 51-A in the LA Act. We are in agreement with the said view expressed by this Court in Narasaiah's case.

21.

In the above background the question for our consideration would be, what then is the real object of inserting 51A in LA Act?

22.

In the ordinary course a deed of sale is the evidence of a transaction by reason whereof for a consideration mentioned therein the title and interest in an immovable property specified therein is transferred by the vendor to the vendee. Genuineness of such transaction may be in question. In a given situation the quantum of consideration or the adequacy thereof may also fall for adjudication. The Courts, more often than not, are called upon to consider the nature of the transaction. Whenever a transaction evidenced by a sale deed is required to be brought on record, the execution thereof has to be proved in accordance

*156* MIDC LATUR with law. For proving such transaction, the original sale deed is required to be brought on record by way of primary evidence. Only when primary evidence is not available, a certified copy of the sale deed can be taken on record. Such certified copies evidencing any transaction are admissible in evidence, if the conditions precedent therefor in terms of Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act are fulfilled. The transaction evidenced by the sale deed must be proved in accordance with law.

23.

Evidences are of different types. It may be direct, indirect or real evidence. The existence of a given thing or fact is proved either by its actual production or by the testimony or admissible declaration of someone who has himself perceived it. Such evidence would be direct evidence. Presumptive evidence which is an indirect evidence would mean that when other facts are, thus, proved, the existence of the given fact may be logically inferred. Although the factum probandum and the factum probantia connote direct evidence, the former is superior in nature.

24.

The terms 'primary and secondary evidence' apply to the kinds of proof that may be given to the contents of a document, irrespective of the purpose for which such contents, when proved, may be received. Primary evidence is an evidence which the law requires to be given first; secondary evidence is evidence which may be given in the absence of that better evidence when a proper explanation of its absence has been given. However, there are exceptions to the aforementioned rule.

25.

Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act seeks to make an exception to the aforementioned rule. 26.

In the acquisition proceedings, sale deeds are required to be brought on records for the purpose of determining market value payable to the owner of the land when it is sought to be acquired. 27.

Although by reason of the aforementioned provision the parties are free to produce original documents and prove the same in accordance with the terms of the rules of evidence as envisaged under the Indian Evidence Act, the LA Act

*157* MIDC LATUR provides for an alternative thereto by inserting the said provision in terms whereof the certified copies which are otherwise secondary evidence may be brought on record evidencing a transaction. Such transactions in terms of the aforementioned provision may be accepted in evidence. Acceptance of an evidence is not a term of art. It has an etymological meaning. It envisages exercise of judicial mind to the materials on record. Acceptance of evidence by a court would be dependent upon the facts of the case and other relevant factors. A piece of evidence in a given situation may be accepted by a court of law but in another it may not be.

28.

Section 51-A of the L.A. Act may be read literally and having regard to the ordinary meaning which can be attributed to the term 'acceptance of evidence' relating to transaction evidenced by a sale deed, its admissibility in evidence would be beyond any question. We are not oblivious of the fact that only by bringing a documentary evidence in the record it is not automatically brought on the record. For bringing a documentary evidence on the record, the same must not only be admissible but the contents thereof must be proved in accordance with law. But when the statute enables a court to accept a sale deed on the records evidencing a transaction, nothing further is required to be done.

The admissibility of a certified copy of sale deed by itself could not be held to be inadmissible as thereby a secondary evidence has been brought on record without proving the absence of primary evidence. Even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word 'may'. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a court to be exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant factors.

29.

In V.Narasaiah's case, this Court correctly understood the said scope and object of insertion of

*158* MIDC LATUR Section 51-A in the LA Act when it held thus : "It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51A was introduced in the LA Act. When the section says that certified copy of a registered document "may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document" it enables the court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence."" "31.

Thus, the reasoning of this Court in Narasaiah's case that Section 51-A enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document without having to examine the vendee or the vendor of that document is the correct position in law. This finding in Narasaiah's case is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel (supra).

32.

Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting this view of the court in the Narasaiah's case as the correct view."

"34.

In M.S. Madhusoodhanan v. Kerala Kaumudi (P) Ltd., [(2004) 9 SCC 204], it is stated :

"119. .... They are rules of evidence which attempt to assist the judicial mind in the matter of weighing the probative or persuasive force of certain facts proved in relation to other facts presumed or inferred (ibid). Sometimes a discretion is left with the court either to raise a presumption or not as in Section 114 of the Evidence Act. On other occasions, no such discretion is given to the court so that when a certain set of facts is proved, the court is bound to raise the prescribed presumption. But that is all. The presumption may be rebutted."

35.

A registered document in terms of Section 51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not

*159* MIDC LATUR rebutted by discharging the burden, the court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that the court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any question is raised in this behalf."

(Emphasis supplied) 27.

With regard to sale instances, he tenders a ready reference chart and submits that the sale instances, not more than five years prior to the notification dated 24.04.1992, could be considered. Sale instances between 07.05.1992 to 04.03.1993 may be considered with great amount of caution and circumspection. Sale deeds after 04.03.1993, will have to be outrightly ignored. He then refers to the ready-reckoner chart and submits that the sale instances at Sr.Nos.(1) dated 27.05.1987, (2) dated 05.11.1992 and (3) dated 03.06.1993 could only be considered. The MIDC produced sale deeds with reference to all the three villages. Whereas, the claimants produced sale deeds only from one village, namely, Harangul and that too with regard to sale of such parcels of land which were abutting the road, commonly understood as "road-touch land". This was intentionally done to show higher sale rates so as to jack up the compensation amount. Such sale instances pertain to small

*160* MIDC LATUR parcels of land measurable in square feet and the claimants succeeded in impressing the three LAR Courts, who have delivered the 39 impugned awards granting more than Rs.840 crores of compensation amounts when the SLAO had granted about Rs.11.61 crores. Shri Kumbhakoni has placed heavy reliance upon the order of this Court (Coram : B.R.Gavai, (as His Lordship then was) and N.D.Deshpande, JJ) dated 25.09.2009 delivered in Civil Application No.2232/2009 in First Appeal No.2352/2009 (MIDC, Latur vs. Balu Chima Kaile and others) and other group of matters.

28.

Shri Kumbhakoni has then relied upon Basant Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 11 SCC 542, Ramanlal Deochand Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2013) 14 SCC 50 and Loveleen Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (2018) 7 SCC 492 with regard to the role of the Judge in such matters. He has referred to the "Arm Chair Rule".

29.

In Basant Kumar (supra), it has been held in paragraph 5 as under :- "5.

Shri N.C. Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that in RFA No.55/of 1970 Raghuvir Singh vs. Union of India

*161* MIDC LATUR arising out of the same notification, another Division Bench of the High Court had determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.8700/- per bigha and less Rs.500 per bigha for the notified lands; and similar was the view taken by another Bench of that Court in LPA No.137 of 1980 and batch decided on 19.04.1991 titled Chet Ram v. Union of India. All these lands being situated in the same village, the appellants are also entitled to the same rate of compensation. The Union of India had not filed any appeals against those cases. The lands are possessed of the same potential value and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the same compensation.

We had adjourned the case on the last occasion, as no one appeared for the Union Of India; Since, even today, no one is appearing for the Union of India, we have taken assistance of Shri Jain and have waded through the entire material evidence. The question is whether the appellants are entitled to the same compensation as was determined by the High Court in the appeals arising out of Raghubir Singh's came and Chet Ram's case? It has been firmly settled law by beadroll of decisions of this Court that the Judge determining the compensation under Section 23(1) should sit in the armchair of a willing prudent purchaser in an open market and see whether he would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed as market value as a willing and prudent buyer for the same or similar land, i.e.

, land possessing all the advantageous features and of same extent. This test should always be kept in view and answer affirmatively, taking in to consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. If feats of imagination are allowed to sway, he outsteps his domain of judicial decision and lands in misconduct amenable to disciplinary law. We have gone through the record and judgments in Chet Ram's case and Raghubir Singh's case decided by the two Division Benches. The learned judges have adopted the principal that the entire lands in the village shall be treated as one unit and the compensation shall uniformly be determined on that basis.

*162* MIDC LATUR for determination of compensation. It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command same market value. The lands abutting main road or national highway command higher market value and as the location goes Backward, market value of interior land would less even for same kind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value; it is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. In this case it is seen that land is as vast as admeasuring 1669 bighas, 18 biswas of land in the village. So , all lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market value.

Burden is always on the claimant to prove the market value and the Court should adopt realistic standards and pragmatic approach in evaluation of the evidence. No doubt, each individual have different parcels of the land out of that vast land. If that principle is accepted as propounded by the High Court, irrespective of the quality of the land, all will be entitled to the same compensation. That principal is not the correct approach in law. The doctrine of equality in determination and payment of same compensation fro all claimants involved in the same notification is not good principal acceptable for the aforestated reasons when both the lands are proved to be possessed of same advantages, features etc, then only equal compensation is permissible."

(Emphasis supplied) 30.

In Ramanlal Deochand Shah (supra), it has been held in paragraph 7 as under :- "7.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. It is trite that in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the question of adequacy of compensation determined by the collector, the burden to prove that the

*163* MIDC LATUR collector's award does not correctly determine the amount of compensation payable to the landowner is upon the owner concerned. It is for the claimant to prove that the amount awarded by the Collector needs enhancement, and if so, to what extent. The claimant can do so by adducing evidence, whether oral or documentary which the Reference Court would evaluate having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act while determining the compensation payable to the owners. To that extent the claimant is in the position of a plaintiff before the Court.

In the absence of any evidence to prove that the amount of award by the Collector does not represent the true market value of the property as on the date of the preliminary notification, the Reference Court will be helpless and will not be justified in granting any enhancement. The Court cannot go by surmises and conjectures while answering the reference nor can it assume the role of an Appellate Court and enhance the amount awarded by reappraising the material that was collected and considered by the Collector. What is important to remember is that a reference to a Civil Court is not in the nature of an appeal from one forum to the other where the appellate forum takes a view based on the evidence before the forum below. The legal position is settled by the decisions of this Court to which we may at this stage refer."

31.

In Loveleen Kumar (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 8 and 12 as under :- "8.

Having gone through the material on record and after considering the arguments of the advocates, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court, as well as the High Court, have not considered the sale deeds produced on behalf of the State for determination of compensation. A chart of the sale deeds on record filed before us by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the State reveals prima facie the value of certain lands involved in those sale deeds. The site plan of the village Hansi

*164* MIDC LATUR depicts such sold patches as being in the middle of the acquired land. The lands in all the sale deeds shown alongside the plan are in close proximity and adjoining to the land acquired under the Section 4 notification of the present case. There is no reason as to why the High Court, while coming to its conclusion, has not referred to the sale statistics. If the sale statistics are to be ignored, the High Court should have furnished reasons for doing so."

"12.

This Court in the case of LAO v. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC 708 discussed the burden upon each party in reference and held that each case must be examined on its own facts. It held as follows: "28. We may notice that Part III provides for procedure and rights of the claimants to receive compensation for acquisition of their land and also states various legal remedies which are available to them under the scheme of the Act. Under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court determines the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. Section 23 provides guidelines, which would be taken into consideration by the court of competent jurisdiction while determining the compensation to be awarded for the acquired land.

Section 24 of the Act is a negative provision and states what should not be considered by the court while determining the compensation. In other words, Sections 23 and 24 of the Act provide a complete scheme which can safely be termed as statutory guidelines and factors which are to be considered or not to be considered by the court while determining the market value of the acquired land. These provisions provide a limitation within which the court has to exercise its judicial discretion while ensuring that the claimants get a fair market value of the acquired land with statutory and permissible benefits.

*165* MIDC LATUR acquired land. This essentially must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

29.

It is a settled principle of law that the onus to prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the claimants. In Basant Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 542, this Court held that the claimants are expected to lead cogent and proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on the claimants, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for awarding of compensation which they rely upon. In this very case, this Court stated the principles of awarding compensation and placed the matter beyond ambiguity, while also capsulating the factors regulating the discretion of the Court while awarding the compensation. This principle was reiterated by this Court even in Gafar v.

Moradabad Development Authority, [(2007) 7 SCC 614] and the Court held as under: (SCC p. 620, para 12) "12. As held by this Court in various decisions, the burden is on the claimants to establish that the amounts awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they are entitled to more. That burden had to be discharged by the claimants and only if the initial burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to the State to justify the award."

Thus, the onus being primarily upon the claimants, they are expected to lead evidence to revert the same, if they so desire. In other words, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State in such reference proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the facts and clear position of documents, that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts are expected to scrutinise the evidence led by the parties in such proceedings.""

(Emphasis supplied)

*166* MIDC LATUR 32.

In Balu Chima Kaile (supra), this Court (Coram : B.R.Gavai (as His Lordship then was) and N.D.Deshpande, JJ), while admitting First Appeal No.2352/2009 (part of the appeals before us), has observed in the order dated 25.09.2009 in Civil Application No.2232/2009 in paragraph Nos.4 to 10 as under :- "4.

Perusal of the judgment and award passed by the learned Judge of the Reference Court would reveal that the learned Judge has not relied on any of the comparable sale instances while enhancing compensation. The learned Judge has only by adopting process of conjunctures and surmises and observing that the land for MIDC cannot be acquired in a remote place, and taking into consideration the compensation which is granted in case of some other land for some other village, has come to the conclusion that the rate of Rs. 6000/- per R. would be adequate compensation.

5.

Perusal of the entire judgment would reveal that the judgment is based on only conjunctures and surmises without considering any evidence. The learned Judge was at least expected to give some reasons, as to why he has jumped to a conclusion that the compensation from Rs. 255/- per R. was required to be increased to Rs. 6000/- per R. 6.

This Bench is assigned with the present roster with effect from 20th July 2009. In this period of ten weeks, we have come across dozens of matters decided by the same learned Judge (Shri X. X. Xxxxxxxx). In all the matters, we have found that the learned Judge has enhanced the compensation without giving any valid reasons. The compensation, on occasions, has been enhanced more than 20 times, 30 times than the one granted by the Collector. No

*167* MIDC LATUR doubt, that such a enhanced compensation could have been granted, had there been evidence available in that respect. However, in all the cases, we have found that the learned Judge only on the basis of conjunctures and surmises, has increased the compensation manifold. We find that the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court or this court, while deciding the cases before him.

7.

The land acquisition cases involve a huge money which come from the pocket of tax payers. Such a litigation cannot be dealt with in a cavalier and casual manner, as has been done by the learned Judge of the Reference Court.

8.

In that view of the matter, we are inclined to grant stay to the award, subject to the condition that the appellant deposits fifty percent amount under the award within a period of eight weeks from today.

9.

Hence, we grant interim relief in terms of prayer clause "A" of the Civil Applications, on condition that the appellant deposits fifty percent amount under the respective awards, in this court, within a period of eight weeks from today.

10.

Copy of this order be sent to the learned Registrar General of this court and also to the learned Principal District Judge, Latur, (both by fax) with a direction that the Land Acquisition References pending before the said Judge (Shri X. X. Xxxxxxxx) be withdrawn from the said Judge with immediate effect."

He submits that the above appeal is one of appeals, which this Court is presently finally hearing in this group. 33.

Shri Kumbhakoni has then canvassed that this is a

*168* MIDC LATUR peculiar case in which various parcels of lands, by avoiding irrigated parcels, have been acquired for the development of the MIDC with the intention of reducing the cost burden of compensation. He, therefore, submits that the "Belting System" would be a safe and sure method to be followed. Despite this factual position, the Reference Court has not followed the Belting System. He refers to Bhule Ram vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 11 SCC 307 and Bijender and others vs. The State of Haryana and another, (2018) 11 SCC 180 in support of his contention for applying the Belting System in these cases. 34.

In Bhule Ram (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 12 to 17 as under :- "12.

Where huge tract of land had been acquired and the same is not continuous, the court has always emphasised on applying the principle of belting system for the reason that where different lands with different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having different locations, cannot be considered to be a compact block. Land having frontage on the highway would definitely have better value than lands farther away from highway. (Vide: Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. G. Mohan Reddy & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 412).

13.

In Ashrafi v. State of Harayana, AIR 2013 SC 3654, this Court emphasised on belting system and observed that while determining the market value of the land, the court must be satisfied that the land under exemplar is a similar land. (See also: Sher Singh etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR

*169* MIDC LATUR 1991 SC 2048).

14.

In Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 60, this Court held that in towns and urban areas, distance of half kilometer to one kilometer makes considerable difference in price of the land. Therefore, the court has to determine the market value on the basis of the material produced before it keeping in mind that some of the lands were more advantageously situated.

15.

In Ramanlal Deochand Shah v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 3452, this Court held that the burden of proof lies on the land owner and in case he does not lead any evidence in support of his claim to prove the inadequacy of market value fixed of the land acquired, the court cannot help him. (See also: Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divl. Office and Land Acquisition Officer v. Sreelatha Bhoopal).

16.

In view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that the market value of the land is to be assessed keeping in mind the limitation prescribed in certain exceptional circumstances under Section 23 of the Act. A guesswork, though allowed, is permissible only to a limited extent. The market value of the land is to be determined taking into consideration the existing use of the land, geographical situation/location of the land alongwith the advantages/disadvantages i.e. distance from the National or State Highway or a road situated within a developed area etc. In urban area even a small distance makes a considerable difference in the price of land. However, the court should not take into consideration the use for which the land is sought to be acquired and its remote potential value in future. In arriving at the market value, it is the duty of the party to lead evidence in support of its case, in absence of which the court is not under a legal obligation to determine the market value merely as per the prayer of the claimant.

17.

There may be a case where a huge tract of land is acquired which runs though continuous, but to the

*170* MIDC LATUR whole revenue estate of a village or to various revenue villages or even in two or more states. Someone's land may be adjacent to the main road, others' land may be far away, there may be persons having land abounding the main road but the frontage may be varied. Therefore, the market value of the land is to be determined taking into consideration the geographical situation and in such cases belting system may be applied. In such a fact- situation every claimant cannot claim the same rate of compensation."

(Emphasis supplied) 35.

In Bijender (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 31 to 35 as under :- "31.

Coming first to the question as to whether the Courts below were justified in applying the "Belting System" for determining the market rates of the acquired land in question?

32.

We are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the nature, extent, size, surrounding and location of the acquired land, the Courts below were justified in applying Belting System for determining the market rate of the acquired land. 33.

One cannot dispute that the Belting System is a judicially accepted method for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. It is applied in appropriate cases when different parcels of lands with different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having different locations are acquired which put together comprises of a large chunk of land. Such chunk cannot be taken as a compact block.

34.

The acquired land having a frontage abutting the highway/main road always has a better value as compared to the land, which is away from the highway/main road. Indeed, farther the land from the highway/main road, lesser the value of such land. In such a situation, where large pieces of land having different locations are acquired, Belting System is considered apposite for determining the market value of the lands. (See Union of India v.

*171* MIDC LATUR Mangatu Ram, 1997 (6) SCC 59 and A.P.

Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. v. G. Mohan Reddy, 2010 (15) SCC 412).

35.

In Belting System, the acquired land is usually divided in two or three belts depending upon the facts of each case. The market value of the front belt abutting the main road is taken to fetch maximum value whereas the second belt fetches two third or so of the rate determined in relation to the first belt and the third belt, if considered proper to carve out, fetches half or so of the maximum. It is again depending upon facts of each case."

(Emphasis supplied) 36.

He has then canvassed that the sale deeds after the cut off date cannot be considered for reverse calculation. It is more appropriate to take an old sale deed upto 4 to 5 years and by adding the escalation percentage component, can draw the approximate market rate of the land. He submits that the pit fall in following reverse calculation is that after the land is put to use for the development of the industrial area, there would be an unexpected sudden escalation of prices of lands or an orchestrated escalation, as the public would realize that the lands can be sold for a fortune due to the development of the MIDC. This leads to a sudden rise in the prices of land. We would refer to the chart of the sale deeds evidencing an artificial rise, subsequently in this judgment. The technique of considering the

*172* MIDC LATUR old sale deeds and adding 7.5 to 10% per annum escalation component to draw an approximate value of the land, is not only a time tested principle, but has also been recognized by law. He refers to General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, (2008) 14 SCC 745 and Bhupal Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 5 SCC 801.

37.

In GM, ONGC (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 as under :- "15.

Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-onsale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger.

For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the `rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

*173* MIDC LATUR 16.

Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions in future, say of the years 1994-95 or 1995-96 are taken as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per annum. How far is this safe?

One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for a residential/commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development and improvement in the infrastructure/ amenities/facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands will become more valuable.

Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on account of the proposed residential/commercial/ industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the annual increase in market value was around 10% per annum before the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development / proposed development.

*174* MIDC LATUR should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard increase becomes unreliable. Courts should therefore avoid determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may.

17.

In this case, the acquisition was in a rural area. There was no evidence of any out-of-ordinary developments or increases in prices in the area. We are of the view that providing an escalation of 7.5% per annum over the 1987 price under Ex.15, would be sufficient and appropriate to arrive at the market value of acquired lands."

(Emphasis supplied) 38.

In Bhupal Singh (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 26 and 27 as under :- "26.

We are not impressed by the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant when he submitted that we should take into consideration the fair market value of the adjacent land determined by the Court which was acquired 10 years subsequent to the acquisition in question in 1989-1990 and then go on reducing its value 10% every year to determine the fair market value of the land in question. To say the least, this submission is wholly misconceived being against the settled principle of law relating to land acquisition cases. 27.

As rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondent, the fair market value of the acquired land is required to be determined under Section 23 of the Act on the basis of the market rate of the adjacent lands similarly situated to the acquired lands prevailing on the date of acquisition or/and prior to acquisition but not subsequent to the date of acquisition. In appropriate cases, addition of 10% per annum escalation in the prices specified in the sale deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation to

*175* MIDC LATUR adjacent similarly situated lands for fixing the market value of the acquired land may be permitted. Such is, however, not the case in hand. Here is the case where firstly, no sale deeds were filed by the appellants to prove the fair market value of the acquired land and secondly, what they now want this Court to do is to take into consideration the rate of those lands which were acquired ten years after the date of acquisition in question and then reduce the value of such land by 10% every year so as to determine the fair market value of the acquired land in question. In our view, such procedure for determination is not provided in the Act."

(Emphasis supplied) 39.

Shri Kumbhakoni submits that ideally, an escalation of 7.5% has been advised in judicial pronouncements. In the instant case, for the benefit of the claimants, the State is willing to offer 10% per annum escalation by taking into account the old sale deeds.

40.

He has then drawn our attention to the size of the lands acquired for the additional industrial area. He points out that the claimants had shown sale instances in square feet and that too at locations which were touching the road on the northern side, though several parcels of land acquired were admeasuring 3 Hectares and similar sizes, far away from the road. The lands on the southern side of the railway line are not

*176* MIDC LATUR road touching and it is universally accepted that the lands touching the road are more costlier than the lands touching the railway lines. He has referred to Tarlochan Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 SCC 424 and State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh, (2001) 6 SCC 254.

41.

In Tarlochan Singh (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 as under :- "2.

Firstly, it was contended that the Division Bench having determined the compensation was not justified in deducting 1/3rd towards developmental charges as the sales therein though were on yardage basis and determined the compensation on acreage basis @ Rs.58,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.48,000/- etc. Though we find force in the contention, the matter does not rest with that conclusion. It is seen that the High Court in its judgment has relied upon the sale transactions small extents of 150 to 250 sq. yards which was worked out on an average of Rs. 1,37,600/ -. They were sold on yardage basis. The learned Judges have determined market value on acreage basis and deducted 1/3rd towards development charges and determined the market value on that basis. The question emerges, ultimately, whether the fixation of the market value @ Rs.

50,000/- and Rs.48,000/- is unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of these cases. It is seen that a land of magnitude of 881 acres when was acquired for planned development of the town, a willing purchaser would offer the same rates at which small plots admeasuring to 120 to 250 sq. ft. were offered and sold. It is impossible to accept that the lands would fetch that price when a large track of land was offered for sale in open market to willing buyer.

*177* MIDC LATUR the basis to determine the compensation. Even though the vendor or vendees were examined to prove the sale transaction, we cannot determine market value on that basis and award compensation. The court has power and duty to evaluate the evidence in proper perspective, apply correct principles and award compensation. Since the State did not file any appeals, we cannot interfere with the award of the market value determined @ Rs.50,000/- and Rs.48,400/- by the Division Bench for the lands in appeals.

3.

It is next contended that for lands in Jamalpur, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.50,000/-. The lands in Kuliawal were equally situated and compensation paid at the rate of Rs.39,000/per acre is unjust and arbitrary. We find no force in the contention. Though some plans have been produced before us to show that both the lands are on the side of Tajpur Road, they were not filed in the Reference Court not subjected them for cross-examination of the L.A.C. of the respective distances of the place, the quality of the land at the respective village and the prices prevailing in each village. It is common knowledge that even all the lands in the same village may not possess the same quality and command common market prices.

It is seen that the lands in Jamalpur are cutting across the main road Ludhiana-Chandigarh and that, therefore, the learned Judges have awarded the compensation at different rates on the basis of belting. Whereas Kuliawal lands are on the northern side below Tajpur Road and the road is not an important one. It was also stated in the judgment that lands in Kuliawal village is not abutting main road and that, therefore, the lands do not command any higher value. Accordingly, the market value was determined for the lands abutting 55 karams at different rate and for the rest of the lands compensation was awarded @ Rs.39,000/-. The appellants' lands are not within the belt. Therefore, the classification made on the basis of the situation of the land cannot be said to be illegal.

*178* MIDC LATUR distinction made by the High Court was right. The learned Judges determined different rates of market value on that basis."

"5.

It is next contended that the lands in the small extents of about 33 sale transactions would show that the lands are capable of fetching in future higher market value and the notification itself was published for the purpose of planned-development of city. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in determining the market value @ Rs.58,000/- for Jamalpur area. Potential value for future development should have been taken into consideration in fixing the market value. Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act expressly prohibits and puts an embargo on the Court in taking the factors mentioned in Section 24 as relevant in determining the market value. Under these circumstances, the future development and potential prospective use of the acquisition etc. are not relevant circumstances. Even the purpose of acquisition also is not relevant.

We are of the opinion that the appellants are not entitled to further increase for determination of compensation and the appeals do not warrant interference. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without costs since the respondents are not represented by any counsel."

42.

In State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 5 and 6 as under :- "5.

Counsel for the State was right when he submitted that the High Court erred in rejecting Exhibits R/2 and R/3 as inadmissible only on the ground that the parties to the documents had not been examined by the State. It is not the law that a certified copy of a registered agreement for sale is inadmissible in evidence unless the parties to the document are examined to prove it. That would be contrary to what Section 77 read with Sections 74(2) and 76 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and more specifically Section 51-A of the Act provide. As far as the

*179* MIDC LATUR provisions of the Evidence Act are concerned, a certified copy of the registered sale deed is admissible in evidence and does not need to be proved by calling a witness. (See Madamanchi Ramappa V. Muthaluru Bojjappa AIR 1963 SC 1633, at p.1637).

6.

Section 51-A of the Act is to the same effect. In Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue officer v. V. Narasaiah, it was held that by virtue of Section 51- A, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 including a copy under Section 57 of the Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such documents. It is open to the Court to accept the certified copy as reliable evidence and without examining parties to the documents. This does not however preclude the Court from rejecting the transaction itself as being malafide or sham provided such a challenge is laid before the Court." (Emphasis supplied) 43.

He submits that the three principles of deductions that are applied to large tracts of land that are acquired, are (a) development of infrastructure, (b) expenditure on development and (c) de-escalation (waiting period).

44.

He submits that the areas to be deducted from large parcels of land, are such which are used for laying of roads, roadside gutters, sewerage, truck terminals and effluent treatment plant etc.. The cost towards development has to be deducted. He relies upon Chandrashekar and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2012) 1 SCC 390 and Major General Kapil

*180* MIDC LATUR Mehra and others vs. Union of India and another, (2015) 2 SCC 262.

45.

In Chandrashekar (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 17 and 19 to 25 as under :- "17.

The present controversy calls for our determination on the quantum of the deductions to be applied, to the market value assessed on the basis of the exemplar sale transaction, so as to ascertain the fair compensation payable to the land loser. The only factual parameters to be kept in mind are, the factual inferences drawn in the foregoing paragraph. On the issue in hand, we shall endeavor to draw our conclusions from past precedents." "19.

Based on the precedents on the issue referred to above it is seen, that as the legal proposition on the point crystallized, this Court divided the quantum of deductions (to be made from the market value determined on the basis of the developed exemplar transaction) on account of development into two components.

19.1 Firstly, space/area which would have to be left out, for providing indispensable amenities like formation of roads and adjoining pavements, laying of sewers and rain/flood water drains, overhead water tanks and water lines, water and effluent treatment plants, electricity sub-stations, electricity lines and street lights, telecommunication towers etc. Besides the aforesaid, land has also to be kept apart for parks, gardens and playgrounds.

Additionally, development includes provision of civic amenities like educational institutions, dispensaries and hospitals, police stations, petrol pumps etc. This "first component", may conveniently be referred to as deductions for keeping aside area/space for providing developmental infrastructure.

19.2 Secondly, deduction has to be made for the expenditure/expense which is likely to be incurred in providing and raising the infrastructure and civic amenities referred to above, including costs for

*181* MIDC LATUR levelling hillocks and filling up low lying lands and ditches, plotting out smaller plots and the like. This "second component" may conveniently be referred to as deductions for developmental expenditure/expense.

20.

It is essential to earmark appropriate deductions, out of the market value of an exemplar land, for each of the two components referred to above. This would be the first step towards balancing the differential factors. This would pave the way for determining the market value of the undeveloped acquired land on the basis of market value of the developed exemplar land.

21.

As far back as in 1982, this Court in Brigadier Sahib Singh Kalha's case (supra) held, that the permissible deduction could be upto 53 percent. This deduction was divided by the Court into two components. For the "first component" referred to in the foregoing paragraph, it was held that a deduction of 20 percent should be made. For the "second component", it was held that the deduction could range between 20 to 33 percent. It is therefore apparent, that a deduction of upto 53 percent was the norm laid down by the Court as far back as in 1982. The aforesaid norm remained unchanged for a long duration of time, even though, keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances emerging from case to case, different deductions were applied by this Court to balance the differential factors between the exemplar land and the acquired land. Recently however, this Court has approved a higher component of deduction.

22.

In 2009 in Lal Chand's case (supra) and in 2010 in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board's case (supra), it has been held, that while applying the sale consideration of a small piece of developed land, to determine the market value of a large tract of undeveloped acquired land, deductions between 20 to 75 percent could be made. But in 2009 in Subh Ram's case (supra), this Court restricted deductions on account of the "first component" of development, as also, on account of the "second component" of development to 33-1/3 percent

*182* MIDC LATUR each. The aforesaid deductions would roughly amount to 67 percent of the component of the sale consideration of the exemplar sale transaction(s). 23.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the analysis of the legal position referred to in the foregoing two paragraphs, we are of the view that there is no discrepancy on the issue, in the recent judgments of this Court. In our view, for the "first component" under the head of "development", deduction of 33-1/3 percent can be made. Likewise, for the "second component" under the head of "development" a further deduction of 331/3 percent can additionally be made. The facts and circumstances of each case would determine the actual component of deduction, for each of the two components. Yet under the head of "development", the applied deduction should not exceed 67 percent. That should be treated as the upper benchmark. This would mean, that even if deduction under one or the other of the two components exceeds 33-1/3 percent, the two components under the head of "development" put together, should not exceed the upper benchmark. 24.

In Lal Chand's case (supra) and in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board's case (supra), this Court expressed the upper limit of permissible deductions as 75 percent. Deductions upto 67 percent can be made under the head of "development". Under what head then, would the remaining component of deductions fall? Further deductions would obviously pertain to considerations other than the head of "development".

25.

Illustratively a deduction could be made keeping in mind the waiting period required to raise infrastructure, as also, the waiting period for sale of developed plots and or built-up areas. This nature of deduction may be placed under the head "waiting period". Illustratively again, deductions could also be made in cases where the exemplar sale transaction, is of a date subsequent to the publication of the preliminary notification. This nature of deduction may be placed under the head "de-escalation". Likewise, deductions may be made for a variety of other causes which may arise

*183* MIDC LATUR in different cases. It is however necessary for us to conclude, in the backdrop of the precedents on the issue, that all deductions should not cumulatively exceed the upper benchmark of 75 percent. A deduction beyond 75 percent would give the impression of being lopsided, or contextually unreal, since the land loser would seemingly get paid for only 25 percent of his land. This impression is unjustified, because deductions are made out of the market value of developed land, whereas, the acquired land is undeveloped (or not fully developed). Differences between the nature of the exemplar land and the acquired land, it should be remembered, is the reason/cause for applying deductions."

(Emphasis supplied) 46.

In Major General Kapil Mehra (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 32 to 38 and 40, as under :- "32.

While making one third deduction towards development cost, the learned single Judge did not keep in view the two essential components of deduction for development. Deduction for development consists of two components:- firstly, appropriate deduction to be made towards the area required to be utilized for roads, drains and common facilities like parks etc.; secondly, further deduction to be made towards the cost of development, that is cost of levelling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, erection of electrical poles and water lines etc. For deduction of development towards land and development charges, the nature of development, conditions and nature of the land, the land required to be set apart under the Building Rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water supply etc. and other relevant circumstances involved are required to be considered.

33.

In Haryana State Agricultural Market Board And Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar And Ors., (2011) 15 SCC

*184* MIDC LATUR 297, it was held as under:

"10. It is now well settled that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the area to be used for roads, drains, and common facilities like park, open space, etc. Thereafter, further deduction will have to be made towards the cost of development, that is, the cost of leveling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, and the cost of drawing electrical, water and sewer lines." 34.

Consistent view taken by this Court is that one third deduction is made towards the area to be used for roads, drains, and other facilities, subject to certain variations depending upon its nature, location, extent and development around the area. Further, appropriate deduction needs to be made for development cost, laying roads, erection of electricity lines depending upon the location of the acquired land and the development that has taken place around the area.

35.

Reiterating the rule of one third deduction towards development, in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595, this Court in paragraph 19 held as under:- "19. In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354) the Court held: (SCC pp. 359-60, para 7) "7... It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for road and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to

*185* MIDC LATUR make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located.

In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough, particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character or a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one sides abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account.

There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose."

The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in

*186* MIDC LATUR Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. ((2003)10 SCC 525, V.Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board V. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004)10 SCC 745."

36.

While determining the market value of the acquired land, normally one third deduction i.e. 331/3% towards development charges is allowed. One third deduction towards development was allowed in Special Tehsildar, L.A. Vishakapatnam vs. A.Mangala Gowri, (1991) 4 SCC 218; Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 SCC 245; Santosh Kumari v. State of Haryana (1996) 10 SCC 631; Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- LAO v. Shaik Azam Saheb, (2009) 4 SCC 395; A.P.

Housing Board v. Manohar Reddy, (2010)12 SCC 707; Ashrafi v. State of Haryana, (2013) 5 SCC 527 and Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 165.

37.

Depending on nature and location of the acquired land, extent of land required to be set apart and expenses involved for development, 30% to 50% deduction towards development was allowed in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar and Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297; Deputy Director Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidua AIR 2007 SC 740; Mummidi Apparao (Dead by LR) vs. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemical Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 1506; and Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769.

38.

In few other cases, deduction of more than 50% was upheld. In the facts and circumstances of the case in Basava and others v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 9 SCC 640, this Court upheld the deduction of 65%. In Kanta Devi v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 201, deduction of 60% towards development charges was held to be legal. This Court in Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, held that deduction of 67% amount was not improper. Similarly, in Chandrasekhar (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. vs. LAO & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 390, deduction of 70% was upheld."

*187* MIDC LATUR "40.

Rule of one third deduction towards development appears to be the general rule. But so far as Delhi Development Authority is concerned, or similar statutory authorities, where well planned layouts are put in place, larger land area may be utilized for forming layout, roads, parks and other common amenities. Percentage of deduction for development of land to be made in DDA or similar statutory authorities with reference to various types of layout was succinctly considered by this Court in Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769 and observing that the deduction towards the development range from 20% to 75% of the price of the plots, in paras 13 to 22, this Court held as under:- "13.

The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated.

14.

The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilized for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilize around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc.

15.

The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of leveling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying water lines, electricity lines and developing parks ands civil amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the

*188* MIDC LATUR "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. 16.

On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorized private residential layout, the percentage of "deduction for development" may be far less. This is because in an unauthorized layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorized layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots.

17.

The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorized private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout.

18.

The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq. m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.

19.

If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.

20. Therefore the deduction for the "development

*189* MIDC LATUR factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized private layout or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure.

21.

Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilized for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout-whether it is residential , residential- cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community facilities, parks and playgrounds provided.

22.

Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%."

Lal Chand's case deals with acquisition of lands by DDA under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme where 40% deduction was made towards the land area to be utilized for laying down of roads, drains etc. Further deduction of 35% of the value of the developed plot towards cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage, laying down water lines, electricity lines was made."

47.

He, therefore, contends that the impugned awards are unsustainable and the Reference Courts have granted

*190* MIDC LATUR exorbitant rise without applying the three principles of deduction. 48.

Shri Kumbhakoni then points out that common awards have been delivered by the Reference Courts. He has placed before us colour pictures to indicate the description of the properties. He states that the impugned awards have to be quashed and set aside as everything that was prohibited by judicial pronouncements, has been done by the Reference Court. It has blindly relied on earlier judgments, which should not have been followed. It did not follow the Arm Chair Rule. It did not follow the escalation principle and incorrectly followed the reverse calculation principle which is dangerous. It relied upon the latest sale instances after the cut-off date instead of taking into account old sale instances.

It has relied on sale instances of small portions of lands calculated in square feet and did not follow the sale instances of large parcels of land. It should have taken into account the sale instances at Sr.Nos.2 and 3 which could be closest to the escalation cost of the lands. The sale instances only from village Harangul were taken into account and not a single sale instance from Khandapur was referred to.

*191* MIDC LATUR were acquired as if they constituted a compact block. 49.

By relying upon GM, ONGC (supra), the learned Advocate General has canvassed that it is now settled position of law that the methodology of taking an old sale deed of comparable parcel of land and applying the escalation factor in between 7.5% per annum to 10% per annum, is the safest mode rather than considering a latest sale deed and indulging in reverse calculation. He then relies upon Bhupal Singh (supra) to fortify his contention.

50.

The learned Advocate General has placed a compilation of the sale deeds which were part of the record before the Reference Court. He points out that the Reference Court has referred to a road touching small plot under the sale deed dated 05.03.1992, which was granted NA-44 status. He cites an instance of PW-2, in LAR No.583/1999, who was the purchaser, examined below Exhibit-34. He admitted that he had purchased the land for the purpose of setting up a hotel. This weighed on the mind of the LAR Court for computing compensation. The law, that the purpose of the use of the land cannot be taken into account and cannot be a consideration for computing compensation, was completely overlooked.

*192* MIDC LATUR 51.

He then turns to the sale deeds hurriedly entered into by some of the claimants, to canvass that these amount to manufacturing evidence. Various sale deeds for smaller portions of land/ plots touching the road were hurriedly entered into and the cost of such lands was jacked up so as to create a picture that the land was highly valuable. Cryptic sale deeds with short description of conditions of sale were entered into for showing transfer of title. He relies upon a sample N.A.44 order to support his contention that such transformation/ change in user of land was orchestrated.

ON VALUATION REPORTS 52.

Insofar as the valuation reports are concerned, he submits that there were in all three valuers i.e. Nandkumar S. Pokalwar, Sunil Ghante Jain and Nandkumar Patil. Mr.Pokalwar deposed that he had carried out inspection on 05.06.1997 in Gat No.182. The deemed date of valuation was 18.11.1992 and the date of tendering the valuation report is 10.08.2001. It was mandatory for Mr.Pokalwar to be an "approved valuer for agricultural land". His enrollment in the institution of valuers is dated 03.03.2001/ 25.06.2001. He was approved valuer for

*193* MIDC LATUR "immovable property other than agricultural lands/ plantations/ forest / mines/ quarries but including foundations/ soil machines/ structural engineering/ public health engineering and water technology". As such, apparently, Mr.Pokalwar had no authorization for tendering a valuation report with regard to the agricultural lands.

53.

The learned Advocate General further submits that Mr.Pokalwar is said to have inspected Block Nos.32, 237, 248, 231, 240, 239, 9, 25, 265 and various other lands in Khandapur village on a single day 03.06.1997. These lands are about 35 Hectares i.e. admeasuring about 85 acres. He deposed that he also visited lands/ plots under the sale instances and examined this huge area of lands, for (a) inspection of quality of lands, (b) facilities, (c) use of lands, (d) location of lands and (e) development in the vicinity of these lands. This is humanly impossible, is the contention of the learned Advocate General. 54.

He adds that Mr.Pokalwar submitted his valuation report after four years of the spot inspection, though he was not an authorized valuer for agricultural lands. Moreover, when confronted, Mr.Pokalwar stated in cross-examination that he had taken down the rough notes of his visit. When called upon to

*194* MIDC LATUR produce the notes, he submitted that all his notes were destroyed by pests. He also admitted that even the rough copies of the maps were destroyed by pests. He has tried to cover up by saying that the valuation report was prepared immediately and preserved in the computer. He further admitted that all the sale instances he has relied upon for the valuation, are NA plots and he has not verified a single sale instance of an agricultural land. He further admitted that he was not paid any fees by the claimants since they assured him that he would get his fees from the compensation amount that the claimants would receive. He also admitted that he had not prepared the valuation on acre basis and had relied upon square feet basis with regard to NA property only.

Then, he admitted that he did not carry out soil test while determining that the quality of land was good. No test pits were dug. Such test pits are mandatory. Valuation is made by keeping in mind that the lands are good for construction and he considered vicinity of districts like Thane, Mumbai, Aurangabad, Pune, Kolhapur, etc.. He also admitted that the distance of spot location was 10 kilometers from Latur at one location and 6 kilometers at another location, which is a mistake. He did not refer to any list of developments since 1982.

*195* MIDC LATUR the acknowledgment of handing over the report to the claimants in 2001.

55.

The other valuer Mr.Nandkumar Patil led evidence at Exhibit 47 in LAR No.202/1999 (First Appeal No.2470/2010). In cross-examination, he surprisingly stated that it is not true that without registration as a valuer, the valuation report would not be valid. He admitted that he had not issued notice to the concerned authorities before visiting the spot. He further admitted that though he has maintained the record, he has not filed it in the Court. He cannot give the rates that were calculated with regard to the fruiting trees. He admitted that he never inspected the analysis of soil and water. He did not mention the manner of water sources being available to the claimants' land. 56.

The third valuer Mr.Sunil Ghante Jain deposed at Exhibit 51 in the same LAR proceedings. He admitted that he relied on sale instances of smaller plots based on square feet rating, mostly in Harangul village and four sale deeds from Warwanti village. Not a single sale instance with regard to larger portions of land measured in R or Acres or Hectares was relied upon. He did not mention the preparation of the panchanama in his report. He had prepared rough notes which he has not filed in

*196* MIDC LATUR the Court. He admitted that the sale deed dated 16.06.1993 was of village Warwanti as regards the gavthan and not an agricultural land. He further admitted that only one sale deed Exhibit 30 pertaining to village Harangul was with regard to the land adjacent to Latur-Barshi state highway. All the sale deeds relied upon are with regard to NA plots and he further admitted that the rates of NA plots are higher than agricultural lands. He further admitted that he did not collect information as regards the market price as per the ready reckoner available in the office of the Sub Registrar.

57.

The learned Advocate General then relied upon Narayanlal Bansilal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 (1) Mh.L.J. 642 and Special Land Acquisition Officer and another vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others, 1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 168.

58.

In Narayanlal Bansilal (supra), paragraph 36 reads as under :- "36.

As to Point No.D : Compensation of two residences i.e. big bungalow and second bungalow now need consideration. Landowners have solely relied upon their expert. How to approach evidence of said expert Shri Gandhi is also a moot question. In AIR 1995 SC. 840 - (Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari):- " 7.

When the Collector makes the reference to

*197* MIDC LATUR the Court, he is enjoined by Section 19 to state the grounds on which he had determined the amount of compensation if the objection raised as to the acceptance of award of the Collector under Section 11 by the claimant was as regards the amount of compensation awarded for the land thereunder. The Collector has to state the grounds on which he had determined the amount of compensation where the objection raised by the claimant in his application for reference under Section 18 was as to inadequacy of compensation allowed by the award under Section 11, as required by sub-section (2) of Section 18 itself.

Therefore, the legislative scheme contained in Sections 12, 18 and 19 while on the one hand entitles the claimant not to accept the award made under Section 11 as to the amount of compensation determined as payable for his acquired land and seek a reference to the court for determination of the amount of compensation payable for his land, on the other hand requires him to make good before the Court the objection raised by him as regards the inadequacy of the amount of compensation allowed for his land under the award made under Section 11, with a view to enable the Court to determine the amount of compensation exceeding the amount of compensation allowed by the award under Section 11, be it by reference to the improbabilities inherent in the award itself or on the evidence aliunde adduced by him to that effect.

That is why, the position of a claimant in a reference before the Court, is considered to be that of the plaintiff in a suit requiring him to discharge the initial burden of proving that the amount of compensation determined in the award under Section 11 was inadequate, the same having not been determined on the basis of relevant material and by application of correct principles of valuation, either with reference to the contents of the award itself or with reference to other evidence aliunde adduced before the Court.

*198* MIDC LATUR award of the Collector which is made final and conclusive evidence under Section 12, as regards matters contained therein will stand unaffected. But if the claimant, succeeds in proving that the amount determined under the award of the Collector was inadequate, the burden of proving the correctness of the award shifts on to the Collector who has to adduce sufficient evidence in that behalf to sustain such award. Hence, the Court which is required to decide the reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act, cannot determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimant for his land exceeding the amount determined in the award of the Collector made under Section 11 for the same land, unless it gets over the finality and conclusive evidentiary value attributed to it under Section 12, by recording a finding on consideration of relevant material therein that the amount of compensation determined under the award was inadequate for the reasons that weighed with it.

15. It has become a matter of common occurrence with the claimants who seek enhanced compensation for their acquired lands from court to produce the reports of valuation of their lands in court purported to have been prepared by the experts. No doubt, courts can act on such expert evidence in determining the market value of the acquired lands, but the court having regard to the fact that experts will have prepared the valuation reports in the court and will depose in support of such reports, at the instance of the claimants, must with care and caution examine such reports and evidence given in support thereof.

Whenever valuation report made by an expert is produced in court, the opinion on the value of the acquired land given by such expert can be of no assistance in determining the market value of such land, unless such opinion is formed on relevant factual data or material, which is also produced before the court and proved to be genuine and reliable, as any other evidence.

*199* MIDC LATUR methods of valuation of similar lands, then also, the opinion expressed in his report and his evidence can be of no real assistance to the court in determining the market value of the acquired land. Since the exercise which will have been done by the expert in arriving at the market value of the land in his report on the basis of factual data bearing on such valuation, will be similar to that to be undertaken by the court. In determining the market value of the acquired land, it can no doubt receive assistance from such report, if it is rightly done and the data on which the report is based is placed before the court and its authenticity is established.

16. Therefore, when the valuation report of an acquired land is made by an expert on the basis of prices fetched or to be fetched by sale deeds or agreements to sell relating to the very acquired lands or the lands in the vicinity need arises for the court to examine and be satisfied about the authenticity of such documents and the truth of their contents and the normal circumstances in which they had come into existence and further the correct method adopted in preparation of the report, before acting on such report for determining the market value of the acquired land. The opinion expressed in the report that the author of the report has made the valuation of the acquired lands on the basis of his past experience of valuation of such lands should never weigh with the court in the matter of determination of market value of the acquired lands, for such assertions by themselves cannot be substituted for evidence on which it ought to be based and the method or valuation adaptable in such report.

17. Therefore, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant before the court giving market value of the acquired lands, the court may, choose to act upon such report for determination of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired lands, if the data or the material on the basis of which such report is based is produced before the Court and the authenticity of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted

*200* MIDC LATUR therein is correct."

ON IMPUGNED AWARDS 59.

The learned Advocate General referred to the impugned awards delivered in First Appeal No.1233/2010. He referred to the reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court in paragraphs 31 to 37. Small portions as well as large portions from different lands were grouped together by the Court while delivering the impugned award. Casualness on the part of the Reference Court is quite evident. Settled principles of law have been discarded and the impugned award is in opposition to the tenets of law.

60.

The learned Advocate General then referred to First Appeal No.2356/2009 and while criticizing the impugned award, has referred to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12. In First Appeal No.2102/2013, while assailing the impugned award, the learned Advocate General has referred to paragraphs 33, 34 and 35. JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE 61.

The learned Advocate General submits that the claimants in these cases are relying upon the judgment dated

*201* MIDC LATUR 20.07.2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No.1066/2014 and a group of cases. Considering the pecuniary jurisdiction, these cases were placed before the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed all the First Appeals filed by the Latur MIDC. The learned Advocate General referred to paragraphs 2 to 7 and submits that the Latur MIDC is to be blamed for not putting forth all the factual aspects of these cases, as are being canvassed before this Court, when the learned Single Judge took up those appeals. Consequentially, the learned Single Judge, with due respect, did not have the occasion to assign specific reasons while dismissing the appeals as the legal propositions of law and various factors being canvassed today, were not canvassed before the learned Single Judge.

He, therefore, relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers, 2010 (4) SCC 785, to support his contention that an unreasoned order need not be followed. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANTS 62.

Shri Katneshwarkar, the learned Advocate representing some of the original claimants, has led the

*202* MIDC LATUR submissions on behalf of colleague advocates representing all the claimants. He submits that all the three villages are adjacent to the Municipal Corporation Limits of Latur. The LAR Court followed the belting system. It is not necessary that "road touch" plots or lands will always fetch higher prices. In this context, he refers to Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and another, (2010) 5 SCC 747 and Ali Mohammad Beigh and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2017) 4 SCC 717.

63.

Reliance is placed upon paragraph 4 in Bal Ram (supra), which reads as under :- "4.

The High Court indeed did not rely upon the contiguity of the lands alone but it found that the nature/ quality of the lands is by and large similar to those lands considered in Satpal Case. If that is the finding of the High Court, we do not think there would be any justification to make any distinction between lands which had been lying in Palam and Shahbad Mohamadpur. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court cannot be faulted with. The High Court also found that it would be unfair to discriminate between the landowners to pay more to some and less to others when the purpose of acquisition is same and lands are identical and similar, though lying in different villages."

64.

In Ali Mohammad Beigh (supra), reliance is placed on paragraph Nos.11 to 14 which read as under :- "11.

As noted earlier, village Chandapora is situated

*203* MIDC LATUR adjacent to villages Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora; while so, there was no reason why the Reference Court differentiated the land of the appellants-land owners of the acquired land in Chandapora land Reference No.15/2002 by awarding lesser compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. On a perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court in Reference No.15 of 2002, it is seen that the witnesses were examined by the appellants to substantiate their case that the market rate of the land in village Chandapora in the year 1998 was about Rs.8,00,000/- per Kanal. Though the Tehsildar of the area recommended Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal, the witnesses have stated that the compensation fixed by Tehsildar was not reliable and not based on any material. The appellants have also produced a sale deed by one Mr.

Bansilal under which he sold a small strip of land measuring 1360 sq. feet in the vicinity of the acquired land for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the Reference Court discarded the evidence of witness Bansilal on the ground that under the sale deed only a small area of land was sold and the sale deed cannot be taken to be a representative character of the entire land. In our view, the Reference Court was not right in discarding the said sale deed which was supported by oral evidence of the witnesses, to substantiate their claim that the market rate assessed by the Tehsildar at Rs.2,50,000/- was not a fair compensation. 12.

When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons. In Union of India vs. Bal Ram and another, (2010) 5 SCC 747, this Court held that if the purpose of acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in different villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination between the land owners to pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation to others. The same was the view taken in Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh,

*204* MIDC LATUR (2005) 12 SCC 564, where this Court held as under:- "15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and another.

The entire area is in a stage of development and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same.

16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was correctly taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the market value of the lands comprising the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings under consideration......."

13.

When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same purpose that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated in three different villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners and other references and the appellants who are the land owners in Reference No.15 and pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal to the appellants and pay more to other land owners that

*205* MIDC LATUR is Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal. Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No. 211/2009 and Cross Appeal No. 64/2011 are to be set aside by enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,00,000 per Kanal. As a sequel to this, the order passed in review is also to be set aside.

14.

In the result, the impugned judgments are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the appellants are at par with other land owners whose lands were acquired in Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora in other references, and hence they are also entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal with 15% solatium (Jabirana) and all other statutory benefits. No costs."

65.

Shri Katneshwarkar has then referred to the awards and the documents in First Appeal Nos.1533/2013 and 1534/2013. He does not dispute the date of the notification 24.04.1992, published in the official Gazette on 07.05.1992 and the notice published under Section 32(2) on 04.03.1993. 66.

He points out that a notification was published in the village on 18.11.1992 and 23.02.1996. He refers to the award dated 03.01.1998 and the opening page thereunder for the above mentioned dates. He has then drawn our attention to the details as regards the lands, their gat numbers and their distances. He has also pointed out the lands on the south side of the railway line and those at villages Harangul Bk., Khandapur and Chincholi Rao Wadi. He has also referred to the details on

*206* MIDC LATUR internal page Nos.9, 10,11 and 12, wherein the LAR Court has referred to the documentary evidence put forth by the Acquiring Body. He has then pointed out those sale instances which have been rejected by the LAR Courts.

We find that those sale instances pertaining to the years 1989-90, 1991 and 1992, have been rejected by the LAR Courts.

67.

Shri Katneshwarkar then referred to the paper book in First Appeal No.1481/2010. While referring to paragraph 2 of the Written Statement, he submitted that the following marked portion is false, viz. "the LAO has published the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and also called objection under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act from the interested persons, but no objection has been filed before the concerned LAO. Even after joint measurement and after giving opportunity to him/ them. The LAO has passed an award under Section 11 of the LA Act after observing all the formalities, the land under acquisition was agricultural land and, therefore, the said land has been treated as agricultural land by the LAO for determination of compensation. The LAO has also issued the notices to the interested person under Section 9(1)(2) of the LA

*207* MIDC LATUR Act and called the claim of the concerned persons along with documentary evidence in respect of market price of the acquired land. Some of the claimants have filed their statement of claim under Section 1(2) of the LA Act. The LAO has also considered the statement of claim filed by the interested persons at the time of awarding to the compensation to the acquired land." 68.

He then referred to paragraphs 5 to 17 of the evidence adduced by the claimant and paragraphs 1 to 3 of his cross-examination. According to him, the claimants have led extensive oral evidence and have produced sale instances to support their claim. Chart C-54 contains a list of sale instances. He, therefore, contends that old sale instances and the new sale instances can be taken into account while deciding the market value of the land. Both the patterns of addition and deletion method can be utilized for deciding the market value. 69.

Insofar as 23 sale instances cited by the appellant/ MIDC, he submits that though they were certified true copies, they were required to be proved as per the Evidence Act. The MIDC did not lead any evidence and did not prove the contents of 23 sale instances. No witness on behalf of the MIDC was produced before the Reference Court.

*208* MIDC LATUR 70.

Shri Katneshwarkar produced two compilations of case law. According to him, the guiding principles for dealing with reference cases were laid down in paragraphs 3, 4 (1 to 17), 7, 8, 11 and 12 in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special LAO, Poona and another, (1988) 3 SCC 751, which read as under :- "3.

Before tackling the problem of valuation of the land under acquisition it is necessary to make some general observations. The compulsion to do so has arisen as the Trial Court has virtually treated the award rendered by the Land Acquisition officer as a judgment under appeal and has evinced unawareness of the methodology for valuation to some extent. The true position therefore requires to be capsulized.

4.

The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:

(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court.

(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court.

(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.

*209* MIDC LATUR

(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.

(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).

(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under sec. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.

(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.

(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land).

(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.

(l0) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:

(i) proximity from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle.

(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.

*210* MIDC LATUR

(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.

(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors.

(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:

Plus factors Minus factors

1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.

2. proximity to a road.

2. situation in the interior at a distances from the Road.

3. frontage on a road.

3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to death.

4. nearness to developed area.

4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.

5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed locality.

6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.

6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.

7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.

(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within

*211* MIDC LATUR the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.

(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself.

(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense." "7.

The appellant's land, which was agricultural land albeit with future potential for development as building site, was situated far far in the interior in the midst of blocks of undeveloped land. The formula for evaluation involved taking of three steps:

(1) The High Court formed the opinion that allowance for largeness of block deserved to be made at 25% instead of 20% as done by the Trial Court.

(2) The High Court formed the opinion that the development would take about 12 years to reach the appellant's land. On these premises the High Court formed the opinion that the land of the appellant could be valued at Rs.7000 per acre as a block.

(3) The High Court directed that the market value so ascertained should be further depressed to account for the factor as regards the waiting period of 12 years which was the estimated period for development reaching the appellant's land. The

*212* MIDC LATUR 'present value' of the land was accordingly deduced by depressing the valuation of Rs.7000 per acre by reference to Miram's Tables on the basis of discount rate of 5% per annum to account for the factor that approximately 12 years would elapse before development could reach the appellant's land.

That is how the total compensation payable to the appellant for the block of land admeasuring 13 acres 7 gunthas was determined at Rs.63,846 which works out at approximately Rs.4,845.87 per acre.

8.

The valuation made by the High Court has been faulted on three A grounds:

(1) The High Court should not have made a deduction of 25% in place of deduction made by the Trial Court at 20% to account for the factor pertaining to the largeness of the block of land under acquisition.

(2) The High Court had grossly undervalued the land in determining the market value of the appellants' land at Rs.7,000 per acre.

(3) There was no warrant for pushing down or depressing the market value of land as determined by the Trial Court in order to deduce the 'present value' by reference to Miram's Tables to account for the factor as regards the estimated time lag for development reaching the block of land in question which was situated in the interior. Besides, the time lag of 12 years as estimated by the High Court was excessive and unrealistic.

The first two grounds are devoid of merit. It is common knowledge that when a large block of land is required to be valued, appropriate deduction has to be made for setting aside land for carving out roads, leaving open spaces, and plotting out smaller plots suitable for construction of buildings. The extent of the area required to be set apart in this connection has to be assessed by the Court having regard to shape, size and situation of the concerned block of land etc. There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to how much deduction should be made to account for this factor. It is

*213* MIDC LATUR essentially a question of fact depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It does not involve drawing upon any principle of law. It cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in forming the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case 25% deduction was required to be made in this connection. The High Court cannot be faulted on this score."

"11.

Turning now to the third ground, it appears that the appellant's grievance is justified. The grievance is that there was no warrant for making any further deduction once the land was valued at Rs.7,000 as against the valuation of the best parcel of land at Rs.20,000 which was made precisely to account for the factor pertaining to its situation in the interior. There was therefore no warrant for ascertaining the present value of Rs.7,000 as if Rs.7,000 would be fetched after 12 years. Now the parcel of land admeasuring 13 acres 7 gunthas comprised in Survey No. 85 which was situated very much in the interior was valued by the Trial Court at Rs. 10,866 per acre (less 20% to account for roads etc.) This parcel of land was valued at Rs.7,000 per acre by the High Court.

The High Court had valued the land with the best situation on the Ganeshkhand Road at Rs.20,000 per acre. As against this the appellant's land was valued at mere Rs.7,000 per acre which reflected an unloading by Rs.13,000 per acre which works out at 65%. This pushing down was made to account for its situation in the interior on the premise that development would take about 12 years to reach the land under acquisition. If the appellant's land just adjoined the land valued at Rs.20,000 per acre it would have been valued at the same figure of Rs.20,000. It has been valued at Rs.7,000 per acre precisely because it is so situated that development would reach the appellant's land after 12 years as estimated by the High Court.

But after 12 years it would become land adjoining to developed area and not land which could be treated as in the interior.

*214* MIDC LATUR ascertained it should be ascertained on the basis of present value of land which would fetch Rs.20,000 per acre after 12 years and not present value of land which would fetch Rs.7.000 per acre after 12 years. In fact present value of Rs.20,000 payable at the end of 12 years at 8% would work out at Rs.6942 (.3971 x 20,000 = 6942)1. The High Court was therefore right in valuing the land in interior at Rs.7,000 per acre but wrong in directing that present value of Rs.7,000 payable after 12 years should be ascertained. The last ground is thus well founded .

12.

In the result appellant must be awarded compensation at Rs.7,000 per acre subject to deduction or allowance of 25% to account for land required to be set apart for roads, open spaces etc. In other words appellant will be entitled to be paid compensation for 13 acres 7 gunthas comprised in Survey No. 85 at Rs.5,250 per acre (Rs.7,000 less 25% i.e. less 1750=Rs.5,250) in place of the lesser sum awarded by the High Court. Appeal must be partly allowed to this extent accordingly."

(Emphasis supplied) 71.

Shri Katneshwarkar further relied on Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 5 SCC 432. Paragraphs 14 to 19 read as under :- "14.

As pointed out above, the Reference Court failed to take note of the highest exemplar, namely, the sale transaction under Ext.A-61 dated 22.07.1977. In this regard, it is useful to refer the decision of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, vs. Collector of Madras, (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC). In this case, this Court has held thus:

"... where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of

*215* MIDC LATUR two sale deeds should have been taken in this case."

15.

In State of Punjab and Another vs. Hansraj (Dead) by LRS. Sohan Singh and Others, (1994) 5 SCC 734, this Court has held that method of working out the 'average price' paid under different sale transactions is not proper and that one should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. This Court further held that the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands are the real basis to determine the market value.

16.

This Court in Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa, (2010) 13 SCC 710, after relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur (supra) and Hans Raj (supra) held in para 20 as under:

"20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered."

Again, in para 23, it was held that "the averaging of the prices under the two sale deeds was not justified."

17.

It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court

*216* MIDC LATUR for fixing fair compensation.

18.

Based on the above principles, the market value as per Ext.A-61 dated 22.07.1977 was Rs.

1,39,130.43 per acre (approx. Rs.1.40 lakhs per acre). The said sale deed was two and a half years prior in time than Section 4(1) notification dated 22.12.1979. There is no reason to eschew the above sale transaction. It is also pointed out that the lands covered under Ext.A-61 are nearer to the lands of the appellants under acquisition.

19.

This Court has time and again granted 10% to 15% increase per annum. In Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1992) 3 SCC 659, this Court applied the rule of 10% yearly increase for award of higher compensation. In Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma, (2004) 6 SCC 533, this Court considered a batch of appeals and applied the rule of annual increase for grant of higher compensation. In ONGC Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745, this Court held that where the acquired land is in urban/semi-urban areas, increase can be to the tune of 10% to 15% per annum and if the acquired land is situated in rural areas, increase can be between 5% to 7.5% per annum. In Union of India vs.

Harpat Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 375, this Court applied the rule of 10% increase per annum."

(Emphasis supplied) 72.

He has then relied on paragraphs 4 to 15 of Atma Singh (Dead) through L.Rs. and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 2 SCC 568, which read as under :- "4.

In order to determine the compensation which the tenure- holders are entitled to get for their land which has been acquired, the main question to be considered is what is the market value of the land. Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into

*217* MIDC LATUR consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The expression 'market value' has been subjectmatter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded.

The guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an anxious dealing at arms length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz., a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. See Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2219; Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P., AIR 1977 SC 1560; Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 and Periyar Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1990 SC 2192.

5.

For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is

*218* MIDC LATUR reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector Raigarh v. Dr.Hari Singh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472, Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt., AIR 1969 SC 465 and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943. It has been held in Kaushalya Devi v. L.A.O. Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892 and Suresh Kumar v. T.I. Trust, AIR 1980 SC 1222 that failing to consider potential value of the acquired land is an error of principle.

6.

As mentioned earlier, the learned Additional District Judge had awarded compensation at a flat rate of Rs.43,000/- per acre by placing reliance on Ex. R-6 and R-7, two instances of sale of village Chhapra. After taking an average of these two sale transactions, an addition of 25% was made while fixing the market value of the land. The High Court held that these two sale deeds were of 31.12.1980, while in the instant case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published much later on 9.2.1983. That apart, Ex.R-6 and R-7 were mutation orders and the corresponding sale deeds had not been brought on the record. In fact, the learned Additional District Judge, in the earlier part of the judgment, had himself discarded Ex. R-6 and R-7 as they were mutation orders and were inadmissible in evidence. The High Court, therefore, rightly held that no reliance could be placed upon Ex.R-6 and R-7 for determining the market value of the land.

7.

The claimant-appellants (landowners) had filed copies of four sale deeds which are Exs.P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-10. In fact, Ex. P-7 is a copy of a sale deed by which Laxman Singh bought some land in village Chhapra on 28.7.1982, which itself became subject matter of acquisition. Laxman Singh had deposed that he had bought the land for construction of shops. All these four sale deeds related to sale transactions prior to the issuance of

*219* MIDC LATUR the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 9.2.1983. The High Court excluded Ex.P-8 from consideration as it related to a very small piece of land measuring 19 marlas only. The average price of the three sale deeds viz. Ex. P-7, P- 9 and P-10 came to little more than Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. Apart from these three sale deeds, no other exemplars were filed either by the State of Haryana or by the landowners. The High Court accepted the price exhibited by the aforesaid three sale transactions which came to little more than Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. It thus recorded a finding that the market value of the land was Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. In our opinion, there being no other documentary evidence, the view taken by the High Court that the market value of the land was Rs.1,20,000/- per acre is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.

8.

Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the sugar mill has submitted that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of very small pieces of land and, therefore, they are not safe guide to determine the market value of the land. It may be mentioned here that while determining the market value, the potentiality of the land acquired has also to be taken into consideration. The appellants have led evidence to show that the acquired land had the potentiality to be used for commercial, industrial and residential purposes. PW.1 Rakesh Kumar had prepared a site plan which showed that the acquired land was adjacent to the abadi of Shahabad and abutted the Shahabad-Ladwa Road. The site plan also shows that there existed rice shellers, cold storage, shops, godowns, a college and houses etc. on both sides of Shahabad-Ladwa Road. PW.

2 Baldev Singh was Patwari of village Chhapra in the year 1983. He deposed that all the four villages viz. Kankar Shahbad, Chhapra, Jandheri and Jhambara are adjacent to each other and the acquired land abutted the ShahabadLadwa Road. He further deposed that the acquired land was 2 kilometer from G.T. Road and there were buildings, godowns, a cinema hall, factories on both sides of the Shahabad-Ladwa Road.

*220* MIDC LATUR Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the acquired land had the potentiality for being used for commercial, industrial and residential purposes and there was fair possibility of increase in its market value in the near future. Therefore, the fact that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of the small pieces of land could not be a ground to discard them specially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. They could, therefore, be used as a safe guide for determining the market value of the land.

9.

Learned counsel for the appellants has seriously challenged the finding of the High Court that the market value of the land determined on the basis of the exemplars filed by the parties should be reduced by one-third on account of the fact that the exemplars relied upon for ascertaining the market value related to sale of small pieces of land. According to Shri M.L. Verma, learned senior counsel for the appellants, there is no uniform principle that if a large area has been acquired and the exemplars are of small pieces of land, the market value exhibited by the exemplars must necessarily be reduced by one- third. Shri Verma has placed strong reliance on Bhagwathula Samanna v.

Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, (1991) 4 SCC 506, wherein it was held as under :- "In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. However, in applying this principle of deduction it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and situated in an advantageous position suitable for building purposes and have all amenities such as roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc.

*221* MIDC LATUR reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified.

In the present cases the lands covered by the acquisition are located by the side of the National Highway and the Southern Railway Staff Quarters with the Town Planning Trust road on the north. The neighbouring areas are already developed ones and houses have been constructed, and the land has potential value for being used as building sites. Having found that the land is to be valued only as building sites and having stated the advantageous position in which the land in question lies though forming part of the larger area, the High Court should not have applied the principles of deduction. It is not in every case that such deduction is to be allowed. Therefore, the High Court erred in making a deduction of one third of the value of the comparable sale and thus reducing the fair market value of land from Rs. 10 per sq. yard to Rs.6.50 per sq. yard."

10.

Shri Verma has also referred to Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, wherein it was observed that in cases of those land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the development charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards development charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. Therefore, in this case taking into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land for construction of residential and commercial buildings, the deduction made was only 20%.

11.

Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the sugar mill has, on the other hand, strenuously urged that the evidence of market value shown by sale of small plots is not a safe guide in valuing large areas of land and the prices fetched for small plots cannot be directly adopted in valuing large extent of land as has been acquired in the present

*222* MIDC LATUR case. He has thus contended that a deduction of 30% had rightly been made by the High Court on account of acquisition of a large area. In support of his contention, Shri Dwivedi has placed reliance upon several decisions of this Court. In order to appreciate the principle laid down therein, it will be useful to refer to them in some detail. In Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943, it was held as follows in para 6 of the reports:- "The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents.

However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civic amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the prices; the profits on the venture etc.

are to be made."

12.

In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652 it was held as follows in para 4 (15) of the reports:

"4.(15) ..... Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx,

*223* MIDC LATUR between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards"."

13.

Shri Dwivedi has also referred to Basant Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 542, K.Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), (1995) 5 SCC 426, and H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi, (2004) 2 SCC 184. In the first cited case land was acquired for planned development of Delhi and in the other two cases for Housing Boards and a deduction of 33% was applied.

14.

The reasons given for the principle that price fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracks of land, according to cases referred to above, are that substantial area is used for development of sites like laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and other civic amenities. Expenses are also incurred in providing these basic amenities. That apart it takes considerable period in carving out the roads making sewers and drains and waiting for the purchasers. Meanwhile the invested money is blocked up and the return on the investment flows after a considerable period of time. In order to make up for the area of land which is used in providing civic amenities and the waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur gets locked up a deduction from 20% onward, depending upon the facts of each case, is made. 15.

The question to be considered is whether in the present case those factors exist which warrant a deduction by way of allowance from the price exhibited by the exemplars of small plots which have been filed by the parties. The land has not been acquired for a Housing Colony or Government Office or an Institution. The land has been acquired for setting up a sugar factory. The

*224* MIDC LATUR factory would produce goods worth many crores in a year. A sugar factory apart from producing sugar also produces many by-product in the same process. One of the by-products is molasses, which is produced in huge quantity. Earlier, it had no utility and its disposal used to be a big problem. But now molasses is used for production of alcohol and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another by-product begasse is now used for generation of power and press mud is utilized in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial. Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long as the factory runs. A housing board does not run on business lines. Once plots are carved out after acquisition of land and are sold to public, there is no scope for earning any money in future.

An industry established on acquired land, if run efficiently, earns money or makes profit every year. The return from the land acquired for the purpose of Housing Colony, or Offices, or Institution cannot even remotely be compared with the land which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory or industry. After all the factory cannot be set up without land and if such land is giving substantial return, there is no justification for making any deduction from the price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are of small plots. It is possible that a part of the acquired land might be used for construction of residential colony for the staff working in the factory.

Nevertheless where the remaining part of the acquired land is contributing to production of goods yielding good profit, it would not be proper to make a deduction in the price of land shown by the exemplars of small plots as the reasons for doing so assigned in various decisions of this Court are not applicable in the case under consideration."

73.

While referring to the second compilation of the case law, Shri Katneshwarkar had read out paragraphs 3, 4, 13,

*225* MIDC LATUR 16, 18, 19 and 22 to 28 in Nelson Fernandes and others vs. SLAO, South Goa and others, (2007) 9 SCC 447 on the issue of of deduction in large tracts of land. It would be apposite to reproduce these paragraphs as under :- "3.

In the above case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short) was published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer South Goa for acquisition of land for construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. The notification was published in the local dailies on 5th and 6th August, 1994. Under Section 6 of the Act a declaration stating the government's intention to acquire the land for the purpose of construction of new broad gauge line of the Konkan Railways between Roha and Mangalore was made on 09.11.1994. An award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer granting compensation to the appellant @ Rs.4/- per sq. metre and Rs.59,192/- for trees standing on the said land. The appellant on 06.12.

1996 made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter for determination of compensation under Section 18 of the Act and claimed a sum of Rs.89,06,250/- for the acquired land and Rs.71,000/- for the trees standing thereon. Reference under Section 18 was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to District and Sessions Judge on 28.02.1996 and reference under Section 19 of the Act was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Margao. Evidence was adduced by the appellant - Mr. Nelson Fernandes before the Addl. District Judge. Two sale deeds dated 13.12.1993 are annexed and marked as Annexure-P5. Evidence was adduced by Government Approved Valuer - Pratima Kumar on the valuation report submitted by her before the Addl. District Judge, Margao on 15.12.2000.

Evidence was adduced by Bartoleuma Gama on the sale of land by him @ Rs. 449/- per sq. metre by sale deed being Ex.

*226* MIDC LATUR marked as Annexure-P7.

4.

The Addl. District Judge passed an award increasing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4/- per sq. metre to Rs.192/- per sq. metre, but did not give any compensation for the trees standing on the said land. First Appeal Nos. 66 and 75 of 2002 were preferred by both the appellants and the respondents before the High Court against the judgment and award dated 29.08.2001 of the learned District Judge."

"13.

Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Division Bench was under the obligation to satisfy the conditions imposed under Section 23 of the Act for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants and that the Court is bound and obliged to ensure that its judgment is in conformity with the provisions of the statute. He further submitted that Court cannot reject the opinion of an expert and substitute its own opinion in place instead of the same. Likewise, the Court has committed an error in regard to the rate of compensation to be awarded for acquisition of land after rejecting all the evidence on record including the opinion of expert. It is also submitted that Court cannot fix separate rate of compensation for similarly placed lands and that the Court has to consider the sale of land in the locality and the facilities available thereon." "16.

Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Konkan Railways submitted that the land acquired by the State Government for KRCL project in question is for public purpose and not for any commercial exploitation and for construction of new broad gauge line for Konkan Railway adjacent to the land already acquired for the same purpose earlier. He further submitted that the acquired land is 11,875 sq. metres, hilly area, about 30 metres from the road level and is undeveloped land as most of the area is a low lying area and that the topography of the acquired land in question are such that a major part of the land is

*227* MIDC LATUR of Bharad type with fess paddy fields cultivated for both the seasons, part of the land is under coconut cultivation and some portion is under water and to develop the land would be expensive, as the land would require to be filled up and then developed. According to learned counsel, the Land Acquisition Officer, in his award, took into consideration the following in fixing the rates:

1) prevailing conditions of the land;

2) rates awarded recently for such types of land and approved by the Government and;

3) restrictions under Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964."

"18.

Learned counsel also submitted that the compensation payable to the appellant for the acquired land cannot be based on the average price of the two sale deeds dated 11.12.1993 relied upon by the appellant as the sale deed dated 11.12.1993 pertain to plots that are smaller in size i.e. Rs.365/- sq. metre and Rs.275/- sq. metre. This apart, plots were not developed by making roads, drainages etc. as required under the planning law and subdivisions made were also approved by the Town and Country Planning Department as well as the village panchayat. Hence, the price at which the plots were sold i.e. at Rs.250 per sq. metre cannot be considered for the purpose of valuation of the acquired land.

Further, the price fetched for smaller plots cannot be applied to lands covering large area as held by this Court in various judgments and, in particular, 1977 (1) SCC 684 Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by LRs Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. It is further argued that the acquired land in question is located at a distance of 15 kms. from the airport, 20 kms. from Vasco city, 18 kms. from Panaji, 3 kms. from Cortalim market and there is no approach road to the location."

"19.

It was further submitted that the comparable sales method of valuation of land can be adopted in case where the acquired land in question is being compared to the similar type of acquired land, made pursuant to the same preliminary

*228* MIDC LATUR notification. But if any of the factors such as location, shape, size potentiality or tenure of the acquired land widely differs from the other plots then the market value of the acquired land has to be determined independently of the others as held by this Court in Printer House Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mst. Saiyadan (Deceased) by LRs and Others, 1994 (2) SCC 133. It was also submitted that while determining the amount to be awarded for the acquired land in the year 1994, the LAO while passing the award dated 25.08.1995, in terms of the provisions of the Act had considered:

a) the area and the nature of the acquired land, b) the objects filed by the petitioner, c) damages sustained by the petitioner, d) inspected the land under acquisition to ascertain the advantages and disadvantages from the valuation point of view, e) the market value of trees, structure etc.

f) the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 as applicable to the Acquired land, g) the rate of land approved by Government under Section 11(1) of the said Act in respect of various types of land in the aforesaid villages which are as follows:

Letter of Dy.

Date Village Type of Land Rate per Sq.

Collector (L.A) of Mtrs.

Rs.

Collectorate of South Goa Ps.

No.2/4/94CVS/57-LAR/418 19.09.1994 Sancoale Tenanted 9.00 Double Cropped Paddy Coconut 4.00 Bharad Marshy/Under 2.00 Water 2/4/9424.10.1994 Sancoale Tenanted 9.00 CVS/90- (Addl.) Double LAR/474 Cropped Paddy 2/4/94CVS/65LAR/12 17.01.1995 Cortalim Untenanted 4.00 Bharad/ Garden in Orchard Zone."

"22.

In determining the amount of compensation to be

*229* MIDC LATUR awarded, the LAO shall be guided by the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. As per Section 22 of the Act, the market value of the land has to be determined at the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 25.08.1994. As per Section 24, the LAO shall also exclude any increase in the value of land likely to accrue from use to which it will be put once acquired. The market value of the land means the price of the land which a willing seller is reasonably expected to fetch in the open market from a willing purchaser. In other words, it is a price of the land in hypothetical market. During the site inspection, it has been observed that the land under acquisition is situated in Sancoale and Cortalim village adjacent to the land already acquired for the same purpose earlier."

"23.

In the instant case, two sale deeds were relied upon dated 13.12.1993 which is 8 months before Section 4(1) notification. The property was sold at Rs. 250 per sq. metre. We have perused the sale deed and the recitals in the document. The property is an extent of Rs. 385/- sq. metre as shown in the plan attached. Thereafter, the owners as recited in the partition deed developed the said property by making roads, drainage etc. as required under the planning laws which were approved by the town and country planning authorities on 22.10.1993 and by the village panchayat by their license VPC/ 4 93- 94/754 dated 15.11.1993. The land in question is more particularly described in the second schedule. An extent admeasuring 385 sq. metre was sold for a total price of Rs. 96,250/- which was the then market value.

Another sale deed was sold on the same date admeasuring around 257 sq. metres as shown in the plan attached. It is stated in the deed that all the coowners have developed the property by making roads, drainage etc. as required under the standing laws. The total sale consideration is Rs.64,250/- The Government registered valuer Mrs. Pratiba Kumar was examined as witness AW2. She is also a panel valuer for LIC, GIC and Bank of India.

*230* MIDC LATUR the appellants. According to the report, the acquired land admeasures 11,875/- sq. metres and the said property is a joint property of the applicants which is situated close to the ferry point at Cortalim and it is abutting the public road and that the acquired land aborts the acquired land of LAC 391/95 which touches the public road which was acquired for Konkan Railways broad gauge line. The acquired land is situated in settlement zone S2 police station, petrol pump, Salgaonkar ship yard, government warehouse within a range of about 200 metres and market, school, bank etc. are within a range of 1 km and in the year 1994 and even prior to a point when electricity, telephone and water facility were available to the acquired land.

After taking into consideration all the factors mentioned in her report, she has arrived at the market value of Rs. 500/- per sq. metre. Nothing has been elicited from her in the crossexamination in regard to her statements made in the chief examination. It is thus seen from the above report that the approved valuer, taking into consideration the location of the property amenities available and also the cost of similar properties in the locality, has arrived at the present fair market rate of the land which was fixed at Rs. 500 per sq. metre."

"24.

The Addl. District Judge South Goa considered the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the appellants. Both the sale deeds are dated 13.12.1993 Ex AW1/B and Ex AW1/C. The executants of the sale deed was examined as AW3 and AW1. According to them, the land was sold @ Rs. 250/- per sq. metre which is situated about 3 kms away from the acquired land and that the second sale deed is in respect of Rs. 257 sq. metres and also situated at a distance of about 3 kms. Both the sale deeds are about 8 months prior to the acquisition of the land. Both the lands were sold @ Rs. 250/- per sq. metre." "25.

It was argued that small extent of land sold cannot be taken into account. According to the District Judge deduction has to be made where there is larger area of undeveloped land under acquisition provision has to be made for providing the

*231* MIDC LATUR minimum amenities of town line such as water connections, well laid out roads, drainage facility, electricity connections etc and that the process necessarily involves deduction of the cost of factors required to bring the undeveloped lands on par with the developed lands."

"26.

In the instant case, taking the average of both the sale deeds Ex. AW 1/B and AW 1/C the District Judge made a deduction @ 33% for the development charges and on deduction of 33% from Rs. 250/- per sq. metre the actual price of the acquired land would be approximately Rs. 192/- per sq. metre which, according to the opinion of the District Judge would be reasonable for the acquired land. By holding so, he passed the following Award.

"Award This compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is enhanced to Rs. 192/- per sq.mt. The respondents shall pay to the applicants the said compensation in addition to proportionate solatium charges on the amount thereof and the interest at the rate of 9% during the period of one year from the date of possession of the land delivered to the respondents in terms of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter at the rate of 15% per year under section 28 of the said Act from the date of expiry of the period of one year till the actual payment of the whole amount of compensation plus 12% interest over and above the market value of the land from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act up to the date of the award or taking possession whichever is earlier in terms of section 1A of section 23 of the LA Act. The amount already paid shall be adjusted against the compensation awarded and the applicants shall be entitled to the refund of the court fee paid by them and the costs of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the respondents." "27.

The High Court, in para 10 of its judgment, however, held that the District Judge was not justified in principle to take an average of the price of two sale deeds and apply the same for fixing the compensation payable to the claimants. The High

*232* MIDC LATUR Court held that the two sale deeds could be used as a guide for the purpose of fixing the compensation to the acquired land and the same could be used but by making further deductions. According to them, to carry out the development of such land which was not at one level the applicant would have to spend a considerable amount towards the development, namely, level terracing roads etc. and, therefore, considering the nature of the land which was hilly at least a deduction of 65% ought to have been taken by the Addl. District Judge and not 33% as done by him. Again, the High Court was of the view that the District Judge ought to have made a further deduction of at least 10% since the distance between the acquired land and the plots was about 3 kms.

Further, the High Court held that the prices fetched from small plots cannot be applied to the lands covering large area and, therefore, a further deduction ought to have been made on this ground of at least of 10%. The High Court, therefore, held that considering the location of the acquired land vis-`-vis its nature and the plot of the sale deeds, the District Judge ought to have made a deduction of at least 85% and in view of the said deduction, the price of the acquired land works out to Rs. 37.50 which is rounded of to Rs.38/- per sq. metre. A further direction was issued that the compensation paid towards the trees must be adjusted from the compensation fixed for the lands."

"28.

In our opinion, the High Court has adopted a rough and ready method for making deductions which is impermissible in law. We have already noticed the valuers report. No reason whatsoever was given by the Reference Court or by the High Court as to why the report of the valuer and her evidence cannot be relied on. In our opinion, the compensation awarded by the High Court had no basis whatsoever and was not supported by cogent reasons and that it did not consider the future prospect of the development of the land in question. The High Court also did not assess the injury that the appellant is likely to sustain due to loss of his future earnings from the said land and

*233* MIDC LATUR also did not assess the damage already suffered due to diminution of the profits of the land between the time of publication of the notice and time of the collector taking possession. The Division Bench of the High Court has miserably erred in passing the order impugned thereby reducing the rate of compensation from Rs. 192/- to Rs. 38/- and in utter mis-reading of the evidence on record and acted in a flagrant error of law and facts. In our view, the orders passed by the Division Bench resulted in manifest injustice being caused to the appellants. The High Court also erred in passing the order by holding that the opinion of the government approved valuer was not based on any opinion method of valuation but solely on the basis of facilities available to the land. In our view, the High Court ought to have appreciated that the government approved valuer is an expert in her field and the opinion of such an expert ought not to have been rejected shabbily."

74.

On the point of the purpose of acquisition being relevant, Shri Katneshwarkar has relied on paragraphs 29 and 30 of Nelson Fernandes (supra), which read as under :- "29.

Both the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the District Judge and of the High Court have failed to notice that the purpose of acquisition is for Railways and that the purpose is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation. In this context, we may usefully refer the judgment of this Court of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in JT 2005 (4) SC 282. This Court held that the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration in fixing the market value and the deduction of development charges. In the above case, the lands were acquired because they were submerged under water of a dam. Owners claimed compensation of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. LAO awarded compensation ranging from

*234* MIDC LATUR Rs. 35/- to Rs. 60/- per sq. mtr. Reference Court fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. and after deduction of development charges, determined the compensation @ Rs. 134/- per sq. mtr. In arriving at the compensation, Reference Court placed reliance on the comparative sale of a piece of land measuring 46.30 sq. metre @ Rs. 270 per sq. mtr. On appeal, the High Court awarded compensation of Rs. 180/- per sq. mtr. in respect of large plots and Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. in respect of smaller plots. On further appeal, this Court held that since the lands were acquired for being submerged in water of dam and had no potential value and the sale instance relied was a small plot measuring 46.30 sq. mtr.

whereas the acquisition in the present case was in respect of large area, interest of justice would be subserved by awarding compensation of Rs. 160/- per sq. mtr. in respect of larger plots and Rs.175/- per sq. mtr. for smaller plots. In Basavva (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Spl. LAO and Ors. reported in JT 1996 5 SC 580, this Court held that the purpose by which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value.

30.

We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally 1/3 deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the land acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 2 SCC 422 and L.A.O. vs. Nookala Rajamallu, 2003 (10) Scale 307 had noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and in view of the availability of basic civic amenities such as school, bank, police station, water supply, electricity, high way, transport, post, petrol pump, industry, telecommunication and

*235* MIDC LATUR other businesses, the claim of compensation should reasonably be fixed @ Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. with the deduction of 20%. The appellant shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc. etc. The appellants also will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing on the said land in a sum of Rs. 59,192 as fixed. I.A. No. 1 of 2006 for substitution is ordered as prayed for."

75.

He then canvassed that by way of a rough assessment that a 20% deduction of land, if the same is utilized for setting up of an industrial area, would be appropriate. Such deduction should not exceed 20%.

76.

On the point of the report of the private valuer, especially Mr.Pokalwar, Shri Katneshwarkar is aware that the valuer was not authorized to submit a valuation report with regard to the agricultural land. However, he denies that the report of Shri Pokalwar deserves to be ignored. To a specific query from us, as to whether, the cause of the claimants would be advanced if the report of the private valuer is discarded, he submits that the sale instances produced by the claimants itself would establish the market value of lands. The persons buying the lands whose sale instances are placed on record, have the knowledge of assessing the quality of the land and accordingly, they paid higher prices for lands whose quality is much higher

*236* MIDC LATUR than other parcels of lands.

77.

Shri Katneshwarkar referred to the meaning of the term "compensation" as per the Government of India Act, 1935. He relied upon N.B. Jeejeebhoy vs. Assistant Collector, Thana Prant, Thana, AIR 1965 SC 1096 and The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor vs. L. Kamalamma (Dead) by L.Rs. and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385. 78.

In N.B. Jeejeebhoy (supra), the Honourable Apex Court has held in paragraphs 8 to 12 as under :- "8.

Under this sub-section the power to make any law by an appropriate legislature was subject to the conditions laid down therein.

9.

The power thereunder could not be exercised unless the conditions were complied with. They were fetters on the legislative power. Section 299 of the Government of India Act in express terms said that the appropriate legislature had no power to make any law authorising the compulsory acquisition for public purposes of any land etc. unless the law provided for the payment of compensation for the property acquired. If "compensation" was not so provided, it affected the competency of the appropriate Legislature to make the said law. If it did not have power, the law so made was a nullity. It is as if it did not exist on the statute book.

10.

The question is whether the Act provides for compensation within the meaning of s. 299(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935. This Court had the occasion to construe the meaning of that expression in Art.31(2) of the Constitution before it was amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. Under clause (2) of Art.31, no property shall be taken possession of or

*237* MIDC LATUR acquired for a public purpose unless the law provides for compensation for the property taken possession of or acquired and either fixer. the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and given. Both under s. 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Art.31(2) of the Constitution, fixation of the amount of compensation or specification of the principles on which and the, manner in which it is to be determined are necessary conditions for a valid acquisition. Indeed, the relevant parts of the said two provisions are pari materia with each other. The scope of the said conditions fell to be considered in The State of West Bengal v. Mrs.Bela Banerjee, 1954 (1) SCR 558.

That case was dealing with the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, which was passed primarily for the settlement of immigrants who had migrated into West Bengal due to communal disturbances in East Bengal, and which provided for the acquisition and development of land for public purposes including the said purpose. Under that Act it was provided that the amount of compensation paid thereunder should not exceed the market value of the land on December 31, 1946; that is to say, even if the notification under s.4 or under s.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued long after the said date, the market value of the land acquired could only be the market value of the said land on the said date.

After reading the relevant Articles of the Constitution, this Court proceeded to state : "While it is true that the legislature is given the discretionary power of laying down the principles which should govern the determination of the amount to be given to the owner for the property appropriated, such principles must ensure that what is determined as payable must be compensation, that is a just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of.

*238* MIDC LATUR principles should guide the determination of the amount payable. Whether such principles take into account all the elements which make up the true value of the property appropriated and exclude matters which are to be neglected, is a justiciable issue to be adjudicated by the court."

11.

Applying the said principles to the facts of the case before it, this Court held thus :

"Considering that the impugned Act is a permanent enactment and lands may be acquired under it many years after it came into force, the fixing of the market value on December 31, 1946, as the ceiling on compensation, without reference to the value of the land at the time of the acquisition is arbitrary and cannot be regarded as due compliance in letter and spirit with the requirement of Article 31(2). The fixing of an anterior date for the ascertainment of value may not, in certain circumstances, be a violation of the constitutional requirement as, for instance, when the proposed scheme of acquisition becomes known before it is launched and prices rise sharply in anticipation of the benefits to be derived under it, but the fixing of an anterior date which might have no relation to the value of the land when it is acquired, may be, many years later, cannot but be regarded as arbitrary."

12.

This decision lays down the following principles :

(1) The expression "compensation" in Art.31(2) of the Constitution means "just equivalent" of what the owner has been deprived of; (2) the principles laid down by the Legislature shall be only for the determination of the compensation so defined; (3) whether the principles have taken into account the relevant elements to ascertain the true value of the property acquired is a justiciable issue; and (4) the fixation of an anterior date for the ascertainment of the value of the property acquired without reference to any relevant circumstances which necessitated the fixing of an earlier date for the purpose of ascertaining the real value is arbitrary. In our view, the principles laid down in this

*239* MIDC LATUR judgment directly govern the situation arising under s. 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. In the context of the payment of compensation and prescribing of principles for ascertaining the amount of compensation, we cannot discover any relevant distinction between the two provisions so as to compel us to give a meaning to the expression "compensation" under s. 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, different from that given to that expression in Art.31(2) of the Constitution by this Court. The High Court refused to rely upon the said decision in construing s. 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, for the following reasons:

"But the context in which Art.31 of the Constitution occurs is entirely different from the context in which s. 299 of the Government of India Act occurred. Even if the two provisions have been made with the same object, the Court cannot ignore the circum- stance that under s. 299 of the Government of India Act there was a restriction imposed upon the sovereign right of the Legislature to enact legislation in matters of compulsory acquisition' of land and that provision had to be strictly construed, whereas Art.31 of the Constitution, which has undergone various changes during the last eight years, is, in form and substance, a declaration of a right to property in favour of all persons and of the incidents of that right.""

79.

In L. Kamalamma (supra), with reference to the land abutting the road, it has been held in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under :- "7.

The argument advanced by Shri Nageshwar Rao that the classification by land Acquisition Officer was in Order and ought not to have been interfered with by the Reference Court or the High Court does not appeal to us. When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed into

*240* MIDC LATUR an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay reasonably higher price for that site. One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the land as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and therefore classification of the same into different categories does not stand to reason.

8.

The Reference Court, however, merely took note of the price noted in Exb. B-30, the sale deed while the High Court deducted only towards the space that was required for formation of roads or other amenities altogether ignoring the time required for formation of the lay out, the period for which the money would be locked up in the investment and the waiting period as also for the reduced price for land when lumpsum payment is made. Bearing in mind these aspects we are of the view that the High Court should have reduced the price arrived at by the Reference Court at Rs. 100/- per sq. yard by atleast 40 per cent."

80.

Shri Katneshwarkar has then addressed us on the aspects of the deduction and potentiality of the land. He submits that earlier there were three acquisitions in Latur and this includes an acquisition for establishing the old Latur MIDC. The present acquisition is with regard to the additional MIDC area. There has been an escalation in the market value and at the same

*241* MIDC LATUR time, cost of living has grown multi-fold times. Paltry amounts were granted by the Collector. He refers to Valliyammal and another vs. Special Tahasildar (Land Acquisition) and another, (2011) 8 SCC 91, A. Natesam Pillai vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, (2010) 9 SCC 118 and C.R. Nagaraja Shetty vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and others, (2009) 11 SCC 80.

81.

In Valliyammal (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 19 to 25 as under :- "19.

In A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707, the rule of 1/3rd deduction towards development cost was invoked while determining market value of the acquired land. In Subh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444, this Court held as under:

"24.

Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with reference to the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the "development cost". Two factors have a bearing on the quantum (or percentage) of deduction in the "retail price" as development cost. Firstly, the percentage of deduction is decided with reference to the extent and nature of development of the area/ layout in which the small developed plot is situated. Secondly, the condition of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification, whether it was undeveloped, or partly developed, is considered and appropriate adjustment is made in the percentage of deduction to take note of the developed status of the acquired land.

25.

The percentage of deduction (development

*242* MIDC LATUR cost factor) will be applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But where the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed (say for example, having good road access or having the amenity of electricity, water, etc.) then the development cost (that is, percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. But under no circumstances, will the future use or purpose of acquisition play a role in determining the percentage of deduction towards development cost." (emphasis supplied) 20.

If the impugned judgment is considered in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases, there is no escape from the conclusion that the same suffer from multiple errors and call for interference by this Court.

21.

The first error committed by the High Court relates to deduction of 40% towards development charges. While doing so, the High Court ignored its own finding that the acquired land was situated in the vicinity of the residential colonies developed by the Board and other establishments as also the fact that the respondents had not produced any evidence to show that they will have to start the development work from scratch. Therefore, the High Court could have, at best, applied 1/3rd deduction towards development cost. The second error committed by the High Court is that while fixing market value, it did not take into account the escalation in land prices.

22.

In Ranjit Singh v. U.T. of Chandigarh (1992) 4 SCC 659, Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ramanjulu (2005) 9 SCC 594, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283, Sardar Jogendra Singh v. State of U.P. (2008) 17 SCC 133, Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik Azam Saheb (supra) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra), this Court has repeatedly held that the exercise undertaken for fixing market value and determination of the

*243* MIDC LATUR compensation payable to the landowner should necessarily involve consideration of escalation in land prices. In the last mentioned judgment, the Court noticed the earlier precedents and observed as under:

"12.

We have examined the facts of the three decisions relied on by the respondents. They all related to acquisition of lands in urban or semiurban areas. Ranjit Singh related to acquisition for development of Sector 41 of Chandigarh.

Ramanjulu related to acquisition of the third phase of an existing and established industrial estate in an urban area. Bipin Kumar related to an acquisition of lands adjoining Badaun-Delhi Highway in a semi-urban area where building construction activity was going on all around the acquired lands.

13.

Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors: situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties.

14.

On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding

*244* MIDC LATUR increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.

15.

Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger.

For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase."

23.

Though it may appear repetitive, we deem it necessary to mention that the acquired land is situated in the close vicinity of various residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals etc. and is on the junction of two important roads. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the land is semiurban and has huge potential for being developed as housing sites and the High Court should have added 10% per annum escalation in

*245* MIDC LATUR the price specified in the sale deeds relied upon for fixing market value of the acquired land.

24.

The third error committed by the High Court is that in fixing market value of the land acquired vide notifications issued in 1991, 1992 and 1995 with reference to sale deed dated 4.9.1990 vide which a piece of land was sold at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet, the High Court did not add 10% escalation per annum in the land prices.

25.

We may have sustained 20% deduction keeping in view the smallness of the plots which were sold vide sale deeds dated 4.9.1990 and 8.2.1991, but, in the peculiar facts of the case, we think that it will be wholly unjust to allow such deduction. Majority of the appellants have been deprived of their entire landholding and they have waited for 14 to 20 years for getting the compensation. It appears that in compliance of the interim orders passed by the Court, some of the appellants did get 25% and one of them get 35% of the compensation, but majority of them have not received a single penny towards compensation and at this distant point of time, it will be wholly unjust to deprive them of their legitimate right by approving the 20% deduction made by the High Court. In such matters, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the landowners have been deprived of the only source of livelihood, the cost of living has gone up manifold and the purchasing power of rupee has substantially declined."

(Emphasis supplied) 82.

In A. Natesam Pillai (supra), while dealing with the issue of granting just and fair market value to the land holders, it has been held in paragraphs 21 and 22 as under :- "21.

This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 422 also held that:- "3. .......But it is settled law by series of judgments

*246* MIDC LATUR of this Court that the court is not like an umpire but is required to determine the correct market value after taking all the relevant circumstances, evinces active participation in adduction of evidence; calls to his aid his judicial experience; evaluate the relevant facts from the evidence on record applying correct principles of law which would be just and proper for the land under acquisition. It is its constitutional, statutory and social duty. The court should eschew aside feats of imagination but occupy the armchair of a prudent, willing but not too anxious, purchaser and always ask the question as to what are the prevailing conditions and whether a willing purchaser would as a prudent man in the normal market conditions offer to purchase the acquired land at the rates mentioned in the sale deeds. After due evaluation taking all relevant and germane facts into consideration, the Court must answer as to what would be the just and fair market value...... "

22.

Therefore, it is clear from the aforementioned decisions of this Court that the potentiality of the acquired land, in so far as it relates to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future, must be given due consideration."

83.

In C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (supra), it was held in paragraphs 18 and 19 as under :- "18.

The situation is no different in the present case. All that the acquiring body has to achieve is to widen the National Highway. There is no further question of any development. We again, even at the cost of repetition, reiterate that no evidence was shown before us in support of the plea of the proposed development. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has erred in directing the deduction on account of the developmental charges at the rate of Rs.25/- per square feet out of the ordered compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square feet. We set aside the judgment to that extent.

19.

The claimant would, therefore, be entitled to the

*247* MIDC LATUR compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square feet with all the statutory benefits like solatium under Section 23(2), 12% interest under Section 23(1-A) on the enhanced market value and interest at 9% and 15% as provided under Section 34 of the Act for one year and the rest of the period from the date of taking possession till the date of payment of the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant." 84.

As regards whether, the compensation should be granted by following a belting pattern, it is submitted that these claimants oppose the application of the belting pattern. Reliance is placed upon the judgment delivered in Ashrafi and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (2013) 5 SCC 527, wherein, it has been held in paragraphs 18, 19, 22, 23, 27 to 30 and 48 as under :- "18.

In Atam Singh's case, Mr. Swarup, pointed out that the lands had been notified on 15.10.1987 for establishing a new fruit, vegetable and fodder market and that initially compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.54.75 per sq. yard. Mr. Swarup pointed out that the land acquired in 1987 is adjacent to the land acquired subsequently in 1993. It was urged that the Reference Court had in its judgment found the potentiality of the suit land to be high having regard to the various developments, which had occurred in the said area and also for future development relating to a proposal for a truck union and auto market. Certain contemporaneous private sales, for the purpose of comparison, had been filed, which were accepted by the High Court, which had been held to be genuine, from which it would appear that there has been a steady increase in the valuation of the lands and the chart indicates that the price of land in the

*248* MIDC LATUR year 1989 was about Rs.200/- per sq. yard. The chart also demonstrates that two years later, the prices had doubled to about Rs.400/- per sq. yard. Taking the same to be a yardstick, Mr. Swarup submitted that the value of the land acquired in 1987 should be taken as the comparative unit and that the value of the land acquired in 1987 should, therefore, be assessed at Rs.100/- per sq. yard. 19.

Mr. Swarup pointed out that the decision in Atam Singh's case was thereafter followed by the High Court in the case of Sarwan Singh & Anr., being SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150 of 2007. As indicated hereinbefore, the said matter involved acquisition of 429.75 acres of lands similar to the lands acquired in Atam Singh's case. However, for the purpose of assessing the value of the land, the methodology followed was to add 12% annually towards the value of the lands for a period of six years, which is also one of the methods for arriving at a valuation taking a base year and, thereafter, computing the annual increase of the value at the accepted rate of 12% per annum."

"22.

Mr. Swarup then urged that in the case of Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2010) 12 SCC 51], this Court had the occasion to observe that although, in the 1894 Act provision has been made for the payment of solatium, interest and an additional amount, the same had not kept pace with the astronomical rise in land prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, and the compensation awarded could not fully compensate for the acquisition of the land. This Court further observed that the 12% per annum increase which had often been found to be adequate in matters relating to compensation, hardly did justice to those land owners whose lands had been taken away and the increase was even at times up to 100% a year for land which had the potential of being urbanised and commercialised, such as in the present case.

23.

Mr. Swarup pointed out that similar observations had been made by this Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel [(2008) 14 SCC 745],

*249* MIDC LATUR wherein similar views were expressed in a similar vein as in the earlier case that primarily the increase in land prices depends on four factors : (i) situation of the land, (ii) nature of development in surrounding area, (iii) availability of land for development in the area, and (iv) the demand for land in the area. It was observed that in rural areas, unless there was any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster and the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas and in some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalation in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year during the nineties."

"27.

Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate, who appeared for the Petitioners in four of the matters relating to the lands in question, submitted that if all the valuation available were taken together and an average was drawn, the valuation of the land would come to Rs.4572/- per square yard. Furthermore, deduction of 40% from the market value towards development charges was excessive and where the acquired land falls in the midst of already developed land, the reasonable deduction would be not more than 1/3rd of the assessed value of the land.

28.

In this regard, reference was firstly made to the decision of this Court in Charan Dass Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority [(2010) 13 SCC 398], wherein quoting from the decision of this Court in Triveni Devi's case, this Court had observed that it had to be noted that in the Building Regulations, setting apart lands for development of roads, drainage and other amenities like electricity, etc., are condition precedent for approval of a layout for building colonies. Therefore, any deduction made should be based upon the situation of the land and the need for development. Where acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with

*250* MIDC LATUR amenities of roads, drainage, electricity, etc. then deduction of 1/3rd would not be justified. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors. [(2010) 11 SCC 581], wherein also, taking into consideration the various stages of development, this Court observed that appropriate deduction towards development costs could vary between 20% to 75% depending upon various factors, but that in the said case the deduction of 25% towards development cost was appropriate. Mr. Upadhyay also referred to the decision of this Court in Kasturi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354], wherein also, as against the normal cut of 1/3rd from the amount of compensation, it was held that a cut of 20% towards development charges was justified.

29.

Appearing for the State of Haryana in SLP(C)Nos.32764-32765 of 2011, Ms. Anubha Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the disparity in the sale price of the different sale transactions was mainly on account of the different areas where the said lands were located. Furthermore, the sale transactions relied upon by the Petitioners/ Appellants related to only plots measuring about 60 square yards or so. On account of the above, the sale price of such transactions could not be taken to be an accurate assessment of the valuation of the lands which were acquired in bulk. What was also important was the level of development of the lands acquired. According to Ms.

Agarwal, most of the lands forming the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings under different Notifications published under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, at different points of time, were agricultural in nature and comprised the interior portion of lands acquired which were not developed at all.

*251* MIDC LATUR proceedings.

30.

Referring to the decision of the Reference Court, Ms. Agarwal pointed out that development work and/or construction had taken place alongside the roads, such as the National Highway, Tosham Road and Bhiwani Road and it was more or less established that the development in the acquired land was along the roads only and the entire acquired land was not a developed block. Even alongside the roads the development was not symmetrical or systematic, but at the same time, it also had to be recognised that the acquired land had potential for being developed for residential, commercial and/or industrial purposes as on the date of the Notification."

"48.

This brings us to the last part of the submissions made with regard to the amount of deduction effected in respect of the various properties. The general cut imposed is at a flat rate of 40%, which, in our view, is not warranted on account of the fact that the lands in question have lost their character and potentiality as agricultural lands and have more or less been converted into lands which were ready for use for the purpose of construction. Taking Ms. Agarwal's submissions regarding the factors which determine deduction towards development cost, such as location and potentiality, into account, we are of the view that a deduction of 331/3 per cent would be reasonable on account of the passage of time and the all round development in the area which has made it impossible for the lands to retain their original character."

85.

Shri Katneshwarkar vehemently contended that there is no prohibition on considering the sale deeds post notification for arriving at a just value for the lands acquired. Post notification sale deeds can determine the market value that was probable and would indicate the price which the landholder

*252* MIDC LATUR would have fetched had the land been sold in the open market. He relies upon Anant Vishnu Vartak vs. SLAO, 2010 (6) ALL MR 645, in which, it has been held in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under :- "19.

Insofar as the first reason which has weighed with the Reference Court to discard this sale instance is concerned, the fact that Agreement to Sale was not produced by the claimants, would not militate against the claimants in the fact situation of the present case. That is so because the certified copy of the registered Sale Deed (Exhibit 79) restates the position that Agreement to Sale was executed between the owner and the purchaser on 3rd May 1984. The owners had received part consideration of Rs.20,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- was being received on the execution of the Sale Deed on 12th October 1984. In this view of the matter, there was hardly any reason to doubt the veracity of the execution of the said Sale Deed and the terms specified therein.

Having regard to the fact that the claimants had produced certified copy of the Sale Deed and considering the expansive provision contained in Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court had no option but to accept the said Sale Deed as evidence of the transaction recorded therein. We may usefully refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Purya reported in AIR 2004 SC 4830. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has authoritatively answered the issue regarding the efficacy of Section 51A of the Act. It has held that upon production of certified copy of the Sale Deed, its admissibility in evidence would be beyond any question.

In Paragraph 35 of the same decision, the Court has opined that the registered document in terms of Section 51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable.

*253* MIDC LATUR certified copy of the Sale Deed has now been finally resolved by this decision. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the claimants produced the Sale Deed dated 12th October 1984 which has been marked as Exhibit 79. In any case, the claimants have examined the owner of the said plot Vaishali Sane as PW 3 who has deposed about the said transaction and proved the sale.

20.

The second reason which weighed with the Reference Court to discard this sale instance is that it pertains to post acquisition period, in that, the notice for acquisition was issued on 19th January 1984 whereas, the Sale Deed was dated 12th October 1984. In the context of this opinion, Counsel for the Claimants (Vartaks) have relied on the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased by L.Rs.) & Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1989 SC 2051. The main instance relied upon by the claimants in that case was in respect of sale which was post Notification. The High Court rejected the said instance not only on the ground that it was not duly proved but additionally because the same was post Notification. While dealing with this aspect, the Apex Court in Paragraph 4 observed as follows:

"There is, however, nothing in the evidence to show that there was any sharp or speculative rise in the price of the land after the acquisition and this has been noticed by the High Court. It appears that under these circumstances the High Court was not justified in not taking this instance into account at all as it has done on the ground that it was a post acquisition sale and could not be regarded as a comparable instances at all."

86.

Shri Katneshwarkar referred to a report of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division (the Reference Court itself), which was allotted Article A. He contends that the learned Reference Court itself visited the land at issue in connection with the

*254* MIDC LATUR airstrip and prepared a report as regards the development that had taken place in close proximity of the land, which was being acquired. He points out the 32 points noted by the learned Reference Court in the said report dated 09.11.1995 as to the rapid development that took place in the said area. 87.

He submits that evidence at exhibit 34 in LAR No.27/1999 in First Appeal No.1637/2013 would indicate that the report has been referred to, though exhibit number, instead of article A, was not allotted. This report is like a report of a Judge on inspection meaning that it would be like a court commissioner's report. Hence, it can be read in evidence. 88.

Shri Katneshwarkar has referred to the judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Amratlal and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, 1945 AIR (Bombay) 302, to support his contention that the report of the Judicial Officer is like a Court Commissioner's report and the same can be referred to, though would not be binding. He has relied upon paragraph No.9 of the said judgment, which reads as under :- "9.

There is one point about the local inspection made by the Judge on which I desire to make a few observations. This inspection seems to

*255* MIDC LATUR have been carried out not only after the whole of the evidence was led but after the arguments of both sides were over. It appears that the notes were shown to the pleaders of the parties and they have simply initialled them. This has an equivocal effect. It may give rise to an inference that they impliedly accepted their truth or it may mean that they initialled them merely to show that they had read them, even though they may not accept their accuracy or truth. As the arguments were over, the pleaders would have no opportunity to challenge them before the judgment was pronounced. This procedure is quite improper.

It is always desirable in all cases where local inspection is necessary that the Judge should carry out the inspection at any stage before the arguments are heard, and if he conducts the inspection at the request of the parties, it should be made clear whether the parties have left the matter to be decided as he thinks proper from his inspection or that he is merely inspecting under O.18 R.18 of the CPC. If the Judge records his impressions or opinions in his notes of inspection, the parties must have an opportunity to urge their arguments on those notes at the time when the case is generally argued before the Court. In most cases it would be desirable for the Judge to confine his notes to the facts which he observes without recording his impressions or opinions.

He is entitled to form his impressions, but if he records them in the notes, the parties should have the opportunity to meet them in their arguments and he should not decide the case merely from his impressions without giving due weight to the evidence.

*256* MIDC LATUR appreciation."

89.

He submits that such report of a judge is only by way of local inspection and that cannot take the place of sworn evidence. It is open to the Court to believe or disbelieve the evidence of witnesses in the light of his inspection report. The conclusions arrived at by the Judge on his local inspection should be supported by evidence. So also, the said report will have to be put to the parties. It is desirable for the judge to confine his inspection notes to the facts, which he observes without recording his impressions or opinions. He may be entitled to form his impressions, but if he records them in the notes, the parties should have the opportunity to meet them in their arguments and he should not decide the case merely from his impressions without giving due weight to the evidence. 90.

Mr.Katneshwarkar has then referred to the large map (Annexure X-1), which was tendered before us by the learned Advocate General. He has then turned to the notification dated 16.08.1988 and Schedule A thereunder, which would indicate that the villages Warvanti and Arvi were included in the Municipal limits of Latur. As such, the village Harangul, which is

*257* MIDC LATUR at issue, touched the municipal boundaries of Latur. This notification excludes village Harangul electoral division from the Zilla Parishad. He, therefore, canvasses that the rural status of village Harangul was being extinguished and it was brought closer to the urban areas. As such, urbanization in that area had commenced.

91.

He has then referred to the map X-1 to indicate the acquired lands which were touching the municipal boundaries. He has then referred to the decision dated 20.07.2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in MIDC, Latur vs. Bhagabai A. Koli and others. These appeals are pertaining to the same MIDC acquisition bearing Gat Nos.317 and 280. Considering the pecuniary jurisdiction, some of the appeals were taken up by the learned Single Judge. The Special Leave Petition filed by the MIDC suffered a delay and the Honourable Apex Court declined to condone the delay. The decision of the learned Single Judge, therefore, attained finality. Gat No.317 is 12 kilometers away from the Latur Bus Stand and around 4 to 5 kilometers from the extended limits of Latur Municipal Corporation. This would indicate that prices were rising in these areas.

*258* MIDC LATUR We have marked the said Gat Nos.317 and 280 on the map.

92.

Shri Katneshwarkar has then referred to the sale instances viz. Exhibit 26 dated 05.11.1992 in Gat No.310 in Harangul, Exhibit 27 dated 27.05.1987 in Gat No.312 of the same village and Exhibit 28 dated 03.06.1993 in Gat No.314 of the same village. The sale instances indicate the rate of Rs.21.42 per square feet at Exhibit 26, Rs.16 per square feet at Exhibit 27 and Rs.33.33 per square feet at Exhibit 28. It is apparent that only 310 and half of 312 had been acquired.

93.

He has then referred to several sale deeds as under :- (a) Exhibit 35/ sale deed dated 16.08.1995 at village Harangul, Gat No.122 at the rate of Rs.124/- per square feet (plot sale).

(b) Exhibit 36/ sale deed dated 18.08.1995 at village Harangul, Gat No.122 at the rate of Rs.187/- per square feet (plot sale).

(c) Exhibit 37/ sale deed dated 17.07.1995 at village Harangul, Gat No.122 at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet (plot sale).

(d) Exhibit 38/ sale deed dated 16.08.1995 at village

*259* MIDC LATUR Harangul, Gat No.122 at the rate of Rs.197/- per square feet (plot sale).

94.

He has then canvassed that Exhibit 42, a sale instance dated 20.01.1996 at village Arvi, Gat No.105 (old Survey No.49/A) offering Rs.205/- per square feet and Exhibit 43 dated 16.07.1993 at village Warvanti, Gat No.88 was at the rate of Rs.60/- square feet (plot sale). These sale instances were not considered by the Reference Court. He further mentions that 10% deduction per year from the highest sale deed after notification, needs to be made applicable. The Reference Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.38/- and hence, these claimants have filed the cross objections and have prayed for enhancement in the compensation amount.

95.

He has then referred to First Appeal No.1637/2013 along with the cross objection bearing No.32/2021. He has read out paragraphs 1 to 16 from the examination-in-chief, Exhibit 25. He has then referred to paragraphs 1 to 3 of the crossexamination. He has then referred to the testimony of claimants' witness below Exhibit 64 and has referred to paragraphs 1 and 2. There have been no questions from the acquiring body with regard to the distress sale made by the witness. He further

*260* MIDC LATUR submits, on the basis of exhibit 52, which is the N.A. 44 order, and relies on the 7/12 extract, to canvass that there was no cultivation in the said land since the land was fallow. He has referred to another NA 44 permission order for the same purpose. 96.

With regard to the manner in which the Reference Court has dealt with, with the evidence led by the claimants in First Appeal No.1637/2013 decided on 21.12.2012, he turns to the issues framed. He refers to the second issue and contends that he is restricting this case to the purported errors committed by the Reference Court while answering issue No.2. All other conclusions are in favour of the claimants. To buttress his contentions and for challenging issue No.2, he submits that the issues with regard to NA potential and compensation to be paid on square feet basis, are decided in favour of the claimants, in paragraphs 22 to 31 and 32 to 35. His grievance is that the Reference Court has not assigned any reason in support of it's conclusion that the compensation at the rate of Rs.45/- per square feet has been wrongly arrived at. He does not dispute the deduction clause approved by the Reference Court to the extent of 15%. He is, therefore, challenging the conclusion only to the extent of paragraph 36 of the impugned judgment. The NA

*261* MIDC LATUR potentiality and the compensation to be paid on square feet basis, are held in their favour.

97.

To a query raised by the Court, Shri Katneshwarkar submitted that the map Exhibit 59 would show village Harangul and prove the approach road from the Railway Station. He refers to the certificate of four boundaries given by the Talathi at Exhibit 33, which establishes that a road is shown as is claimed by the claimants.

PRAYER FOR ENHANCEMENT 98.

Shri Katneshwarkar placed a ready reference chart containing the details of the lands, which are set out in six first appeals as per the common judgment in six LAR cases. While referring to First Appeal No.3564/2011, he has referred to paragraphs 13 to 19 from page Nos.29 onwards. While adverting to the short judgment and order, he has stated that far flung parcels of lands have been taken together. Sale instances cited by the claimants are not taken into account. Plots plus large parcels of lands are treated at par and given the same rates. The highest sale instance should have been considered. He supports the claim of the claimants for enhancement.

99.

He has then referred to First Appeal No.2308/2010

*262* MIDC LATUR and has pointed out paragraph Nos.12 to 14 from page No.215 onwards. He has then reverted to First Appeal No.1481/2010 to point out that NA-44 permission was obtained by the claimant on 13.09.1988, Exhibit-74. The various demarcations of plots by the Village Panchayat of Chincholirao Wadi were at Exhibits 72 and 73, which were cited to establish NA potentiality. He has drawn our attention to the issues and then, has adverted to the reasons assigned by the Reference Court from paragraph Nos.14 to 23. He also points out that when the NA-44 permission was received, there was already a deduction in the land as per the legal requirement. Despite such deduction, the Reference Court has again recorded further deduction and has followed the unsustainable principle of more acreage- more deduction. 100.

Shri Katneshwarkar has referred to First Appeal No.92/2010 and has pointed out paragraphs 11 to 16 of the judgment. He clarifies that the sale deeds cited by the claimants have not been considered in many cases. The claimants have filed cross objections/ appeals for enhancement. To cite such examples, he has referred to First Appeal No.1577/2010 filed for enhancement and First Appeal No.2040/2010 filed by the MIDC. He has referred to paragraphs 28, 29 and 41 to 45 of the

*263* MIDC LATUR impugned judgment.

101.

He has then referred to First Appeal Nos.1032/2009 and 1033/2009. He points out paragraph Nos.6, 13 and 14 from the common judgment to indicate that the appeals for enhancement deserve to be allowed. He has then referred to First Appeal Nos.2768/2009 filed by the claimants and 1232/2010 filed by the MIDC. A common judgment was delivered in these appeals.

102.

Shri Amit Deshpande, the learned Advocate submitted that he was adopting the submissions of advocate Shri Katneshwarkar. He has tendered a compilation with spiral binding containing First Appeal Nos.1533, 1534 and 1535/2013. He submits that the NA-44 order was received by the claimants on 12.05.1986. The locations of the parcels of lands are not disputed. Considering the development in the said area, the land was converted into NA-44 in 1986.

103.

He has placed a ready reference chart before us. He has also submitted the written notes of arguments. 104.

Shri Deshpande submits that the claimants received amounts in installments. Some claimants have withdrawn some of the amounts by tendering an undertaking and even surety.

*264* MIDC LATUR Some could afford tendering a bank guarantee and some could not. He has then referred to First Appeal No.1145/2018 to point out that the LAR Court in this particular case, has directed 60% deduction.

105.

Shri S.V.Warad, the learned advocate appearing for some of the claimants, adopted the submissions of Shri Katneshwarkar and submits that First Appeal No.37/2009 was filed by the claimants and First Appeal No.145/2009 was filed by the MIDC. He points out that his land Gat No.183 was near a road corner. NA permission was obtained on 12.09.1990 and he received permission to start a small scale industry for which, he got the registration on 28.11.1988.

106.

Shri Kalyan Bade Patil, the learned advocate appearing for some of the claimants, has relied upon First Appeal No.3005/2008 filed by the claimants and First Appeal No.2215/2010 filed by the MIDC. He refers to a chart submitted by him.

107.

Shri P.V. Mandalik, the learned Senior Advocate, submitted written notes of arguments. While reading out his written notes of submissions, he has stated that the present acquisition proceedings are in relation to the development of the

*265* MIDC LATUR additional industrial area. Since the industrial area at Latur, was already developed, the setting up of an additional industrial area would indicate the potentiality of the land. Development normally takes place around the industrial area and when the additional industrial area is being developed, it would prove that the land has high potentiality.

108.

The learned Senior Advocate Shri V.D. Sapkal tendered written notes of arguments and a compilation of documents. He points out Gat No.298, which is abutting the State Highway in village Harangul. He points out the NA-44 order at page 135 of the compilation to indicate that the NA permission was for setting up a brick kiln. He then refers to paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment. He also refers to three sale deeds to indicate the sale instances appearing on page Nos.117, 121 and 128.

109.

Shri Sapkal submits that though the proceedings before the LAR Court date back to 1998, the competent authority has filed it's Written Statement in 2007. The delay caused is attributable to the conduct of the acquiring body, which took eight years to file it's written statement. His contention is that the escalation in prices due to passage of time is attributable to the

*266* MIDC LATUR delay caused by the acquiring body while participating in the LAR cases. Shri Sapkal submits that after Section 4 and Section 6 notifications, the award has to be delivered within two years from the date of such notification, as is prescribed under Section 11-A.

110.

While referring to First Appeal No.767/2013, Shri Sapkal refers to ground No.11. He then points out that as per Section 34 of the LA Act, the payment of interest is prescribed at the rate of 9% for the first year and then 15% interest from the second year. He then points out that though Section 34 applies, the Reference Court has not granted interest as is prescribed. 111.

Shri Sapkal has relied upon the following judgments :- (a) A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2010 AIR SCW 5892.

(b) Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji, Goa v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar, 2018 (4) AIR Bom R 554.

(c) Madhukanta M. Chinchani and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, AIR 2016 SC (Supp) 113.

*267* MIDC LATUR (d) Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and others, AIR 2006 SC 447.

(e) Union of India v. Bal Ram and another, AIR 2004 SC 3981.

(f) Ali Mohammad Beigh and others v. State of J and K, AIR 2017 SC 1518.

(g) Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. Rekha d/o Sukhdeorao Chaware and others, 2017 (6) ALL MR 279.

(h) State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016

(3) AIR Bom R 742 : 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.

(i) Maya Devi (Dead) through Lrs and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2018 AIR SC 645.

112.

Shri Gunale, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, tendered his written notes of arguments along with citations. He has then referred to First Appeal No.2487/2010 and has contended that the land Gat No.305 in village Harangul is abutting the State Highway Latur-Barshi. The entire land has been granted NA-44 certificate on 22.08.1988. The SLAO granted only Rs.600/- per R. This lesser amount has been granted

*268* MIDC LATUR only because there is no entry of NA-44 permission in the Gram Panchayat records. With such conclusions drawn in the impugned award, the LAR Court slightly increased the compensation to Rs.700/- per R, which is Rs.70,000/- per Hectare.

113.

Shri Gunale has then referred to First Appeal No.6/2009 with regard to Gat No.320 in village Chincholirao Wadi. This land also has NA-44 permission. He is operating a licenced stone crusher industrial unit. The SLAO granted Rs.255/- per R and the LAR Court granted Rs.5000/- per R. He, therefore, submits that this Court should grant compensation at the rate of Rs.50 to Rs.100/- per square feet. 114.

Shri Irpatgire, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, referred to First Appeal No.626/2013 and submitted that a sale deed dated 03.06.1993 was relied upon by the LAR Court, which indicated the rate as Rs.33.33 per square feet. The sale deeds dated 27.05.1987, 05.11.1992, 17.07.1995, 16.08.1995 and 18.08.1995, exhibited before the LAR Court, were discarded. The award was delivered in 1998. Section 6 notification was not published for four years from 1992, until it was published in 1996. Therefore, the sale instances of 1992 and

*269* MIDC LATUR 1995 have to be considered. Provisions of law should have been strictly followed.

115.

Shri Irpatgire has then relied upon Rule 29 of the MID Rules, 1962, which permits levying of service charges for amenities provided and such service charges are recovered every year by the MIDC from each plot owner. Section 17 is the power granted to the MIDC to levy service charges. The purpose for which the land acquired is to be utilized, cannot be ignored. Therefore, higher rates should have been granted by the LAR Court considering the purpose of the acquisition. He also submits that 60% of deduction was impermissible and the maximum deduction could have been in between 10 to 15%. He has relied upon the following judgments :- (a) Dev Sharan and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 4 SCC 769.

(b) Tukaram Kana Joshi and others vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others, (2013) 1 SCC 353.

(c) Digamber and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 14 SCC 406.

(d) Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana and others,

*270* MIDC LATUR (2014) 2 SCC 165.

(e) Akkalkot Municipal Council vs. Vasantrao Tulsiram Kharade, 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 311.

(f) Chakas vs. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 12 SCC 128.

116.

Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, has referred to four First Appeals Nos.2316/2010, 3566/2011, 722/2010 and 272/2010 filed by the MIDC. He has referred to the corresponding four First Appeals filed by the claimants bearing Nos.10/2014, 2977/2013, 2020/2012 and 2021/2012, respectively. He has tendered a ready reference chart to indicate the size of the lands acquired, their location, the compensation granted by the LAR Court and the expectation of the claimants at the rates of Rs.50/- per square feet in two matters (First Appeal Nos.10/2014 and 2020/2012) and at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet in First Appeal Nos.2977/2013 and 2021/2012.

117.

Shri Milind Patil, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, has referred to First Appeal No.1616/2016 filed by the MIDC and his Cross Objections Stamp

*271* MIDC LATUR No.10029/2016. He has tendered a chart along with case law. He relied upon Lal Chand v. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 170. He submits that Gat No.29 located in village Khandapur was acquired to the extent of 5 Hectares 67 R. This land is adjacent to the Manjra Cooperative Sugar Factory and a residential colony. This is a developed area. The value of the plots indicates the rate of Rs.2800/- per square feet. A meager amount has been granted by the SLAO at the rate of Rs.225/- per R and similarly a meager enhancement was granted by the LAR Court at the rate of Rs.9/- per square feet. So also, the Reference Court has resorted to 60% deduction knowing fully well that the industrial plots in MIDC area do not require 60% of the land to be used for developing service roads, drainage, gutters, etc..

118.

Shri R.K. Ashtekar, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, tendered the written notes of argument. He has referred to First Appeal No.3568/2008 (MIDC vs. Gurunath Sangramappa Birajdar) and his Cross Objections (Stamp) No.22849/2008. He has prayed for the dismissal of MIDC First Appeal and a favourable consideration of his cross objection.

119.

Shri R.P. Adgaonkar, the learned advocate

*272* MIDC LATUR representing some of the claimants, has referred to First Appeal No.2315/2010 filed by the MIDC and his Cross Objections Stamp No.17563/2014. He has submitted a chart with regard to Gat No.218 in village Harangul Bk.. The land admeasuring 2 Hectares 61 R has been acquired and a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- per R has been granted. He claims at least Rs.50/- per square feet.

120.

Shri Natu, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, has tendered a chart (four pages). Gat Nos.283, 286 and 295 in village Harangul are subjected to acquisition for an area of 4 Hectares 69 R, 03 Hectares 64 R and 0.55 R in the said Gat numbers, respectively. He then submits that 14 references were decided by the common judgment dated 31.12.2009. The SLAO granted Rs.21600/- per acre, which is about Rs.2/- per square feet. The LAR Court increased the said amount marginally and granted Rs.50/- per square feet. He submits that vital sale instances were ignored by the Trial Court. The appeal filed by the MIDC be rejected.

121.

Shri Natu has cited Civil Application No.2662/2020 filed by the claimant, seeking impleadment as a respondent in First Appeal No.1029/2009.

*273* MIDC LATUR 122.

Shri G.N. Kulkarni Mardikar, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, has tendered a ready reference chart along with case law. He relied upon Digamber v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 406, Lal Chand vs. Union of India, 2009 (15) SCC 769 and Raja Srivalgoti Sarvagna Kumara v. Special Land Acquisition, AIR 1979 SC 869. He contends that though the lands are from the same Gat numbers, lesser compensation amount was granted by the SLAO at the rate of Rs.25/- per R and the LAR Court granted only Rs.9/- per square feet. He has referred to several First Appeals in the chart. He represents various claimants whose lands have been acquired from villages Harangul, Khandapur and submits that higher amounts per square feet should been granted by the LAR Court. 123.

Shri Manale, the learned advocate for some of the claimants, has adopted the submissions of Shri Katneshwarkar. He has tendered a chart, written notes of arguments and case law. He then submits that Section 44 of the MLR Code does not prescribe any period for utilizing the NA-44 permission granted. Therefore, if no development has taken place pursuant to the NA-44 permission, would not mean that NA permission is false or fabricated.

*274* MIDC LATUR 124.

He relies upon Section 328, which is the rule making power. He then refers to Rule 4(c) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Use of Land and NA Assessment) Rules, 1969 and states that one year time for development, if the NA-44 permission is granted, has been granted. However, Rule 4(c) is directory in nature and not mandatory. If some claimants have not filed appeals and if the Court grants enhancement, such claimants will be entitled for greater benefits. Shri Manale relies upon the following judgments :- (a) The State of Madras v. A.M. Nanjan, AIR 1976 SC 651.

(b) Sri Ram M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur v. Collector of Madras, (1969) 1 MLJ (SC) 45.

(c) Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v.

Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2012 SC 2709.

(d) Digamber v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 AIR SC 3532.

(e) Vithal Rao vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2017 SC 3330.

*275* MIDC LATUR (f) Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2018 SC 645. (g) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. Udal and others, AIR 2013 SC 3111. (h) Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 709. (i) Himmat Singh v. State of M.P., 2013 (16) SCC 392. (j) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, AIR 2011 SC 3178.

(k) Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2007 SC 1414.

(l) Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor v. L. Kamalamma K.

Krishnamachari, AIR 1998 SC 781.

(m) Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569.

(n) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Mahaboob, 2009

(14) SCC 54.

(o) Newspapers Limited v. State Industrial Tribunal, UP, AIR 1957 SC 532.

(p) Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 517.

(q) Pralhad v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 10 SCC 458.

*276* MIDC LATUR 125.

Shri S.C. Swami, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, has submitted a chart with regard to six First Appeals preferred by the MIDC. He relies upon the submissions of Shri Katneshwarkar.

126.

Shri A.S. Lomte, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, relies upon the submissions of Shri Katneshwarkar and has tendered a chart along with short submissions.

127.

Shri Y.B. Gaikwad, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, has also adopted the submissions of Shri Katneshwarkar and has tendered a chart. 128.

Shri S.V. Gundre, the learned advocate representing some of the claimants, has adopted the submissions canvassed by Shri Katneshwarkar. He has tendered a map and charts pertaining to all the three villages, namely, Harangul, Chincholiraowadi and Khandapur. He points out from the said map that Gat No.214 is actually Gat No.208. Gat No.182 touches the State Highway.

129.

Shri R.S. Deshmukh, the learned Senior Advocate represents the claimants in four First Appeals. First Appeal

*277* MIDC LATUR Nos.2604 and 2605 of 2010 are filed by the claimants. Since the claimants were desirous of addressing the Court, he tenders written notes of arguments in Marathi along with a chart. He contends that no oral evidence was led by the MIDC. Appellant No.1 Prasad led evidence. Exhibits 33 and 34 are the reports of the Government approved valuer. The evidence led through the Government approved valuer Shri Sunil Jain would indicate that Rs.65/- per square feet was not enough. Prime lands of the claimants situated opposite Harangul Railway Station and adjacent to the Latur Barshi Highway should fetch higher values. These lands are surrounded by developed industries. There was a high market potential. They were situated hardly at a distance of 5 to 7 kilometers from Latur.

130.

Shri Deshmukh further contends that the LAR Court did not deal with these factors and granted lesser compensation. Vital oral and documentary evidence was not considered. The certified copies of the sale instances are not considered. The signatories to such sale instances are not required to be examined when certified copies of the sale transactions are placed on record. He tenders the compilation of the following reported judgments:-

*278* MIDC LATUR (a) Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, AIR 1988 SC 1652. (b) Chandrashekhar vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2009) 14 SCC 441 : AIR 2009 SC 3012.

(c) Tata Chemicals Limited, Bombay vs. Sadhu Singh Baljeet, AIR 1944 All 66.

(d) The State of Maharashtra vs. Smt.Parvatibai Vitthal Hudar, 2008 (5) Bom.C.R. 334.

(e) Union of India vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 6 SCC 454.

131.

Shri C.V. Thombre, the learned advocate appearing for some of the claimants, has filed a chart in First Appeal No.1029/2009 filed by the MIDC. He concedes that the claimant has not filed the First Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED IN REBUTTAL BY SHRI KUMBHAKONI, THE LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, ON 25.10.2021.

132.

Shri Kumbhakoni submits that the following are the points/ issues, which are undisputed and therefore, stand

*279* MIDC LATUR proved :- (a) The golden thread of these cases is the "Arm Chair Rule" propounded by the Honourable Supreme Court in the backdrop of "a willing buyer- a willing seller". (b) The judgments cited by the MIDC are neither differed with nor overruled in any subsequent judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court.

(c) All maps/ charts / tables / colour codes/ facts and figures are not disputed.

(d) Two tables of sale instances have been cited. (e) Mr.Pokalwar's evidence has not been relied upon even by the claimants.

(f) None of the impugned judgments are sustainable. (g) The crucial date in these matters is 07.05.1992 when Section 1(3) notification was issued with effect from 08.05.1992 for the three villages.

(h) Section 32(2) of the MID Act has the same effect as of Section 4 under the Land Acquisition Act insofar as the notification dated 04.03.1993 is concerned.

(i) With regard to the above mentioned cut off dates, several judgments of the Honourable Apex Court prohibit

*280* MIDC LATUR consideration of sale instances after the publication of the notification dated 07.05.1992.

(j) There is no lapsing of the acquisition or the award since the date of the award is 03.01.1998, the amount was deposited on 30.03.1998 and the possession of the lands was taken on 26.05.1998 and 27.05.1998.

133.

Shri Kumbhakoni further submits that a new issue has been raised by the claimants regarding lapsing of the award. This is beyond the scope of the First Appeals and therefore, such new issue which was never ever canvassed earlier and which would be a disputed question on facts and would require evidence, will have to be ignored. Moreover, by conduct, the claimants now cannot canvass this aspect. They have accepted the compensation amounts, have moved matters for enhancement, have withdrawn enhanced amounts from this Court and have also preferred appeals for further enhancement. Shri Kumbhakoni relies upon the MID Act and submits that there is no scope for declaring lapsing of the award at this stage. He relies upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:-

*281* MIDC LATUR (a) Prabhakar Bhau Bhoir vs. The Collector, Pune, Writ Petition No.1679/2014 (Bombay) decided on 17.10.2015.

(b) Kuldip K. Kamat vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer No.III, Kolhapur, AIR 1996 Bom 224.

(c) Jamunabai Parmananddas Shah vs. Bajirao Seetaram Kalbhor, 1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 564.

(d) Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 3 SCC 278.

(e) Rameshwar Dass vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 5 SCC 204.

(f) A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. G. Mohan Reddy and others, (2010) 15 SCC 412.

(g) Subh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444.

(h) Narain Das Jain vs. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, (1991) 4 SCC 212.

(i) Amratlal vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, AIR 1945 Bom. 302.

134.

In Prabhakar Bhoir (supra), the learned Division

*282* MIDC LATUR Bench of this Court has observed in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under :- "6.

Therefore, considering the Scheme of Section 32 of the said Act of 1961, once the notice under Subsection (1) of Section 32 of the said Act of 1961 is published in the Official Gazette, on and from that date, the acquired land absolutely vests in the State Government free of all encumbrances. Section 33 of the said Act of 1961 deals with the procedure for fixing the compensation. As the vesting is complete after a notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the said Act of 1961 is published in the Official Gazette, there cannot be lapsing of acquisition. The said Act of 1961 does not contain any such provision.

7.

Clause 2 of the Circular dated 18 th May 1995 issued by the State Government provides that if determination of the compensation under Section 33 of the said Act of 1961 is not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the Notification/notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the said Act of 1961, the acquisition stands lapsed. The Circular only contains departmental instructions. As stated earlier, on the publication of the notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the said Act of 1961 in the Official Gazette, the vesting of the acquired land is complete. Therefore, by virtue of the said Circular, only because of the lapse of time, there cannot be any divesting.

If the State Government wants to release the land from the acquisition, the State Government will have to follow the procedure prescribed under the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 32 of the said Act of 1961. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention that the acquisition has lapsed. The Clause 2 of the Circular dated 18 th May 1995 does not have the effect of lapsing of acquisition."

(Emphasis supplied)

*283* MIDC LATUR 135.

In Kuldeep Kamat (supra), the learned Division Bench of this Court observed in paragraphs 2, 6, 7 and 8 as under :- "2.

The petitioners are owners of an area of 1 acrc and 3 gunthas out of Survey No.20/5B situate at Gokul-Shirgaon, taluka Karveer, district Kolhapur. On Nov. 17, 1977, the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. III, Kolhapur, issued notice under Section 32(2) v of the Act calling upon the petitioners to show cause why their land-should not be acquired for the purpose of establishment of the Gokul-Shirgaon industrial area. By the said notice, the petitioners were asked to remain present at the office of the Talathi, Gram Panchayat, Shirgaon on January 6, 1978 for personal hearing. Admittedly, the petitioners did not file objections to the proposed acquisition; they merely applied for an adjournment and thereafter did not participate in the proceedings at all. Finally, the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notice dated Oct.

23,1979 under Section 32(5) calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession of their land within 30 days from the receipt of the said notice. There is no dispute that in pursuance of the said notice, the authorities have taken possession of the petitioners' land and it is being developed as an industrial area."

"6.

Turning then to the provisions relating to the fixation of compensation, it is seen that Section 33 of the Act requires the State Government to pay for acquisition, compensation of the amount, which is to be determined in accordance with the "provisions contained in the said section. In fixing the compensation, the Collector is guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with "certain modifications, which are stated in Section 33. Before determining the amount of compensation, the Collector is required to give an opportunity to the persons to be compensated to state his case as to the amount of compensation. It is important to

*284* MIDC LATUR bear in mind that Section 33 does not fix the period for making of the award. Coming then to Rule 27 on which heavy reliance is placed, it is no doubt true that the said rule provides time of one year for declaration of the award, with power to the State Government to extend the said period but not exceeding 12 months. It will be useful to reproduce Rule 27, which reads as follows:

"Time within which cases under Section 33(3) to be disposed of :- The Collector shall dispose of cases referred to him under sub-section (3) of Section 33 within one year from the date on which they are referred to him (or not later than such further period not exceeding twelve months, as the State Government may, in any case or class of cases, allow)."

7.

Mr. Abhyankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that Rule 27 has provided time limit of one year for making of the award and conferred on the State Government power to extend the time from time to time but not more than 12 months in aggregate. Mr. Abhyankar further urged that the outer limit fixed by Rule 27 is two years from the date on which the case is referred to the Collector and since no award has been declared within that period, the acquisition proceedings have become void and non est. Mr. Abhyankar tried to draw support to his argument from Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which, according to Mr. Abhyankar, is similar to Rule 27, though he fairly conceded that effect of non-compliance is not specifically provided under Rule 27. Mr. Abhyankar also submitted that the use of the word "shall" in the Rule 27 denotes the mandatory nature of the rule and the only consequence of noncompliance of the said rule will be rendering the acquisition proceedings a nullity.

8.

The argument of Mr. Abhyankar, though at first sight, appears to be attractive, on a closer scrutiny, is devoid of merit. It is no doubt true that Rule 27 prescribes time limit for pa'ssing of the award. It is equally true that the said rule provides aggregate period of two years for making the award.

*285* MIDC LATUR However, Rule 27 cannot be said to be mandatory in the sense that non-compliance with it leads to nullification of the acquisition, which has already become final. The rule, while using the expression "shall", does not provide expressly or by necessary implication that non-compliance therewith results in nullification of the acquisition or in the divesting of title of the Government or that on such noncompliance, the land acquired has to be restored to the original owners. Surely, all these aspects could not have been left to be inferred. These are vital matters and not matters of mere procedure. In our considered view, the provisions of Rule 27, which is placed under the caption of "Miscellaneous" under Chapter VI of the rules, are in the nature of guidelines for the authorities under the Act.

It may be that one of the aspects behind framing the said rule is to safeguard the interest of the owners of the land acquired, but that does not mean that noncompliance with the rule shall result into nullification of the acquisition proceedings, which are already completed. Therefore, in our view, Rule 27 cannot be equated with Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which specifically provides for lapsing of proceedings for failure of the authorities to declare the award within two years. Moreover, the scheme of the Chapter VI of the Act is totally different than the Land Acquisition Act.

Under Chapter VI of the Act, land vests in State Government upon publication of notification under Section 32(1), whereas under the Land Acquisition Act, vesting takes place after the declaration of the award and upon the taking possession of the land. We have, therefore, no hesitation to reject the argument of Mr. Abhyankar that acquisition proceedings have become null and void on account of failure to declare the award within stipulated time."

(Emphasis supplied) 136.

Shri Kumbhakoni submits that the judgment in

*286* MIDC LATUR Kuldip Kamat (supra), is practically a tailor-made judgment, which would demolish the contention of lapsing of awards. 137.

Shri Kumbhakoni then submits that the contention that the claimants should be paid interest, is also not a sustainable argument as no interest is payable under the MID Act. Moreover, the dates of the awards, dates on which amounts are deposited and the dates on which possession of the lands is taken, neutralizes such argument. Section 38 may contemplate payment of interest only if possession is taken without payment of compensation. This position would not apply because the possession was taken after the amounts were deposited. 138.

With regard to the NA-44 permission, Shri Kumbhakoni submits that the said permission is only for the purpose of charging taxes. He refers to a direct judgment delivered in Jamunabai Shah vs. Bajirao (supra). Relevant paragraph 6 reads thus:- "6.

Mr. Nakhawa learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendant No. 6 has vehemently contested this position. He submits that the N.A. order dated 9-10-1964 will have to be duly given effect to in law and that the submission canvassed by Mr. Divekar to the effect that the lands had changed character on 9-10-1964 immediately on the passing of that order, is erroneous. In this regard, Mr. Nakhawa, has relied on the provisions of sections 43 and 44 of the Land Revenue Code, whereby he

*287* MIDC LATUR points out that even on the application for N.A. use being granted by the competent authority, that the same does not automatically come into operation. Towards this end, Mr. Nakhawa, has drawn my attention to the fact that the order in question is designated as "Grant of N.A. permission under section 65 of Land Revenue Code". He thereafter points out to me that such an order is conditional and that the scheme of the provisions of the Land Revenue Code very clearly specify that the order becomes operational and effective only on the compliance by the party in whose favour that order is passed, within the prescribed time of the conditions specified therein. In this regard, Mr. Nakhawa relies heavily on condition No. 2(iii) which reads as follows :- " iii). that the applicant shall commence the N.A. use of this plot within period of six months from the date of this order, failing which shall be deemed to have been cancelled."

Relying on this provision, Mr. Nakhwa submits that the grant of N.A. permission only signifies no objection by the authorities for the use of the land for N.A. purposes. There are additional conditions that are required to be complied with namely the fact that the person to whom that permission is granted will have to in fact perform the requisite acts for the purposes of putting the land to N.A. use. For this purpose, in the present order, a time period of six months was granted for the purpose of commencement the N.A. use failing which the order was deemed to have cancelled. There was an additional condition in Clause (vi) that the N.A. use shall be communicated to the Mamlatdar through the village officer within a period of one month from the date of commencement of such use.

This is also a requirement under the rules prescribed under the Land Revenue Code. In this regard, Mr.

*288* MIDC LATUR place when the conditions specified in the order are complied with. The learned Counsel is right as far as this submission is concerned in so far as grant of permission is only in the form of no objection or consent from the authorities. It is, therefore, open to the party to whom the permission is granted to put the lands to N.A. use and if the party decides to do so, there are subsequent requirements under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code namely that an official intimation in this regard is required to be given through the Village Officer to the Mamlatdar whereupon a Sanad will be issued designating the lands as Non-agricultural lands. Mr.

Nakhawa appears to be right in this submission for the simple reason that under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the assessment payable on agricultural and nonagricultural lands is different. When the N.A. permission is granted, there is no alterations made in the assessment but it is only if and when the lands are in fact put to N.A. use and this fact is officially communicated to the notice of the authorities that the assessment will change. Under these circumstances, to my mind, there can be no two opinions with regard to the point of time at which the character of the lands gets altered and it will have to be held that this happens not on the date when the order has been passed but from the date on which the lands are in fact put to nonagricultural use.

The commencement of this activity is the point of time of change and not the date of passing of the order."

(Emphasis supplied) 139.

With regard to the contention of the claimants that uniform rates be paid to all the claimants, Shri Kumbhakoni refers to Basant Kumar vs. Union of India (supra) and points out paragraph 5, which is reproduced earlier.

*289* MIDC LATUR 140.

Shri Kumbhakoni then relies upon Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana (supra) and refers to paragraphs 27, 28 (28.1-28.4) and 29 to 31, which read thus:- "27.

The High Court felt that Rs.20,000,00/- per acre should be taken as the base price for determining the rate of acquired land in question. The High Court perhaps did this after having noticed that some part of the acquired land in these appeals is situated in Kasan village and, therefore, it is ideal to take the rate of Kasan village land as basis for determining the rate of acquired land also. The High Court accordingly gave annual increase of 8% to Rs.20,00,000/- and worked out the rate at Rs.62,11,700/- per acre for the entire acquired land in question by applying one uniform rate.

28.

In our considered opinion, the approach of the High Court in the facts of these cases does not appear to be right inasmuch as the High Court failed to take into consideration several material issues which arose in these cases and had bearing on determination of the fair market rate of the land in question under Section 23 of the Act.

28.1 First, the acquired land, in these cases, was a huge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres, 2 kanals and 13.5 marlas.

28.2 Second, the entire acquired land was not situated in village Kasan but it was spread over in 15 villages as detailed above.

28.3 Third, there is no evidence to show much less any finding of the High Court as to what was the actual distance among the 15 villages against one another, the location, situation/area of each village, whether any development had taken place and, if so, its type, nature and when it took place in any of these villages, the potentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in each village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land situated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in its near proximity, whether small piece of land or preferably big chunk of land, the actual distance of each village qua any other nearby big developed

*290* MIDC LATUR city, town or a place, whether any activity is being carried on in the nearby areas, their details. 28.4 Fourth, whether the acquired land in the case of Pran Sukh (supra) in village Kasan and the acquired land in question are similar in nature or different and, if so, how and on what basis, their total distance etc.

29.

These were, in our view, the issues which had material bearing while determining the rate of the acquired land in question.

30.

The High Court, in the absence of any evidence on any of these issues, could not have determined one flat market rate of the acquired land in question by applying one isolated rate of one land situated in one village Kasan and adding 8% annual increase from 1994 in such rate and made it applicable to the entire lands situated in 15 different villages. In our opinion, it is only when the evidence had been adduced by the parties to the lis on the aforementioned issues, the Court would have been in a position to apply its mind objectively as to which method should be applied for determination of the rate, i.e., whether belting system or flat rate system or different rates for different lands depending upon the quality of land situated in different villages etc.

31.

The fair market value of the acquired land cannot be decided in isolation on the basis of only one factor. There are several other factors, which govern the determination of the rate. These factors need to be proved with sufficient evidence. It must appear that the Courts have made sincere endeavor to determine the fair market rate of the acquired land and while determining has taken into account all relevant aspects of the case. It is the duty of the landowners and the State to adduce proper and sufficient evidence to enable the Courts to arrive at a reasonable and fair market rate of the acquired land prevalent on the date of acquisition."

(Emphasis supplied) 141.

He then relies upon A.P.Industrial Infrastructure

*291* MIDC LATUR Corporation Ltd. vs. G. Mohan Reddy (supra) and submits that the judgment relied upon by the claimants in LAO v. Kamalamma (supra) is explained. He then relies upon Bijender and others vs. The State of Haryana (supra) to contend that the same view has been taken.

142.

With regard to the arguments of the claimants that the future potential of the acquired lands has to be considered for granting enhanced compensation, Shri Kumbhakoni submits that the said argument is fallacious in the light of Section 24-Fifthly under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He relies upon the judgment delivered in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana (supra) as being a direct answer to this aspect. He refers to paragraphs 20 to 23 and 30 to 32, which read as under :- "20.

It is in this context, in some cases, to avoid the need to differentiate the lands acquired under a common notification for a common purpose, and to extend the benefit of a uniform compensation, courts have observed that the purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor. The said observation may not apply in all cases and all circumstances as the general rule is that the land owner is being compensated for what he has lost and not with reference to the purpose of acquisition.

21.

The purpose of acquisition can never be a factor to increase the market value of the acquired land. We may give two examples. Where irrigated land belonging to `A' and dry land of `B' and waste land of `C' are acquired for purpose of submergence in a

*292* MIDC LATUR dam project, neither `B' nor `C' can contend that they are entitled to the same higher compensation which was awarded for the irrigated land, on the ground that all the lands were acquired for the same purpose. Nor can the Land Acquisition Collector hold that in case of acquisition for submergence in a dam project, irrigated land should be awarded lesser compensation equal to the value of waste land, on the ground that purpose of acquisition is the same in regard to both. The principle is that the quality (class) of land, the situation of the land, the access to the land are all relevant factors for determination of the market value.

22.

But in certain acquisitions, in certain circumstances, for lack of detailed or clear evidence, courts have chosen to ignore the difference in the quality/situational advantages and treat all lands equally for awarding uniform compensation having regard to the common purpose of acquisition. How far such a course is proper or valid may be debatable. Whether such a procedure is legally valid or proper or not, may have to be decided in the context of the respective acquisitions. All that has to be noticed in the context of the issue before us, is that the use to which the acquired land may be put, can have no bearing upon the deduction to be made towards development cost. Nor can the purpose of acquisition be used to increase the compensation awardable with reference to the expected profits from the future user. The observation that purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor, unless properly understood and carefully applied with reference to special circumstances, may lead to absurd or unjust results.

23.

It is accepted generally that residential plots are costlier than industrial plots, and commercial plots are costlier than residential plots. If the purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor in determining compensation, then it would lead to the absurd and unjust situation, that the compensation payable for the same land will be different, depending upon the purpose of the acquisition; and that compensation

*293* MIDC LATUR will be less if the acquisition is for a sewage treatment plant, more if the acquisition is for an industrial layout, much more if acquisition is for residential layout and highest if the acquisition is for commercial value. The purpose of acquisition cannot therefore be a factor to increase the compensation."

"30.

In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, 2008 (2) SCC 568, this Court reiterated the settled principles regarding deductions thus :

"14.

The reasons given for the principle that price fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracks of land, according to cases referred to above, are that substantial area is used for development of sites like laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and other civic amenities. Expenses are so incurred in providing these basic amenities. That apart it takes considerable period in carving out the roads making sewers and drains and waiting for the purchasers. Meanwhile the invested money is blocked up and the return on the investment flows after a considerable period of time. In order to make up for the area of land which is used in providing civic amenities and the waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur gets locked up a deduction from 20% onward, depending upon the facts of each case, is made." 31.

The legal position is therefore clear and well settled. But in Atma Singh, after reiterating the said principle regarding deduction of development cost, this Court made an observation that no deduction need be made having regard to the purpose of acquisition, which requires to be clarified. We extract the relevant portion below:

"15. The question to be considered is whether in the present case those factors exist which warrant a deduction by way of allowance from the price exhibited by the exemplars of small plots which have been filed by the parties. The land has not been acquired for a Housing Colony or Government Office or an Institution. The land has

*294* MIDC LATUR been acquired for setting up a sugar factory. The factory would produce goods worth many crores in a year. A sugar factory apart from producing sugar also produces many by-product in the same process. One of the by-products is molasses, which is produced in huge quantity. Earlier, it had no utility and its disposal used to be a big problem. But now molasses is used for production of alcohol and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another by product degases is now used for generation of power and press mud is utilized in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial. Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long as the factory runs. A housing board does not run on business lines.

Once plots are carved out after acquisition of land and are sold to public, there is no scope for earning any money in future. An industry established on acquired land, if run efficiently, earns money or makes profit every year. The return from the land acquired for the purpose of Housing Colony, or Offices, or Institution cannot even remotely be compared with the land which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory or industry. After all the factory cannot be set up without land and if such land is giving substantial return, there is no justification for making any deduction from the price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are of small plots. It is possible that a part of the acquired land might be used for construction of residential colony for the staff working in the factory.

Nevertheless where the remaining part of the acquired land is contributing to production of goods yielding good profit, it would not be proper to make a deduction in the price of land shown by the exemplars of small plots as the reasons for doing so assigned in various decisions of this Court are not applicable in the case under consideration."

32.

The above observations no doubt seem to suggest that where the acquisition is for a residential lay out, deduction towards development cost is a must, but if the acquisition is for an industry which does

*295* MIDC LATUR not require forming a layout of sites, the market value of small residential plots may be adopted without any cuts towards development cost. The said observations are made with reference to the special facts of that case.

If they are read out of context to support a contention that the purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor to avoid the deduction of development cost in valuation, it may then be necessary to consider the said observations as having been made per incuriam, as they overlook a mandatory statutory provision - Section 24 (clause fifthly) of the Act and the series of decisions of larger benches of this Court which hold that when value of large tracts of undeveloped lands is sought to be determined with reference to small residential plots in developed area, it is mandatory to deduct an appropriate percentage towards development cost.

But it may be unnecessary to consider whether the observations are per incuriam as para 15 of the decision makes it clear that what is stated therein, is with reference to the special facts of that case, with a view not to disturb the smaller deduction of 10% by the High Court, and not intended to be statement of law." (Emphasis supplied) 143.

He further submits that the judgment delivered in Atma Singh (supra), which is heavily relied upon by the claimants, is distinguished and clarified in subsequent judgments cited above. There can be no scope for payment of additional compensation for having lost the land or the source of income, more so in view of the fact that 30% solatium is paid to the claimants under Section 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, besides the market value. On the aspect of payment of

*296* MIDC LATUR solatium, he relies upon Narain Das Jain vs. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra (supra) and points out paragraphs 6 and 7, which read as under :- "6.

Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act, as it then was, provided that in addition to the market value of the land, as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 23, the court shall in every case award a sum of rupees fifteen per centum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. Solatium, as the word goes, is "money comfort", quantified by the statute, and given as a conciliatory measure for the compulsory acquisition of the land of the citizen, by a welfare state such as ours. The concern for such a citizen was voiced by the Law Commission of India in its Report submitted in 1957 on the Need for Reform in the Land Acquisition by observing as follows: "We are not also in favour of omitting Section 23(2) so as to exclude solatium of 15% for the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

It is not enough for a person to get the market value of the land as compensation in order to place himself in a position similar to that which he could have occupied had there been no acquisition; he may have to spend a considerable further amount for putting himself in the same position as before..... As pointed out by Fitzgerald the community has no right to enrich itself by deliberately taking away the property of any of its members in such circumstances without providing adequate compensation for it. This principle has been in force in India ever since the Act of 1870. The Select Committee which examined the Bill of 1883 did not think it necessary to omit the provision but on the other hand transferred it to Section 23." 7.

The importance of the award of solatium cannot be undermined by any procedural blockades. It follows automatically the market value of the land acquired, as a shadow would to a man. It springs up spontaneously as a part of the statutory growth

*297* MIDC LATUR on the determination and emergence of market value of the land acquired. It follows as a matter of course without any impediment. That it falls to be awarded by the Court "in every case" leaves no discretion with the court in not awarding it in some cases and awarding in others. Since the award of solatium is in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition, it is a hanging mandate for the court to award and supply the omission at any stage where the Court gets occasion to amend or rectify. This is the spirit of the provision, wherever made."

144.

Shri Kumbhakoni has adverted to the contention of the claimants that the MIDC did not examine witnesses to prove it's sale instances and submits that it is a vexatious submission. He refers to the five judges bench judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Cement Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Purya and others (supra) and points out paragraphs 18, 29 and 31, which are reproduced earlier. He, therefore, submits that the judgment in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) clearly settles the issue and no examination of witnesses is required. Section 51-A as is interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530 has been referred to in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) and the said view is affirmed.

*298* MIDC LATUR 145.

Shri Kumbhakoni has adverted to the issue raised by the claimants as to whether, post notification sale deeds can be considered. He contends that such argument is baseless in the light of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (supra) and points out paragraphs 15 and 16, which are reproduced earlier.

146.

He then refers to Bhupal Singh (supra) and points out paragraphs 26 and 27, which are reproduced earlier. 147.

To further support his contentions, Shri Kumbhakoni has relied upon Messrs Mohandas Issardas v. A.N. Sattanathan, Collector of Customs and another, (1955) Indian Law Reports 318 and contended that The Honourable Chief Justice M.C. Chagla has held as under :- "Before we turn to the Judgment of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to have our minds clear as to what is an 'obiter dictum' which has a binding effect upon a Court. It Is rather significant to bear in mind that in England an 'obiter dictum' has no binding effect either upon a coordinate Court or upon a subordinate Court. An 'obiter dictum', especially of an eminent judicial tribunal like the Privy Council or the House of Lords, would undoubtedly be entitled to the highest respect. But a Judge in England would not feel that he would be bound by an opinion expressed by the higher tribunal. In India, we have -- perhaps advisedly -- made a departure from the principle operating in England with regard to 'obiter dicta'. At a time when the Judicial Committee of the

*299* MIDC LATUR Privy Council was the highest judicial tribunal in the Empire, as it then was, the Courts in India felt that it would be in the interests of judicial uniformity and judicial discipline if not only they accepted the decisions of the Privy Council, Which indeed were binding upon them, but also accepted the 'obiter dicta' of the Privy Council as binding upon them.

The feeling was that, if the Privy Council expressed an opinion on a point which, although not necessary for decision, clearly indicated the opinion formed by the Privy Council on a question of law, then the Courts in India should accept that as an authoritative pronouncement on the particular aspect of the law and treat that pronouncement as binding, The Supreme Court has now taken the place of the Privy Council and we would like to say unhesitatingly that we must show the same respect for the 'obiter dicta' of the Supreme Court that we did for those of the Privy Council.

The Supreme Courts, is the highest Judicial tribunal in India today and it is as much necessary in the interests of judicial uniformity and judicial discipline that all the High Courts must accept as binding the 'obiter dicta' of the Supreme Court in the same spirit as the High Courts accepted the 'obiter dicta' of the Privy Council.

But the question still remains as to what is an 'obiter dictum' given expression to by the Supreme Court which is binding upon the Courts in India. Now, an 'obiter dictum' is an expression of opinion on a point which is not necessary for the decision of a case. This very definition draws a clear distinction between a point which is necessary for the determination of a case and a point which is not necessary for the determination of the case. But in both cases points must arise for the determination of the tribunal. Two questions may arise before a Court for its determination. The Court may determine both although only one of them may be necessary for the ultimate decision of the case. The question which was necessary for the determination of the case would be the 'ratio decidendi'; the opinion of the tribunal on the

*300* MIDC LATUR question which was not necessary to decide the case would be only an 'obiter dictum'. Mr. Palkhivala's contention is that an 'obiter dictum' is any definite opinion expressed by the higher tribunal whether the point arose before it or not. Mr. Palkhivala has attempted to make a distinction between an opinion and a definite opinion.

He says that, if the higher Court says that a certain view may be possible, then it is not a definite expression of opinion, but of the tribunal definitely expresses its opinion, and not merely tentatively, then it is unnecessary for us to consider whether any points arose for determination before the higher authority, and the mere expression of opinion itself, provided it is definite, would become an 'obiter dictum', and, in India, binding upon the Courts if the 'obiter dictum' is that of the Supreme Court. In our opinion, that argument appears to be entirely untenable.

The very reason why the Courts in India agreed to be bound by the 'obiter dicta' of the Privy Council was that the highest judicial authority in the Empire had applied its mind to a question of law which arose before it for its determination; and however unnecessary it was for it to decide that question, having expressed an opinion on that point it became an authoritative pronouncement on that question of law, and the Privy Council, by deciding that question of law, set its seal of approval upon that question of law. It cannot be suggested that the doctrine of 'obiter dicta' was so far extended as to make the Courts bound by any and every, expression of opinion either of the Privy Council or of the Supreme Court, whether the question did or did not arise for the determination of the higher judicial authority.

Mr. Palkhivala has relied on the definition of an 'obiter dictum' to be found in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, which is based upon the case of -- 'Flower v. Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co', 1934 2 KB 132. The passage is at p. 154 in the judgment of Mr. Justice Talbot. The question that arose before the Court of appeal was whether an earlier decision in -- 'Dew v. United British

*301* MIDC LATUR Steamship Co., Ltd.; (1928) 139 LT 628, was binding upon it, and this is what Mr. Justice Talbot says:

".....It is of course perfectly familiar doctrine that obiter dicta, though they may have great weight as such, are not conclusive authority. Obiter dicta in this context means-what the words literally signify -- namely, statements by the way. If a judge thinks it desirable to give his opinion on some point which is not necessary for the decision of the case, that of course has not the binding weight of the decision of the case and the reasons for the decision."

Therefore, what according to the learned Judge is an 'obiter dictum' is an opinion on some point which is not necessary for the decision of the case. The emphasis is not only on the opinion, but also on the point. It is not merely an expression of opinion unconnected with the point that arises, but it must be an opinion given on a point which arises for determination. To the same effect is the statement of the law in Halsbury, Vol. XIX, at p.

251. This is how it is put:

"It may be laid down as a general rule that that part alone of a decision of a Court of law is binding upon Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and inferior Courts which consists of the enunciation of the reason or principle upon which the question before the Court has really been determined. This underlying principle which forms the only authoritative element of a precedent is often termed the 'ratio decidendi'. Statements which are not necessary to the decision, which go beyond the occasion and lay down a rule that is unnecessary for the purpose in hand (usually termed dicta) have no binding authority on another Court, though they may have some merely persuasive efficacy."

Therefore, here also emphasis is put upon the fact that 'Obiter dicta' must lay down a rule. It is not sufficient that they should be merely 'dicta' Of a superior Court, but from the 'dicta' one must be in a position to deduce a rule laid down by the higher authority. Our High Court has also consistently taken the same view of the 'obiter

*302* MIDC LATUR dicta' of the Privy Council. It would be sufficient to refer to two or three of the recent decisions of this Court. The first is -- 'Nagappa Balappa v. Ramchandra', AIR 1948 Bom 365."

"Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that every opinion of the Supreme Court would be binding upon the High Courts in India. The only opinion which would be binding would be an opinion expressed on a question that, arose for the determination of the Supreme Court, and even though ultimately it might be found that the particular question was not necessary for the decision, of the case, even so, if an opinion was expressed by the Supreme Court on that question, then the opinion would be binding upon us. It. is from this aspect that we must turn to the decision of the Supreme Court which, it is contended, has over-ruled the decision to which reference has been made."

(Emphasis supplied) 148.

He then refers to Union of India and others vs. Dhanwanti Devi and others, (1996) 6 SCC 44 and points out paragraphs 9 and 10, which read as under :- "9.

Before adverting to and considering whether solatium and interest would be payable under the Act, at the outset, we will dispose of the objection raised by Shri Vaidyanathan that Hari Kishan Khosla's case is not a binding precedent nor does it operate as ratio decidendi to be followed as a precedent and per se per incuriam. It is not everything said by a Judge who giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well settled theory of precedents, every decision contain

*303* MIDC LATUR three basic postulates - [i] findings of material facts, is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; [ii] statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and [iii] judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein not what logically follows from the various observations made in the judgment. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there is not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.

It would, therefore, be not profitable to extract a sentence here and there from the judgment and to build upon it because the essence of the decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding between the parties to it, but it, is the abstract ratio decidendi, ascertained on a consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which, when it is clear what it was, is binding. It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution.

A deliberate judicial decision arrived at after hearing an argument on a question which arises in the case or is put in issue may constitute a precedent, no matter for what reason, and the precedent by long recognition may mature into rule of stare decisis. It is the rule deductible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of the case which constitutes its ratio decidendi.

10.

Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it

*304* MIDC LATUR is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. Law cannot afford to be static and therefore, Judges are to employ an intelligent in the use of precedents. It would, therefore, be necessary to see whether Hari Kishan Khosla's case would form a binding precedent. Therein, admittedly the question that had arisen and was decided by the Bench of three Judges was whether solatium and interest are payable to an owner whose land was acquired under the provisions of the Central Act? On consideration of the facts, the relevant provisions in the Central Act and the previous precedents bearing on the topic the Court had held that solatium and interest are not a part of compensation. It is a facet of the principle in the statute.

The Central Act omitted to provide for payment of solatium and interest since preceding the acquisition the property was under was under requisition during which period compensation was under requisition during which period compensation was paid to the owner. The position obtained and enjoyed by the Government during the period of requisition continued after acquisition. The same principle was applied without further elaboration on entitlement to payment of interest of an owner. It is true that the decisions relied on by Shri Vaidyanathan on the principle of payment of interest as part of compensation in respect of land acquired were brought to the attention of this Court for discussion. What would be considered a little later.

Suffice it to say for the present that the finding that solatium and interest are not payable for the lands acquired under the Central Act as part of compensation is a binding precedent. Obviously, therefore, this Court followed the ratio therein in District Judge, Udhampur case [supra]. The contention, therefore, that Hari Kishan Khosla's case cannot be treated as a binding precedent since therein there is no ratio but a conclusion without discussion, is not tenable and devoid of force.

*305* MIDC LATUR Vaidyanathan. Equally, the contention of Shri Vaidyanathan that the ratio in Hari Kishan Khosla's case is in conflict with the ratio in Satinder Singh's case which was neither distinguished nor overruled and that the decision of a co-ordinate Bench cannot have the effect of overruling decision of another co-ordinate Bench, cannot be given countenance. The effect of the ratio in Satinder Singh's case will be considered a little later; suffice it to state that there is no conflict in the ratio of these two cases if the facts in Satinder Singh's case are closely analysed and the principle laid down therein is understood in its proper perspective. Therefore, Hari Kishan Khosla's case cannot be held to be per incuriam not has it the effect of overruling the ratio decidendi of Satinder Singh`s case."

(Emphasis supplied) 149.

Shri Kumbhakoni has then adverted to the judgments cited by the claimants and with regard to each judgment, he has contended that the proposition canvassed by the claimants, would not be sustainable.

150.

He has then referred to the CAG Report dated 02.01.2008 and submits that the reference to the said report as a ground for canvassing that the MIDC has earned huge profits from the said lands, is a fallacious submission. He contends that the acquisition took place in 1992 and it was in 2006, 14 years later, that the MIDC allotted a large piece of land for a college and it's play ground. This cannot be connected with the

*306* MIDC LATUR acquisition and if such submissions are entertained, there would be no end to the acquisition proceedings as the claimants would raise claims citing examples of allotment of lands after two, three or four decades as a ground for seeking enhancement in compensation.

151.

He has then dealt with the contention of the claimants with regard to the visit of the Presiding Officer for spot inspection on 15.11.1995. To counter the said submission that such report has strong evidenciary value, he relies upon Amratlal and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad (supra) and contends that paragraph 9 of the said judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in 1944, clearly establishes that such inspection report is not to be accepted blindfoldedly. We have reproduced paragraph 9 earlier.

152.

He has then referred to the map (Annexure X-1), which has colour codes and markings as regards the Gat number, area, etc. and submits that some parcels of land near the Railway Station that appears to have been left out from the acquisition proceedings, need not create any doubt as the said lands already vest in the Government and are Government lands.

*307* MIDC LATUR POINTS FOR DETERMINATION AND OUR FINDINGS THEREON 153.

Having considered the extensive submissions of the learned counsel for all the litigating sides and upon perusing the record and proceedings, the impugned judgments and case law cited, the following points arise for determination :- (A) Does the acquiring body/ appellant prove that the cut off date for considering comparable sale instances/ transactions for determining the market value of the acquired lands, is 07.05.1992?

(B) Whether, the sale instances after the cut off date cannot be considered for determining the market value of the acquired lands?

(C) Is the value of the acquired lands as determined by the Special LAO, not equivalent to the market price of the acquired lands?

(D) Do the claimants establish that the acquired lands have non agricultural potentiality?

(E) Is the compensation granted by the LAR Courts based on erroneous computation of the market value of the acquired lands?

*308* MIDC LATUR (F) Are the impugned awards perverse and erroneous? OUR CONCLUSIONS Considering the conspectus of these cases, the factors before us, the evidence that we have dealt with threadbare and the crystallized position of law, we are dealing with all the above points, together. Our conclusions with reasons are set out in the following paragraphs.

154.

The First Appeal is a continuation of the suit and though the appeal against the award is a challenge to the award, it is to be dealt with as per the procedure laid down in Section 96 r/ w Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Madhukar and others vs. Sangram and others, (2001) 4 SCC 756, the Honourable Supreme Court concluded that "sitting as a court of the first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties before recording the findings." In Jagannath vs. Arulappa and another, (2005) 12 SCC 302, the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has held that "a court of first appeal can re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion....". Keeping in mind the law as

*309* MIDC LATUR crystallized by the Honourable Supreme Court, we have gone into the record and proceedings and have considered the material placed before us.

PROVISIONS OF LAW, IDENTIFICATION OF LANDS AND CUT OFF DATES 155.

From the pleadings of the parties, we find that there is no dispute as regards the provisions of law applicable. So also, barring a minor mistake as regards Gat No.214 being Gat No.208, there is no dispute amongst the claimants and the MIDC as regards identification of the lands.

156.

It is equally undisputed that the MIDC issued the notification under Section 1(3) dated 24.04.1992 declaring it's intention of acquiring the land for the purposes of setting up the additional industrial area in Latur. The notification was published on 07.05.1992. This date is extremely relevant to these cases and in the words of the learned Advocate General, it is the first "golden date". All the litigating parties do not dispute this. So also, the notice under Section 32(2) of the MID Act was published on 04.03.1993. This can be termed as the second "golden date", which earmarks the crucial period from

*310* MIDC LATUR 07.05.1992 till 04.03.1993. Sale deeds cited as sale instances, registered before the first date are acceptable and those falling during this period, both days inclusive, will have to be scrutinized with utmost circumspection.

157.

In Avdhoot R. Shinde (supra), it is held that a notification under Section 1(3) of the MID Act is comparable with a notification published under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894. It is held further that once a notified area is declared, sale of lands post notification, situated in the notified area, are illegal and such transfers shall not bind the State. The purchasers of the land, post notification, do not get entitlement to challenge the acquisition proceedings. This view has been followed in Gajanan D. Shingare (supra) and Shaikh Kaleem (supra). PURPOSE/ USE OF ACQUIRED LANDS-IMMATERIAL 158.

The purpose for which the land is acquired, is immaterial while computing the amount of compensation. So also, the degree of urgency is not a factor to be considered. While adverting to Section 32(2) of the MID Act, we find that this provision would be equivalent of Section 23(1)(firstly) of the LA Act, 1894. It is held in Bhagatdasi R. Verma (supra) and

*311* MIDC LATUR Rajashekar S. Taradandi (supra), that any contention as regards increase in the value of the land in view of the purpose for which the land is acquired, cannot be the basis for granting enhanced compensation. We refer to Section 24(fifthly) and (sixthly) of the LA Act, 1894, to hold that the court should not commit the mistake of granting higher compensation as the land acquired is being put to a profitable use as an additional MIDC area by the Government.

159.

In Bhagatdasi R. Verma (supra) and Rajashekar S. Taradandi (supra), it has been held that if, on the date of the notification, there was no development in that area, then future development or future potentiality because of the land being acquired for additional industrial area, cannot be taken into account for determining the market value of the land. 160.

The learned advocates for the claimants have contended that as the Government would be utilizing the land for establishing additional industrial area and since there already is an industrial area existing, it is imperative that this purpose for which the land would be utilized, can surely be the reason for granting higher compensation. The profits which were likely to be earned by the Government, should also be shared with the

*312* MIDC LATUR claimants.

161.

We are of the view that if the lands that have been acquired for the additional industrial area, were in close proximity to the industrial area already established and if there has been development and growth in the said area, the market rates can surely be assessed and compensation can be computed based on "comparable lands and comparative market rates". However, we would not take a view that as the lands are acquired for additional industrial area, the claimants should be granted higher compensation, since we are bound by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bhagatdasi R. Verma (supra) and Rajashekar S. Taradandi (supra).

162.

In Subh Ram (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 20 to 23 and 30 to 32 (reproduced herein before) that the use to which the acquired lands may be put, can never be a factor to increase the market value. The purpose of acquisition cannot be a factor to increase the compensation. Atma Singh (supra) heavily relied upon by the claimants, has been considered and clarified in Subh Ram (supra).

CERTIFIED COPIES OF SALE DEEDS-CAN BE

*313* MIDC LATUR CONSIDERED 163.

The claimants have canvassed that as the State did not produce the original sale deeds and has not led any evidence to prove even a single sale deed, mere filing of certified copies of sale deeds/ sale instances prior to the first golden date, is of no consequence. The contents of such sale deeds have to be proved only by leading oral evidence.

164.

Section 114 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act reads "that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it", then an adverse inference may be drawn. It is settled law that, by not entering the witness box and having not presented himself for cross examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against such person on the basis of the principles contained in Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 165.

The presumptions are either of law or fact. The presumption of fact is based on logic, human experience and law of nature. As against this, the presumption of law is based on provisions of law. Presumption of law is mandatory and presumption of facts is discretionary. Section 114 of the Evidence Act does not compel the court to form a presumption, but it is to

*314* MIDC LATUR be considered having regard to all circumstances relating to peculiar facts of a peculiar case. The said section authorizes the court to make a certain presumption on facts. Before drawing a presumption, the court shall bear in mind whether, a particular fact exists which the court thinks is likely to have happened having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business. In other words, while drawing presumptions of facts, regard shall be had to the above aspects. The facts and circumstances are the backbone to draw a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. It is the duty of the court to discern the truth and to arrive at a finding with reasonable certainty.

166.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that every transfer of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upward can be made only by a registered instrument. Such instruments are mandatorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of judgments, has laid down the law that a document is presumed to be genuine if it is a registered document and the onus to prove otherwise is on the person who has challenged the document. If the genuineness of the document is to be

*315* MIDC LATUR questioned, it must be objected and the presumption may be rebutted.

167.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sodhi Transport Co. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1986 SC 1099, observed that "the chief function of rebuttable presumptions of law is to determine on whom the burden of proof lies" The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Karnataka vs. David Rozario, 2002 Cr. L.J 4127 (SC), has observed that "a presumption of facts is an assumption resulting from one's experience of the course of natural events of human conduct and human character. Such experience can be made use of in the ordinary course of life as well as in the business of Courts". Thus the experience of the court of the natural events resulting from human conduct and character shall be considered before drawing such presumption and such experience may be put in to use in the ordinary course of court business.

168.

Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act does not indicate that it should be applied in every case where one of the parties fails to appear in the court to face the crossexamination. The effect of absence or non-production of the evidence shall be evaluated before the adverse inference is

*316* MIDC LATUR drawn. It must also be borne in mind, while drawing adverse inference as to whether, the evidence withheld by either party has a bearing on the case. Non-appearing in the witness box or withholding the best possible evidence is not a straitjacket formula to draw the presumption under illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The court needs to examine the effect of withholding such evidence on the adjudication of the case. 169.

So far as these particular cases are concerned, the purpose and use of such sale transactions assumes great significance. The sale transactions, in land acquisition cases, are collected by way of information to assess the land market value. Such transactions do not need to be related to the property proposed to be acquired. The sale transactions of a third party from the same locality, are to be considered by the Acquiring Authority to determine the market value of the acquired land. The original instrument is not required to be called for. Normally, the Acquiring Authority calls for a data of sale exemplars from the office of the Sub-Registrar. Any party to such acquisition proceeding, who wishes to prove the value of the land proposed to be acquired, shall furnish or produce the certified copies of the sale transactions. The sanctity of certified copies to be considered

*317* MIDC LATUR while assessing the value of the acquired land, has been enunciated under Section 51A of the 1894 Act, thus : "In any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act 1908, including a copy given under section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document". 170.

We are of the view that a certified copy of a registered sale deed would be covered by Section 51A of the LA Act, 1894. Once a sale deed is registered under the Registration Act, 1908, a certified copy of such document, can be accepted as evidence of the transaction. 13 sale deeds produced by the MIDC and 23 sale deeds produced by the State, were totally discarded by the Reference Court only for the reason that the Reference Court expected that the contents of each of such sale deeds should have been proved by leading oral evidence. 171.

In Cement Corporation of India (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court (Five Judges Bench) had noticed a conflict between two judgments by the three Judge benches in Kurra Sambasiva Rao (supra) and V.Narasaiah (supra) and had concluded that the view taken in V. Narasaiah (supra) was the correct view. It was held that under Section 51-A of the LA Act,

*318* MIDC LATUR 1894 r/w Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, production of a certified copy officially obtained, was permissible. Certified copies evidencing any transaction are admissible in evidence if the conditions precedent therefor in terms of the Evidence Act, are fulfilled (as is recorded in paragraph 22 in Cement Corporation of India (supra)). Section 51-A of the LA Act, 1894 seeks to make an exception to the manner of proving the contents of the document. It was further held in paragraph 29 that the Honourable Supreme Court has rightly considered the scope and object of insertion of Section 51-A of the LA Act, 1894. This should, therefore, conclude the debate on the object and purpose of inserting Section 51-A in the LA Act, 1894 in the light of the ruling of the five Judges Bench in Cement Corporation of India (supra), holding that the view taken in V.Narasaiah (supra) was the correct view.

172.

It is quite obvious that the sale instances cited, vide the sale deeds, by the MIDC as well as the State, have been discarded by the LAR Court for the sole reason that they were not proved before the Court. Apparently, the LAR Court lost sight of Section 51-A of the LA Act, 1894. As a consequence, the total compensation of Rs.11,61,30,586/- (Rupees Eleven Crores

*319* MIDC LATUR Sixty One Lacs Thirty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six) granted by the SLAO as on 03.01.1998, which amount was deposited on 30.03.1998, was enhanced by the LAR Courts (three Judicial Officers who delivered the impugned judgments) granting more than Rs.840 crores. We are, therefore, following the law as in Cement Corporation of India (supra). ARM CHAIR RULE 173.

The learned Advocate General has specifically cited the order dated 25.09.2009 delivered by the learned Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B.R. Gavai (as His Lordship then was) & N.D. Deshpande, JJ) in MIDC Latur vs. Balu Chima Kaile and others (Civil Application No.2232/2009 in First Appeal No.2352/2009) vide which, one judicial officer was divested off his judicial assignment pertaining to land acquisition matters. He further submitted that a judicial officer granting astronomical amounts of compensation should be subject to a misconduct requiring disciplinary action in the light of Basant Kumar (supra) wherein, the Arm Chair Rule was adverted to in the following words :- "..... It has been firmly settled law by beadroll

*320* MIDC LATUR of decisions of this Court that the judge determining the compensation under Section 23(1) should sit in the Arm Chair of a willing prudent purchaser in an open market and see whether, he would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed as market value as a willing and prudent buyer for the same or similar land, i.e., land possessing all the advantageous features and of same extent. This test should always be kept in view and answer affirmatively, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances.

If feats of imagination are allowed to sway, he outsteps his domain of judicial decision and lands in misconduct amenable to disciplinary law......" (Emphasis supplied) BELTING SYSTEM 174.

Belting system :- The belting method is based on the road frontage. Frontage land has a greater value in comparison to land away from the road. So in order to find out the realistic value of the land, the entire plot is divided into a number of convenient strips by lines parallel to the centre line of the road. Each such type of land is known as a belt. By this method, the plot of land under consideration is divided into different sections or zones and different rates of land are estimated for each section or zone. Usually, the plot of land is divided into three belts. The depth of the first belt near the road is suitably adjusted. The depth

*321* MIDC LATUR of the second belt is kept 50% more than that of the first belt and the depth of the third belt is kept 50% more than that of a second belt. Considering the size, shape, location and various other factors affecting the land, a suitable rate for the land is estimated and that is taken for the first belt. For the second belt, two thirds of the first belt is taken and for the third belt, one half of the rate of the first belt is taken. There is no hard and fast rule regarding the ratio of the land values of the front portion and the back portion. Each case has to be studied independently depending upon the various factors involved.

175.

Abstractive method:- This method becomes useful when no information is available regarding the land transactions in the nearby area or in other words, the value of the land where sale transactions have not occurred, can be worked out by the application of this method. A nearby property fetching rent is considered and it's capitallized value is worked out by multiplying it's net income by year's purchase 176.

Developmental Method:- This method is used for the lands which are not developed, but bear potential strength to appreciate to a considerable value if converted into residential/ commercial or an industrial layout depending upon the location,

*322* MIDC LATUR size, shape, frontage and depth etc.. If NA land is developed, the net plotable area is only 50%.

177.

We find the following types of value of the lands to be relevant:- A) Market Value:- The market value of the land/ property is the amount, which can be obtained at any particular time from the open market if the property is put up for sale. Market value may differ from time to time according to demand and supply. The market value also changes from time to time for various miscellaneous reasons such as change in industry, change of fashion, cost of labour and material, cost of transportation etc. B) Potential Value:- When the property is capable of fetching more returns due to it's alternative use or by an advantageous planning or providing development works. 178.

One of the first principles that the court has to adopt is that the court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not a judgment in itself. It is simply an offer of the price for the land that he has determined following

*323* MIDC LATUR the settled principles. Hence, the Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer. 179.

The law is well settled that the compensation amount awarded by the acquiring authority forms a consideration payable towards the land acquired and it is for the claimants to adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired lands are capable of fetching higher market value and that the amount offered by the acquiring authority is inadequate. The proceeding under Section 18 of L. A. Act is a separate proceeding raising objections on the award delivered by the acquiring authority. Hence, the principle of burden proof as envisaged under Section 101 of Evidence Act, "he who says has to prove", shall be applied. In the light of this legal position, we find that the arguments of learned Advocate General that the burden to prove the market price as claimed lies on the claimants, is well placed.

180.

The common basis on which the rival submissions rest is that the sale exemplars have to be considered for determining the market price of the lands acquired. Hence, it has to be deduced as to whether, the sale exemplar pre-notification or post notification shall be considered.

*324* MIDC LATUR 181.

The brief locations of the three villages are that village Harangul (Bk) is divided by a Railway track NorthSouth, having Barshi-Latur Highway towards the north of the railway track. Village Khandapur and Chincholirao Wadi are on the South of the Railway track. The Northern Harangul has the frontage of the State Highway. However, the remaining two villages have boundaries of the Railway track. The Manjara Sugar factory is in village Chincholrao Wadi abutting the railway track. Village Chincholirao Wadi and Village Khandapur have boundaries on the East and West of each other. Village Harangul and village Khandapur have a common boundary on the south side of the railway track. The Air Port is on the extreme West of village Harangul (Bk) on the northern side of the railway track.

Jawahar Navoday Vidyalaya is on the extreme west of village Chincholirao Wadi to the south of the railway track. The old Latur MIDC is on the extreme West from the boundary of the land acquired from village Harangul (bk) from the West. The Government quarters, Government girls Hostel, Bidve Engineering College and the Maharashtra Steel Factory are on the east of the Old Latur MIDC. Village Warwanti is on the North of the Old Latur MIDC.

*325* MIDC LATUR from Village Chincholirao Wadi and Khandapur touch the village Gaothan.

182.

The field survey Nos. 179, 180, 182, 219, 298, 303, 302, 305, 307, 309 and 310 from Village Harangul (Bk) are abutting the State Highway on the North of the railway track. Survey Nos.178, 184, 183, 199, 200, 202, 210, 211, 214, 217, 218, 283, 284 and 297 of village Harangul (Bk) are on the South of the railway track. Having regard to the four boundaries of the lands acquired from all the three villages as earmarked in the map submitted by the MIDC, it is seen that they are divided in four parts i.e. East West direction on the South and North of the State Highway and the railway track. Large lands are seen not acquired in between the lands acquired on the North of village Harangul (Bk).

183.

We are informed by the learned Advocate General that the State of Maharashtra and the MIDC had taken a conscious decision of avoiding irrigated lands for acquisition as that would cost a large amount of compensation cost to the State. Therefore, it was decided to exclude the irrigated parcels of land for acquisition so as to reduce the financial burden. He has referred to Bhule Ram (supra), wherein, it was held by the

*326* MIDC LATUR Honourable Supreme Court that where huge tract of land has been acquired and same is not continuous, the Court has always emphasized on applying the principle of "Belting System" for the reason that where different lands with different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having different locations, are acquired, they cannot be considered to be a compact block. 184.

It was further held in Bhule Ram (supra) that though "guess work" is allowed, it is permissible only to a limited extent. The market value of the land is to be determined taking into consideration the existing use of the land, geographical, location of the land along with the advantages/ disadvantages i.e. distance from the national or state highway or a road situated within a developed area etc.. However, the Court should not take into consideration the use for which the land is sought to be acquired and it's anticipated potential value in future. In arriving at the market value, it is the duty of the party to lead evidence in support of it's case, in the absence of which, the Court is not under a legal obligation to determine the market value merely as per the prayer of the claimant. The geographical situation will have to be considered as to the whole revenue State of a village or to various revenue villages. Though a huge tract of land may

*327* MIDC LATUR be acquired, which runs continuous, someone's land may be adjacent to the main road, others' land may be far away. There may be persons having lands abounding the main road, but the frontage may be varied. In such cases, the belting system has to be applied. Every claimant cannot claim the same rate of compensation as if his land is a part of a compact block. 185.

In Ashrafi and others (supra), the Honourable Apex Court emphasized the belting system and observed that while determining the market value of the land, the Court must be satisfied that the land under exemplar is a similar land. 186.

In Bijender and others (supra), it has been held that the belting system is a judicially accepted method for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. It is applied in appropriate cases when different parcels of lands with different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having different locations are acquired and which put together, would comprise a large chunk of land. Such chunk cannot be taken as a compact block. It was further held that in a belting system, the acquired land is usually divided in two or three belts depending upon the facts of each case. The market value of the front belt abutting the main road is considered to fetch maximum

*328* MIDC LATUR value whereas the second belt fetches two third or so, of the rate determined in relation to the first belt. The third belt, if considered proper to be carved out, fetches half or so, of the maximum. It is again depending upon facts of each case. 187.

In Executive Director vs. Sarat Chandra Bisoi and another, (2000) 6 SCC 326, it has been held that while determining the market value by adopting the belting system, categorization of land into (a) land near national highway; (b) land lying along side Gram Panchayat road and (c) land not bordering any road, deserves approval since it makes a distinction between categories which would obviously have different market values. It was further held that where evidence adduced by the land owners and findings of the Trial Court suffered from non fatal infirmities (in the case of acquired land being in large tracts), the sale transactions/ sale instances related to small pieces of land and the satisfactory evidence as to location of subject matter of transactions can be considered and a reasonable solution can be found and the litigation can be brought to an end if the figures relating to value arrived at by the High Court were to be discounted by 25% approximation. 188.

In the appeals in hand, this seems to be the exact

*329* MIDC LATUR situation before us. Some belts of land are behind the railway track. Some are infront of the railway track. Scattered belts of land are road touching and some parcels of land are 5 to 7 kilometers away from Latur. Sale instances cited by the claimants are of small parcels of land, measured only in square feet and some pertain to NA-44 plots, which were never developed for years. However, we find that we can consider two compact blocks in villages Chincholiraowadi and Khandapur. We have considered these aspects hereinafter.

189.

In Sher Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (1991) 3 SCC 335, the Honourable Supreme Court dealt with the acquisition of long strips of agricultural lands for residential-cum-commercial complex. The land was divided into belts having regard to the quality of the agricultural land. In the absence of supportive material about uniform rate of compensation, it was held that the market value has to be considered as per the sale instances of comparable lands and merely because a piece of land purchased at a high rate was an adjoining land or a part of the acquired land, would not permit compensation to be enhanced on that basis since the land sold was small in measure and hence, not comparable.

*330* MIDC LATUR 190.

In Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 171, it was held that a large chunk of lands belonging to 96 villages were acquired. The land in question was in village Wahal, which was only 9 kilometers away from village Panvel which was the Municipal area. In respect of Panvel and another village Kamothe, the Bombay High Court assessed the compensation by applying the belting system. The Honourable Supreme Court approved the application of the belting system and also held that while determination of compensation, some guess work was inevitable and permissible. 191.

In the light of the above, we are unable to accept the strenuous contentions of the claimants that the sale instances cited by them beyond the golden date, should be considered, though we agree that the rate that should be applied to the lands acquired should be as per the highest sale instance prior to the golden date, subject to a genuine sale transaction being presented before the Court. It was canvassed that villages Warwanti and Arvi are included in the Municipal limits of Latur. Village Harangul is touching the municipal boundary. Their rural status is extinguished and they are brought within the urban area. 192.

We, however, find from the exact locations of the

*331* MIDC LATUR acquired lands that neither all the parcels are road touching, nor are they within the municipal limits or are NA-44 plots. The claimants have relied upon four sale deeds pertaining to the village Harangul, dated 16.08.1995, 18.08.1995, 17.07.1995 and 16.08.1995, all with regard to small plots. So also, these sale deeds are registered 3 years after the cut off date. These have been relied upon by some of the LAR Courts. We are, therefore, unable to approve the reliance placed on such sale deeds by the LAR Courts. In such circumstances, we find that the belting system would be the right method for calculating the compensation amount, except in relation to the two blocks that we have noticed.

193.

Having concluded that certified copies of sale instances placed on record before the LAR Court by the MIDC and the State, should have been considered by the LAR Courts, we are of the view that the sale instances (a) dated 27.05.1987 and (b) dated 06.11.1989, with an annual escalation of 10% can be considered as they are before the cut off date. The LAR Courts have committed an error in relying on sale deeds produced by the claimants only from one village Harangul, referred to above and that too with regard to small parcels of

*332* MIDC LATUR land, which were touching the road. Naturally, the road touching plots are bound to fetch higher rates when measurable in square feet and sold in the open market. The LAR Courts should have followed the Arm Chair Rule to assess whether, all lands acquired could have fetched such prices/ rates compared to the sale instances produced with regard to road touching small plots. If, as a prudent buyer, the Court occupying the Arm Chair would not have paid the said value to a far flung parcel of land, which was a huge tract, granting astronomical compensation at the cost of the state exchequer, was unconscionable.

194.

The claimants have strenuously contended that there was considerable development around the lands which were acquired. We find from the record that the said statement may not be completely true. The concerned Judicial Officers did not follow the Arm Chair Rule. They considered sale instances much after the cut off date. By considering sale instances of small plots, which were road touching and only from one village, by applying the method of reverse calculation, the LAR Courts completely misdirected themselves. As has been laid down in G.M. ONGC (supra) and Bhupal Singh (supra), which view of the Honourable Supreme Court is still applicable, the old sale

*333* MIDC LATUR deeds which were cited before the LAR Courts and which were ignored as no witness was examined, should have been considered by applying the principle of the escalation factor in between 7.5% per annum to 10% per annum. This was a far more safer mode rather than considering the sale deeds of smaller plots of land, which were road touching and much after the cut off date.

195.

The sale deed dated 05.03.1992 was with regard to a road touching small plot, which was granted NA-44 status. PW-2 in LAR No.583/1992, was the purchaser of the said plot, who admitted that he had paid up for the said plot as he was setting up a hotel thereon. Certain sale deeds which clearly were hurriedly entered into by some of the claimants, were also relied upon by the LAR courts. These were for smaller portions of plots touching the road. The sale deeds were so hastily prepared that they contain short description of conditions of sale and were NA44. Apparently, this creates a formidable impression that such sale deeds were aimed at manufacturing evidence by jacking up the prices of small plots and the claimants succeeded in misdirecting the LAR Courts as these were the sale deeds which were considered for generalizing the market rate of all the

*334* MIDC LATUR acquired lands.

196.

A strange twist is found in the LAR cases. Three valuers as mentioned in paragraph Nos.52 to 56 below the title "On Valuation Reports", recorded herein above, would indicate that one valuer, namely, Mr.Pokalwar was not even an authorized valuer for agricultural lands. He claimed to have inspected various lands admeasuring about 85 acres in village Khandapur on a single day on 03.06.1997 and prepared rough notes, which were allegedly destroyed by pests. He submitted his purported report to the claimants four years later in 2001 and he admitted that the claimants did not pay him any fees as he was assured that he would receive his fees from the compensation amount. He admitted that he did not promptly prepare a valuation report on acre basis and had only relied upon square feet basis with regard to the NA property only.

He did not carry out soil test while determining the quality of land. Though mandatory, no test pits were dug. He made his valuation by considering the vicinity of districts like Aurangabad, Pune, Thane, Mumbai, etc.. He admitted that the spot location was 10 kilometers from Latur and another was 6 kilometers away. So also, the testimony of Mr.Sunil Ghante Jain and Mr.

*335* MIDC LATUR assistance considering the manner in which they claimed to have inspected the lands (see paragraphs 55 and 56 herein above). Their answers are evasive and do not advance the cause of the claimants.

197.

It is clear from the ratio laid down in the cases relied upon by both the sides, that there is no bar to consider the post Notification sale exemplars. However, such sale exemplars shall be considered if there were none in the locality of the lands which are proposed to be acquired. If such sale exemplars are to be considered, those must be in close proximity to the Notification. Besides, such transaction shall be genuine, prices should not be motivated by acquisition itself and no unreasonable price shall be paid keeping in mind the proposed acquisition. In other words, such sale transaction should be natural in the course of the market trend depending on the principle of demand and supply.

198.

To substantiate the reliance of sale exemplars post notification, Shri Katneshwarkar, the learned advocate, referred to L.A.R.No.72/199 (Yejaj s/o Khayum Patel and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) before the Reference Court. He refers to the sale exemplars relied on in that case at exhibits

*336* MIDC LATUR Nos.18 to 23. Those are dated 27.05.1987, 05.11.1992, 03.06.1993, 17.07.1995, 18.08.1995 and 16.08.1995. These sale exemplars are from village Harangul of NA plots of small sizes. Out of six, five are post Notification dated 07.05.1992. As against this, the acquiring body MIDC relied on the sale exemplars dated 23.10.1989, 06.11.1989, 27.11.1989, 18.05.1990, 18.06.1990, 02.01.1991, 04.04.1991, 07.06.1991, 05.10.1991, 12.07.1991, 27.12.1991, 29.04.1992, 09.11.1992, 29.04.1992, 09.11.1992, and 21.11.1992, from village Harangul (bk). It has also filed the sale exemplars from village Chincholiraowadi dated 14.02.1990, 04.04.1990, 13.07.1990, 21.04.1991, 23.05.1991 and the sale exemplars dated 25.04.1990, 15.06.1990, 23.10.1991, 13.03.1992 from village Khandapur. All were filed before the Reference Court.

199.

The sale exemplars placed on record prove that there were frequent sale transactions in all these three villages prenotification. The law is settled that the sale exemplars before the Notification shall be given preference. In the event, there are no such exemplar, then only sale exemplar post notification shall be considered. We find that Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act allows a party to produce the certified copies of sale transactions

*337* MIDC LATUR to be received in evidence. Therefore, the arguments of Shri Kantneshwarkar that in this case post notification sale exemplars be considered, are unfounded.

200.

In view of the above, we are relying upon the sale instances cited by the litigating parties which were executed before the first cut off date. While doing so, we are following the belting system so as to segregate the acquired lands into belts like road touching lands, lands nearer to the state highway and closer to Latur city, with such lands which are near the railway track and those which are much away from any road or developed area, except in cases of two compact blocks. 201.

In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court relied upon M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, vs. Collector of Madras, (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC), wherein, drawing an average of two sale deeds was disapproved off. In Hansraj (Dead) by LRS. Sohan Singh and Others, (1994) 5 SCC 734, it was held that the method of working out the average price paid under different sale transactions is not proper and the Court should not have ordinarily taken recourse to such method. It was further held that bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of

*338* MIDC LATUR the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands are the real basis to determine the market value. 202.

In Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa, (2010) 13 SCC 710, it was held that, the legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. It was also held that the averaging of the prices under two sale deeds was not justified. When the land is being compulsorily acquired, the claimant is entitled to the highest value which a similar land in that locality could have fetched in a bonafide transaction entered into by a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the same time of acquisition. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the Court.

QUANTUM OF DEDUCTIONS 203.

With regard to quantum of deductions for the development to be made by the acquiring body, three principles with reference to deductions can be made applicable to large tracts of land viz. (a) development of infrastructure, (b) land space to be left out for providing amenities and (c) de-escalation

*339* MIDC LATUR (waiting period). In large parcels of land, the areas for deduction can be used for laying roads, road-side gutters/drains, sewerage, overhead water tanks, electricity sub-stations, truck terminals and effluent treatment plant. The appeals before us pertain to the lands being acquired for establishment of the additional industrial area. Internal roads to enable transport vehicles to have ingress and egress from the factories being erected, street lights, sewerage and road side gutters for rain water, effluent treatment plant, places for erecting transformers for transmission of electricity, police station, fire brigade, etc., will have to be uniformly planned in advance while preparing various lay-outs in the entire industrial area.

204.

In Chandrashekar and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2012) 1 SCC 390, it has been held in paragraph 19 to 22 as under :- "19.

Based on the precedents on the issue referred to above it is seen, that as the legal proposition on the point crystallized, this Court divided the quantum of deductions (to be made from the market value determined on the basis of the developed exemplar transaction) on account of development into two components.

19.1 Firstly, space/area which would have to be left out, for providing indispensable amenities like formation of roads and adjoining pavements, laying of sewers and rain/flood water drains, overhead water tanks and water lines, water and

*340* MIDC LATUR effluent treatment plants, electricity sub-stations, electricity lines and street lights, telecommunication towers etc. Besides the aforesaid, land has also to be kept apart for parks, gardens and playgrounds.

Additionally, development includes provision of civic amenities like educational institutions, dispensaries and hospitals, police stations, petrol pumps etc. This "first component", may conveniently be referred to as deductions for keeping aside area/space for providing developmental infrastructure.

19.2 Secondly, deduction has to be made for the expenditure/expense which is likely to be incurred in providing and raising the infrastructure and civic amenities referred to above, including costs for levelling hillocks and filling up low lying lands and ditches, plotting out smaller plots and the like. This "second component" may conveniently be referred to as deductions for developmental expenditure/expense.

20.

It is essential to earmark appropriate deductions, out of the market value of an exemplar land, for each of the two components referred to above. This would be the first step towards balancing the differential factors. This would pave the way for determining the market value of the undeveloped acquired land on the basis of market value of the developed exemplar land.

21.

As far back as in 1982, this Court in Brigadier Sahib Singh Kalha's case (supra) held, that the permissible deduction could be upto 53 percent. This deduction was divided by the Court into two components. For the "first component" referred to in the foregoing paragraph, it was held that a deduction of 20 percent should be made. For the "second component", it was held that the deduction could range between 20 to 33 percent. It is therefore apparent, that a deduction of upto 53 percent was the norm laid down by the Court as far back as in 1982. The aforesaid norm remained unchanged for a long duration of time, even though, keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances emerging from case to case, different deductions were applied by this Court to

*341* MIDC LATUR balance the differential factors between the exemplar land and the acquired land. Recently however, this Court has approved a higher component of deduction.

22.

In 2009 in Lal Chand's case (supra) and in 2010 in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board's case (supra), it has been held, that while applying the sale consideration of a small piece of developed land, to determine the market value of a large tract of undeveloped acquired land, deductions between 20 to 75 percent could be made. But in 2009 in Subh Ram's case (supra), this Court restricted deductions on account of the "first component" of development, as also, on account of the "second component" of development to 33-1/3 percent each. The aforesaid deductions would roughly amount to 67 percent of the component of the sale consideration of the exemplar sale transaction(s)." 205.

In Brigadier Sahib Singh Kalha's case (supra), 20% deduction for the first component was held to be appropriate. For the second component, it was held that the deduction could be between 20% to 33% and it was concluded that the deduction upto 53% could be permissible. In 2009, Lal Chand's case (supra) and in 2010 in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board's case (supra) , it was held that deductions in a large tract of underdeveloped land could be between 20% to 75%. In Subh Ram's case (supra), it was held that considering the two components, the deductions could be around 67%. In Chandrashekar (supra), it was concluded that 33 and 1/3rd percent would be appropriate deduction for the first component and 33 and 1/3rd percent would be appropriate for the

*342* MIDC LATUR second component. It was thus, concluded that the deduction should not exceed 67%. It was further held that all deductions cumulatively should not exceed 75%.

206.

In Major General Kapil Mehra's case (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that only 1/3rd deduction towards development cost would not be enough as the two essential components of deduction for development have to be considered. In Haryana State Agricultural Market Board (supra), it was held that there should be appropriate deduction towards both the components.

207.

In Kasturi vs. State of Haryana (supra), the Court considered the agricultural land or underdeveloped land, which had potential value for housing or all commercial purposes and concluded that in some cases 1/3rd deduction could be appropriate and in cases where there is already some development, such deduction could be even less than 1/3rd. The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in 2003 in Tejumal Bhojwani (supra), V. Hanumantha Reddy (supra), in 2004 in H.P. Housing Board (supra) and in 2004 Kirain Tondon (supra). Same was the view in 1991 in Special Tehsildar (L.A.), Vishakapattanam (supra), in 1993 in Gulzara Singh (supra), in

*343* MIDC LATUR 1996 in Santosh Kumari (supra), in 2009 in Revenue Divisional Officer cum LAO (supra), in 2010 in Manohar Reddy (supra), in 2013 in Ashrafi (supra) and in 2014 in Kashmir Singh (supra). 208.

The Honourable Supreme Court then referred to several judgments in Major General Kapil Mehra (supra) and observed in paragraphs 37 and 38 as under :- "37.

Depending on nature and location of the acquired land, extent of land required to be set apart and expenses involved for development, 30% to 50% deduction towards development was allowed in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar and Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297; Deputy Director Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidua AIR 2007 SC 740; Mummidi Apparao (Dead by LR) vs. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemical Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 1506; and Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769.

38.

In few other cases, deduction of more than 50% was upheld. In the facts and circumstances of the case in Basava and others v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 9 SCC 640, this Court upheld the deduction of 65%. In Kanta Devi v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 201, deduction of 60% towards development charges was held to be legal. This Court in Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, held that deduction of 67% amount was not improper. Similarly, in Chandrasekhar (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. vs. LAO & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 390, deduction of 70% was upheld."

209.

In Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the deduction towards development may range from 20% to 75%. While taking into

*344* MIDC LATUR account such industrial plots, the Honourable Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 18 to 22 as under :- "18. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq. m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.

19.

If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary. 20.

Therefore the deduction for the "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized private layout or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure.

21.

Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilized for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout-whether it is residential , residential- cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community

*345* MIDC LATUR facilities, parks and playgrounds provided.

22.

Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%."

210.

Shri Katneshwarkar relied upon Nelson Fernandes (supra). We have reproduced paragraphs 3, 4, 13, 16, 18, 19 and 22 to 28, as relied upon by him, in paragraph 73 of this judgment. Insofar as deduction for development charges is concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court concluded that the LAR Court had approved 33% deduction. The High Court had granted 10% further deduction and considering the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis it's nature and plot of the sale deeds, the High Court was of the view that the District Judge ought to have made deduction of at least 85%. The Honourable Supreme Court disapproved of this approach of the High Court and upon considering that the land was acquired for the construction of a new broad gauge line of Konkan railways, the question of development would not arise and civil amenities such as school,

*346* MIDC LATUR bank, police station, water supply, electricity, etc. would not be necessary. The Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that 20% deduction would be appropriate.

211.

In our view, the facts in Nelson Fernandes (supra) are distinct in comparison to the facts before us. We are of the view that the conclusions in Lal Chand (supra) could be appropriately applied to the cases before us since the position with reference to industrial layouts was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court and the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot could be between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots. It was then held that in a semi-developed urban area, the deduction towards development cost could be between 25% to 40% as some basic infrastructure is already available.

212.

In the cases before us, though there was an old industrial area existing in the said region, there was no growth in industrialization. The maps placed before us by the learned Advocate General with regard to which, there is no dispute, we find that there was one sugar factory in Survey No.99, little bit nearer to the Railway Station, and the railway track from Latur to Barshi with a small railway station far away in village Harangul.

*347* MIDC LATUR The Sugar Factory is away from the acquired lands from villages Harangul, Chincholiraowadi and Khandapur, which all are on the south side of the railway track. No major development has been pointed out to us around such lands acquired. The Latur Airport, which is surely not even averagely busy, is far away from the proposed additional industrial area.

213.

We are informed that the acquired land was comprising of agricultural fields. The irrigated portions of the land have been left out by the MIDC and there is no acquisition. Inspite of there being no much development, some parcels of land near the railway station have been granted compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per R in Survey No.303, Rs.5000/- per R in Survey No.219, Rs.10,000/- per R in Survey No.282, which is away from the railway station, Rs.20,000/- per R in Survey No.281, Rs.20,000/- per R in Survey Nos.409/99 and Rs.15,000/- per R in Survey No.409/99, which fall in Survey No.330 (part). In some far flung areas bordering the MIDC boundary lines, Rs.10,000/- per R in Survey Nos.317, 319 and 322 and Rs.15,000/- per R in Survey No.321, Rs.12,000/- per R in Survey No.131/99 and Rs.8000/- per R in Survey No.53/99, are granted. The survey numbers in relation to the acquired land could be

*348* MIDC LATUR more than 250 in number.

214.

We find from the map that some plots, which are touching the MIDC road, are either given compensation per R or in square feet. Those lands away from the MIDC boundary lines and can be said to be some where around the middle portion of an area with surrounding new MIDC boundary lines like Survey No.373, whose south east side is touching an internal road, the LAR Court has granted seven different rates in the same Survey No.373. Some rates are like Rs.20,000/- per R, Rs.15,000/- per R, Rs.12,000/- per R and some have been granted compensation in square feet like Rs.22.50 per square feet and Rs.15 per square feet. This method is against the settled position of law. 215.

In the light of the above, we conclude that as we are not calculating the rates in square feet by treating the lands as NA, we are not granting any deductions.

QUANTIFICATION OF COMPENSATION 216.

For ready reference, we are recording that the notification declaring the intention of acquiring the land for MIDC, was issued on 24.04.1992. It was published in the Maharashtra Gazette on 07.05.1992. On 04.03.1993, the notice

*349* MIDC LATUR under Section 32(2) of the MID Act was published. As such, the declaration by notification of the intention of the Government to acquire the land was made known to all on 24.04.1992. Publication of notice in the official gazette under Section 32(1) of the MID Act is as good as the declaration of the need of a particular land for public purpose under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. With such publishing of the notice, the land would vest absolutely in the State Government.

Upon reading the provisions of the MID Act, 1961 as well as the LA Act, 1894 reproduced in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16 and 17 herein above, it is crystal clear that while considering the matter for determination of the market value of the acquired land, the market value of such lands as on the date of publication of the notice under Section 32(2) of the MID Act, is to be considered. Hence, the sale exemplars after 07.05.1992 are not to be considered for the determination of the market value of the lands acquired, unless no sale transaction is found to be executed prior to the publication of such notice. Such is the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in catena of judgments, which we have discussed in the foregoing paragraphs.

217.

The claimant, namely, Jagdish Vishnudas Dhoot led

*350* MIDC LATUR oral evidence stating that he is examining for himself and on behalf of the claimants in this group. He deposed that the notification under Section 32(2) of the M.I.D. Act is dated 07.05.1992 and published in the official gazette. The acquired plots /lands are situated nearby the Manjra Cooperative Sugar Factory. It is a thickly populated residential locality, 3 km away from the Bidve Engineering college, the old MIDC area, and government residential quarters. It is developed before 1990. The erstwhile land owner had developed the plots for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The road, electricity, drainage and other facilities were made available. The adjacent lands are also converted to non-agriculture purposes and in use since before 1992.

The acquired plots are adjacent to Latur town, which is known for the biggest A.P.M.C. in the State. There are various mills in Latur. The market price of the lands and plots is very high since 1983. The acquired plots could easily fetch the price of Rs.100/- per square feet. It has NA potential. He has produced sale deeds of the land /plot from block Nos. 392, 314, 30 and 122 of village Harngul and Survey No.88 of village Warwanti. It is one kilometer away from the acquired land. The sale deed of land block No.

*351* MIDC LATUR Award of the LAO.

218.

In cross examination, he admitted that he had not seen the plots under sale exemplars. The rates near highway are more than plots away from the highway. The sale deeds relied on are of the lands near the Barshi-Latur highway. He does not know about the plots of Vasant Sadanande and whether, it is N.A. or agriculture land. He obtained the land valuation report from Shri Kapse. He had not given notices of survey for private valuation to the MIDC personally. There is no pleading as regards the valuation in his reference. The quality and prices of lands in village Harangul, Khandapur and Chincholiraowadi are different. The NA orders filed on record were for a stone crusher. 219.

The other witness Jagganath Venkatrao Rajmane, who is the claimant in another reference of this group, deposed as like PW 1 Jagdish Dhoot. His cross examination is also on the same footing. Hence, we are not discussing the same in this judgment, for it would amount to repetition.

220.

Another witness PW-2 Mohammad Abdul Nabi s/o Mohammad Ibrahim Maniyar deposed that he purchased a plot measuring 40 x 70 square feet from erstwhile owner Sau. Surekha Bipinchara Gundare on 5.11.1992 for consideration of

*352* MIDC LATUR Rs.60,000 (sixty thousand). The lands acquired from this group bearing block Nos. 223, 228 and 271 of village Khandapur, and block No.189 of village Chincholiraowadi are situated at a distance of about 1 kilometer from the plot purchased by him. The said lands are by the side of Barshi-Latur State highway. The other acquired land is close to his plot. Those are fetching price equivalent to his plot.

221.

In cross examination, he admitted that his plot is 1 to 2 km away towards Barshi from Latur. The Bidve Engineering College is near 5 km mile stone. The Manjra Sugar factory is 12 km away from Latur. It is in the area of Chincholiraowadi. He further admitted that prices of plots adjacent to Barshi road are more than the plots away from the road. When he purchased his plot, the land owners at 1 km were cultivating their lands. He purchased the plot to start a hotel. Village Warwanti is 9 km away from his hotel.

222.

The witness Deelip Balappa Nagrale is examined to prove the sale transaction as a witness to the sale deed of plot No.14 from of block No.314 of Harangal (Bk) in favour of Sau.Ujwala Venkatrao Birale. It was for consideration of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand). The date of execution of the sale deed

*353* MIDC LATUR is not deposed. He also gave the locations. His cross examination is formal.

223.

The claimants have filed the sale exemplar dated 27.05.1987 at Exhibit-18. It is a tiny plot arising out of Gat No.312 in village Harangul. The consideration of Rs.20,000/- for the said plot admeasuring 1089 square feet, was paid which accounts for the rate of Rs.16/- per square feet. The description of the said plot indicates that there was 20 feet wide road on the west side and the Latur Barshi road lay on the south side. On the east side, there was plot No.3 and on the north side, there were other plots of the seller. Comparing the said description with the map (X-1), the said Gat number is on the north side of the railway track. The sugar factory is situated on the south side. There is no railway gate or railway crossing to travel from the said Gat number to the other side of the railway track.

Same is the case with the Sugar Factory. This plot is far away from the Harangul Railway Station and there is no development around the said plot which may indicate the potentiality of development. This was the sole sale transaction as produced from the said field, which was converted to non agricultural use.

*354* MIDC LATUR developed the said plot for any NA use. There are no facilities like electricity supply, road, water supply near the plot or nearby plots. This aspect is sufficient to draw an inference that though the land was converted for NA purpose, there was practically no development at all. In such situation, no prudent purchaser would prefer to purchase such plots. On these set of facts, we are of the view that such land would not fetch a high price as neither it was put to any non agricultural use, nor was there any demand, nor did it exhibit NA potentiality.

224.

The second sale instance is dated 05.11.1992 (Exhibit-19). This plot arises out of Gat No.310 of village Harangul. The layout is on the south-east corner of the said field. Rest of the land is an agricultural land. The consideration for 2800 square feet was Rs.60,000/-, which is equivalent to Rs.21/- per square feet. The description of the plot shows that on the east side, the land out of the same Gat number was sold to a housing society. On the west north side, the land owned by one Angad Surkute from the same Gat number was situated and on the south side, lay the Latur- Barshi highway. This Gat No.310 is near Gat No.312 with a field in between, to the west direction. However, we do not find any evidence of development on the plots or

*355* MIDC LATUR existence of basic or necessary amenities.

225.

The next sale exemplar is dated 29.04.1992 with regard to a plot admeasuring 33x33 square feet in Gat No.373 of village Harangul. The consideration was Rs.2000/-, which is equivalent to Rs.2/- per square feet. This Gat No.373 as per the map (X-1) is on the extreme side of the village Harangul touching the village road. There is no testimony evidencing any non agricultural development. On the contrary, this plot is surrounded by agricultural fields.

The MIDC has placed various sale exemplars on record. One is dated 23.10.1989 from village Harangul. The sale transaction of two acres of land was for Rs.22500/-. The said land has a private ten feet road dividing it and there were agricultural fields of other owners around the said land. Another sale instance dated 07.06.1991 is at Exhibit49. It was a sale transaction from village Harangul for 88 R out of Gat No.586. The consideration was Rs.44,000/-. The said piece of land was surrounded by agricultural fields and the village boundary was on the north side.

226.

The Reference Court in these group of LAR cases, had considered the sale instances from the said Gat No.373.

*356* MIDC LATUR However, there is no analysis to show as to why has the LAR Court come to the conclusion that (a) the lands involved in this group bearing Gat Nos.303, 281 and 250 are close in proximity to Gat No.373 or that (b) there was a similarity and hence, all the fields in the Gat numbers are entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet or (c) the deduction towards development charges can be settled at 30% from the amount of enhancement payable. It is seen in paragraph 61 of the impugned judgment that the lands of the claimants are found to be seasonally irrigated and having non agricultural potentiality as being situated near the Gavthan village and the airstrip. The lands were in residential area between railway broad gauge line and adjacent to the railway station and near the sugar factory and the Latur Barshi state highway.

227.

Such findings as regards the location is contrary to the facts as revealed from the map (X-1). The Latur Barshi state highway and the railway track are to the extreme south and beyond the railway line, is the sugar factory. Harangul railway station is at a far distance towards the east of the said field. Evaluating the findings recorded by the Reference Court, we arrive at a conclusion that there is absolutely no application of

*357* MIDC LATUR mind and the evidence has not been analyzed with due care. The LAR Court lost sight of the appropriate distance in between the Railway line, the State highway, the sugar factory or even the tiny Harangul railway station. In the absence of any evidence as regards civil amenities, we are of the view that holding the land as having NA potentiality is against the settled principles of law. It is clear from the sale exemplars discussed above that the lands were not developed and there were no civil amenities. 228.

In view of Rule 4 of the MLR (Conversion of Use of Land and Non Agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969, while granting NA permission, certain conditions are imposed by the Collector. As per Rule 4-C, the applicant has to commence the NA use within one year from the date of the NA permission given by the Collector, failing which, unless the said period is extended from time to time, the permission is deemed to have lapsed.

229.

We are considering the appeals as per the date-wise judgments delivered by the Reference Courts for the reason that the LARs have been decided by the Courts on different dates by common judgments.

230.

Judgment dated 04.02.2008.

*358* MIDC LATUR LAR No. F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 81/01 629/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 81/01 24104/21 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 58/07 2215/10 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 58/07 3005/08 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 82/01 2356/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 231.

Judgment dated 09.04.2008 LAR No. F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 147/99 3567/08 No No Rs.9,000/- per R 147/99 2371/08 No No Rs.9,000/- per R 232.

Judgment dated 11.04.2008 LAR No. F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 19/99 3568/2008 22849/08 No Rs.9,000/- per R (Ghodchar, J.) 233.

Judgment dated 17.04.2008.

LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 419/99 9/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R No 2375/08 357/99 94/90 No No Rs.10,000/- per R No 2373/08 337/99 92/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 2372/08

*359* MIDC LATUR 420/99 91/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 173/99 93/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 173/99 2374/08 Rs.10,000/- per R 234.

Judgment dated 30.04.2008.

LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 34/99 4114/2008 No 2883/08 Rs.8,000/- per R 235.

Judgment dated 01.07.2008 LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 992/06 1030/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R No Rs.10,000/- per R 347/99 1031/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 347/99 No 3803/16 Rs.10,000/- per R 102/07 1032/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 8936/14 Rs.10,000/- per R 219/09 536/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R No 366/09 Rs.10,000/- per R 91/01 1029/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 307/01 1033/09 No No Rs.10,000/- per R 236.

Judgment dated 08.07.2008.

LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 334/99 137/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R No 3663/08 184/99 138/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R

*360* MIDC LATUR No 4070/08 334/99 137/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R 3663/08 184/99 138/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R No 4070/08 22/99 141/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R No 3661/08 9/99 136/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R 866/11 16/99 139/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R 3660/08 23/99 140/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R 3973/08 8/99 143/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R 865/11 186/99 2804/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R 186/99 3972/08 Rs.4,000/- per R 237.

Judgment dated 31.07.2008.

LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 905/99 4185/2008 No No Rs.5,000/- per R 905/99 No 3137/09 Rs.5,000/- per R 238.

Judgment dated 29.08.2008.

LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 449/99 6/09 23472/16 No Rs.5,000/- per R 239.

Judgment dated 29.08.2008.

*361* MIDC LATUR LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 11/99 2348/09 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 10/99 2351/09 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 215/07 2350/09 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 336/99 2349/09 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 7/99 2352/09 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 240.

Judgment dated 29.08.2008 LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 524/99 2714/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 489/99 2716/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 47/09 429/99 2721/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 912/99 2726/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 908/99 2724/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 628/99 2730/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 911/99 2722/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 909/99 2718/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 338/99 2728/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 562/99 2720/09 No No Rs.4,000/- per R 562/99 No 1568/09 Rs.4,000/- per R 443/99 2717/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 46/09 432/99 2727/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 414/99 2725/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 416/99 2729/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 415/99 2731/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 548/99 2723/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft

*362* MIDC LATUR 566/99 2715/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 503/99 2719/09 No No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 241.

Judgment dated 29.08.2008 LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 183/99 2332/2009 No 4292/08 Rs.7,000/- per R 242.

Judgment dated 15.09.2008 LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 300/01 2313/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 299/01 2315/10 Stamp No.

18459/14 No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 86/01 2310/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 305/01 2314/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 305/01 Yes No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 297/01 2304/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 293/01 2305/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 301/10 2317/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 94/01 2312/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 306/01 2308/10 Stamp No.

20738/12 No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 84/01 2306/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 298/01 2309/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to

*363* MIDC LATUR 12,000/- per R 93/01 2318/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 295/01 2316/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 295/01 No Stamp No.

29119/09 Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 2368/10 303/01 2311/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 85/01 2320/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 304/01 2319/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 302/01 2307/10 No No Rs.8,000/- to 12,000/- per R 243.

Judgment dated 16.10.2008 LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR Objection 38/99 1840/99 No No Rs.5,000/- per R 163/99 1839/09 No No Rs.5,000/- per R 377/99 1842/09 No No Rs.5,000/- per R 176/99 1841/09 No No Rs.5,000/- per R 375/99 1843/09 No No Rs.5,000/- per R 195/99 1838/09 No No Rs.5,000/- per R 453/99 1837/09 No No Rs.5,000/- per R 343/99 1844/09 No No Rs.5,000/- per R 196/99 1836/09 No No Rs.5,000/- per R 244.

Judgment dated 09.01.2009 LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross F.A. by Orig.

Rates determined by LAR Objection

*364* MIDC LATUR Claima nt 87/01 145/99 No No Rs.15,000/- per R 87/01 37/09 No No Rs.15,000/- per R 180/99 1975/09 No No Rs.7,000/- per R 180/99 494/09 No No Rs.7,000/- per R 245.

Judgment dated 28.01.2009 LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 549/99 1718/10 No No Rs.3,000/- per R 894/99 1713/10 No No Rs.3,000/- per R 445/99 1735/10 No No Rs.3,000/- per R 144/99 1731/10 No No Rs.3,000/- per R 279/99 1722/10 No 1544/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 152/99 1728/10 No No Rs.3,000/- per R 151/99 1720/10 No No Rs.3,000/- per R 174/99 1736/10 No No Rs.3,000/- per R 897/99 1723/10 No 1539/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 452/99 1734/10 No 1541/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 454/99 1733/10 No 1530/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 156/99 1724/09 No 866/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 366/99 1717/09 No 1532/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 895/99 1726/10 No 1536/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 157/99 1737/10 No 1540/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 159/99 1730/10 No 1547/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 164/99 1725/10 No 1548/10 Rs.3,000/- per R 278/99 1727/10 No 153/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 550/99 1721/10 No 1542/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 124/99 1716/10 No 1539/09 Rs.3,000/- per R 150/99 1729/10 No 1545/09 Rs.3,000/- per R

*365* MIDC LATUR 246.

Judgment dated 05.03.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 29/99 1866/2009 Stamp No.

616/10 No Rs.7,000/- per R 247.

Judgment dated 08.04.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 491/05 2690/2009 No 1305/09 Rs.12,000/- per R 248.

Judgment dated 25.08.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 526/99 227/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 914/99 218/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 146/99 230/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 904/99 228/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 409/99 219/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 78/99 229/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 543/99 223/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R,

*366* MIDC LATUR 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 886/99 220/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 915/99 221/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 525/99 224/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 92/99 222/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 458/99 225/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 117/99 226/11 No No Rs.7,000/- per R, 15,000/- per R, 20,000/- per R 249.

Judgment dated 30.04.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 218/99 2769/09 No No Rs.7,000/- per R 218/99 No 1486/14 Rs.7,000/- per R 250.

Judgment dated 30.04.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 446/99 1143/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 201/99 1145/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 137/99 1144/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 367/99 1141/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R

*367* MIDC LATUR 54/99 2443/10 No No Rs.7,000/- per R 365/99 1147/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 138/99 1146/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 542/99 1148/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 120/99 1149/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 344/99 1151/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 132/99 1142/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 423/99 1150/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 251.

Judgment dated 30.04.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 448/99 1302/10 Yes No Rs.6,000/- per R 898/99 1305/10 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 148/99 1312/10 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 43/99 1307/10 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 94/99 1311/10 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 346/99 1308/10 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 506/99 1317/10 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 434/99 1309/10 No No Rs.6,000/- per R 139/99 1303/10 Yes No Rs.6,000/- per R 910/99 1304/10 Yes No Rs.6,000/- per R 496/99 131/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 495/99 1310/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 571/99 1314/10 No No Rs.7,000/- per R 568/99 1315/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 901/99 1313/10 No No Rs.7,000/- per R 450/99 1306/10 Yes No Rs.7,000/- per R 252.

Judgment dated 03.07.2009 LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross F.A. by Orig. Rates

*368* MIDC LATUR Objection Claimant determined by LAR 172/99 1232/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 583/99 1233/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 189/99 1220/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 863/99 1230/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 154/99 1228/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 360/99 1227/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 892/99 1221/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 535/99 1231/10 No 2768/09 Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 635/99 1229/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 430/99 1247/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 356/99 Rs.9,000/- to Rs.

15,000/- per R 253.

Judgment dated 24.08.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 561/99 652/10 Yes No Rs.20/- per Sq. ft 198/99 656/10 No 1731/14 Rs.20/- per Sq. ft 455/99 653/10 No 3222/09 Rs.20/- per Sq. ft 546/99 649/10 No No Rs.20/- per Sq. ft 545/99 655/10 No No Rs.20/- per Sq. ft 501/99 654/10 No No Rs.20/- per Sq. ft

*369* MIDC LATUR 254.

Judgment dated 30.09.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 40/99 722/2010 No 2020/12 Rs.15,000/- per R & 7,000/- for Structures 192/99 722/2010 No 2021/2012 Rs.15,000/- per R 255.

Judgment dated 31.12.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 373/99 2608/11 No Yes Rs.12,000/- per R 341/99 2676/11 No Yes Rs.12,000/- per R 631/99 2677/11 No Yes Rs.12,000/- per R 240/99 2673/11 No Yes Rs.12,000/- per R 564/99 2681/11 No Yes Rs.12,000/- per R 359/99 2678/11 No Yes Rs.12,000/- per R 372/99 2679/11 No Yes Rs.12,000/- per R 182/99 2675/11 No Yes Rs.12,000/- per R 256.

Judgment dated 31.12.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A.

by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 131/99 2525/10 No 1222/10 Rs.20 per Sq.ft 133/99 2526/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 44/99 2463/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 79/99 2471/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 910/00 2527/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R

*370* MIDC LATUR 130/99 2529/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 569/99 2523/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 216/99 2465/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 632/99 2464/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 57/99 2528/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 202/99 2470/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 199/99 2524/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 461/99 2462/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 368/99 2466/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 257.

Judgment dated 31.12.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 364/99 3566/2011 No No Rs.20,000/- per R 258.

Judgment dated 31.12.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 350/99 2337/10 No No Rs.20 per Sq.ft 73/99 28/11 Yes No Rs.25 per Sq.ft 24/99 29/11 Yes No Rs.15 per Sq.ft 25/99 30/11 Yes No Rs.15 per Sq.ft 72/99 2338/10 Yes No Rs.1,00,000/- per H.

Chincholirowadi 31/99 2339/10 No No Rs.1,00,000/- per H.

Khandapur 259.

Judgment dated 31.12.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Rates determined by LAR

*371* MIDC LATUR Claimant 14/99 28/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

127/99 24/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

444/99 20/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

563/99 25/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

498/99 27/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

494/99 29/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

538/99 21/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

510/99 22/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

507/99 23/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

556/99 26/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

634/99 30/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

582/99 972/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

556/99 973/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

913/99 974/12 No No Rs.15,000/- per R Rs. 15/- per Sq. ft.

260.

Judgment dated 03.07.2009 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 154/99 1228/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R 172/99 1232/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R

*372* MIDC LATUR 583/99 1233/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R 189/99 1220/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R 863/99 1230/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R 360/99 1227/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R 892/99 1221/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R 535/99 1231/10 No 2768/09 Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R 635/99 1229/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R 430/99 1247/10 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R 356/99 No No Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per R 261.

Judgment dated 23.02.2010 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 31/99 2339/2010 group of 6 matters No 1482/2010 LAR No.24/99 & 25/99 (Harangul) Rs.15/- per sq. ft.

24/99 350/99 LAR No.31 & 72 Khandapur & Chincholiraowadi @ 1,00,000/- per Hectare 73/99 25/99 LAR No.

73/99 (Harangul) Rs.25/- per sq. ft.

72/99 LAR-350/99 Harangul Rs.20/- per sq.ft.

262.

Judgment dated 27.04.2010

*373* MIDC LATUR LAR No. F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 511/99 2131/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 575/99 2125/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 513/99 2127/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 354/99 2122/10 No No Rs.20 per sq.ft.

482/99 2123/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 557/99 2126/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 559/99 2129/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 483/99 2128/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 512/99 2124/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 581/99 2130/10 No No Rs.12,000/- per R 263.

Judgment dated 28.04.2010 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 903/99 2145/10 No 2604/10 Rs.30/- per sq. ft.

35/99 2144/10 No 2605/10 Rs.30/- per sq. ft.

264.

Judgment dated 29.04.2010 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 179/99 2040/10 No 1577/10 Rs.30/- per sq.

ft.

340/99 2039/10 No 1626/10 Rs.30/- per sq.

ft.

265.

Judgment dated 24.01.2011 LAR No.

F.A.

by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Rates determined by LAR

*374* MIDC LATUR Claimant 76/00 3564/11 Yes No Rs.15/- per sq. ft.

83/00 3565/11 No No Rs.20/- per sq. ft.

918/00 3568/11 No No Rs.15/- per sq. ft.

74/00 3567/11 No No Rs.20/- per sq. ft.

241/00 3562/11 No No Rs.15/- per sq. ft.

91/00 3563/11 Stamp No.

2214/13 No Rs.20/- per sq. ft.

266.

Judgment dated 15.06.2015 LAR No.

F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 140/99 1523/17 Main matter No No Rs.14,000/- per R.

Rs.14/- per sq. ft.

93/99 1524/17 No No Rs.14,000/- per R.

Rs.14/- per sq. ft.

42/99 1525/17 No No Rs.14,000/- per R.

Rs.14/- per sq. ft.

71/99 Stamp No.

1772/16 No No Rs.14,000/- per R.

Rs.14/- per sq. ft.

267.

Judgment dated 15.07.2015 LAR No. F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 48/99 1435/17 Main matter No No Rs.15,000/- per R.

Rs.15/- per sq. ft.

339/99 1434/17 No No Rs.15,000/- per R.

Rs.15/- per sq. ft.

158/99 1436/17 No No Rs.15,000/- per R.

Rs.15/- per sq. ft.

194/99 1174/21 No No Rs.15,000/- per R.

Rs.15/- per sq. ft.

586/99 3820/16 No No Rs.11,000/- per R.

Rs.11/- per sq. ft.

*375* MIDC LATUR 268.

Judgment dated 20.04.2015 LAR No. F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 899/99 226/16 No No Rs.14,000/- per R.

Rs.14/- per sq. ft.

269.

Judgment dated 03.02.2016 LAR No. F.A. by MIDC Cross Objection F.A. by Orig.

Claimant Rates determined by LAR 406/03 3841/17 Main matter common judgment group of 3 matters No No Rs.9,000/- per R.

Rs.9/- per sq. ft.

285/01 3603/18 No No Rs.14,000/- per R.

Rs.14/- per sq. ft.

381/04 Stamp no.

35259/16 No No Rs.14,000/- per R.

Rs.14/- per sq. ft.

270.

In the cases in hand, the land admeasuring 7 H.14 Are is acquired from field survey No.280 from 5 different land owners. The small sized plots admeasuring 12,900 Sq. ft. from Survey No.229 have been acquired from 8 claimants/ landowners. The land admeasuring 5 H 03 Are from Survey No.371 has been acquired from a single land owner, 3 plots measuring 3600 sq.ft. have been acquired from 3 landowners. 271.

PW-1 Sheikh Ismail Isulal Sheikh deposed below

*376* MIDC LATUR Ex.23 for himself and others in the above cases, on locations that, the above land is 5 km away from Latur city on LaturBarshi Highway. The old MIDC is near the fields. The Sugar factory is 100 to 200 ft. away from the acquired lands. There is a residential locality near the sugar factory. Harangul railway station is at 500 ft distance from the land. There are hospitals, hotels and Airport at half km from the land. The land was converted to non-agricultural use sanctioned by the S.D.O., Latur.

272.

On the rates, it is deposed by him that, the plots for non-agricultural use have been cited. Hence, it had N.A. potentiality. Hence, they are entitled to Rs.100/sq. ft. in place of Rs.600/Are granted by the L.A.O.. In the cross examination, he admitted that, he does not know the names of the plot owners. He did not take information from the concerned, whether, the plots were non-agricultural or not. He also does not know about conversion of lands into N.A.. Before the acquisition, he was cultivating some part of his land and remaining was kept for conversion to N.A.. His field has cart way and he had to cross Survey Nos. 298 and 281. The sale deed he filed is of Survey No.312 of village Harangul. In between his land and Survey

*377* MIDC LATUR No.312, there is one agricultural field. In Survey No.312, plots are laid, but he has no documentary evidence. The population of village Harangul is 4000. When the lands from his village were acquired, most of the lands were agricultural. The acquired lands were rocky. The sale deeds of plots filed are adjacent to the highway. The quality in each Gat number is not similar. 273.

Another P.W.2 deposed at Exhibit-24 that he is attesting witness to a sale deed of plot between Gurling Waghale and Nagnath Barure. The consideration was Rs.20,000. It is at Exhibit-25. In cross examination, he admitted that he does not know whether, the land was converted to N.A. use. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing to enhance the rates. 274.

The sale deed between Waghale and Barure at Exhibit-25 reveals the NA order dated 17.04.1987. The field Gat No.392 was of village Harangul. As per the description of the plot mentioned in the sale deed, there was 20 feet road towards the west and on the south, there was Barshi Latur highway. The consideration for the area admeasuring 50x25 feet plot was Rs.20,000. The sale deed is dated 27.05.1987. Another sale deed of plot admeasuring 50x25 feet dated 03.06.1993 placed on record reveals that it has a highway on the south and the

*378* MIDC LATUR consideration was Rs.50,000/- One more sale deed dated 05.11.1992 is placed on record. It is of N.A. plot out of Survey No.316 of village Harangul. It is adjoining to the highway on the south. The consideration is Rs.60,000 for a 70x40 feet plot. 275.

The map filed by the MIDC, which is made a part of this judgment marked as X-1, shows that Survey No.280 is on the North of the railway track and highway after field Survey No.281 to its south. Field Survey No.229 is towards the East of Survey No.280. Survey No.371 is far away from Survey No.280 towards the west and after four fields towards the north from the highway. Survey No.319 is far away from Survey No.280 at the extreme end of the West and two fields after the highway. 276.

The learned Reference Court has recorded the findings that the lands are acquired for NA use. The potentiality was considered for industrial development. The enhancement as per the NA rate is permissible in respect of the plots acquired, but at the same time, the Court has to consider the enhancement, if any, about this property which is of agricultural use as per hectare or acrege rate. The Reference Court believed the evidence of PW1 Shaikh Ismail that their lands are likely to be converted into nonagricultural use. The Court discarded the sale deeds filed by the

*379* MIDC LATUR MIDC for the reasons of non-examination of the witnesses. 277.

The Reference Court held that the railway station is just after one plot. Latur-Barsi road is just near the railway line passing from Harangul. He considered the aspects considered by LAO categorizing the lands as agricultural, non-agricultural and likely to be non-agricultural in future. He also held that there is no evidence about minus factors from the respondents. On the one hand, he has observed that it is not necessary to examine the witness to prove the sale deed, hence cross-examination has no reliance. On the other hand, he observed that without cogent evidence the court can not rely on the sale exemplars filed by the MIDC. He also granted 10% increase per annum in the rate. Applying this method, he has determined the rate of the plots at the rate of Rs.28/- per sq. ft.

Considering the situation of the lands vicinity, nearness to the city and availability of the amenities and likelihood of non-agricultural potential, the Court held that there should be some similarity of the rate by the court. With this observation, without any basis it came to the conclusion that the agricultural lands shall get the market price of Rs.3,000 per Are. Finally, he confirmed the rate of the plots at the rate of Rs.20 per sq. ft..

*380* MIDC LATUR 278.

In view of our observation above, we disagree with the findings of the learned Reference Court that for want of examination of any witness by the respondent, the sale exemplars at Exhibits 38 to 41 cannot be received as evidence. For want of any reasons and basis, we also do not agree with the learned LAR Court determining the rates of the open plot and the agricultural lands.

Judgment dated 21.02.2013 (First Appeal No.1532/ 2013/ LAR No.345/1999) 279.

In these bunch of cases, the claimant Suresh Ramchandra Verma has deposed below Exhibit-23 in LAR No.345 of 1999. He deposed by attacking the observations recorded by the LAO concluding the market price of the lands acquired. In view of the settled law, the Reference Court is not sitting as an appellate court on the awards passed by the land acquisition officer. The burden is on the claimants to prove how they are entitled to the rates claimed by them. He deposed that the land acquired was situated in thick locality. There were residential houses, shops and commercial centres adjacent to the acquired lands. The Gat No.309 admeasuring 4 hectare 23 R has been converted to non-agricultural use by the order of the

*381* MIDC LATUR Collector dated 12.05.1986.

280.

Prior to the permission of the Collector, the Town Planner, Latur had sanctioned the valid layout plan. Since 1986, the said land is put for non-agricultural use. In 1986 - 87, the roads were developed. The other Survey No.300 is adjacent to it. Hence, the acquired land would fetch market value on the square foot basis. The acquired lands were situated about 1000 feet from the "Twelve Number Stop" i.e. near Manjra Sugar Factory and adjacent to the Latur-Miraj state highway. The lands were near the railway crossing square from where the roads leading to Chincholiraowadi and Miraj directions pass. Mahadevnagar and Gautamnagar stone crusher is about 1 km away from the acquired lands. The Bidwe Engineering College is 3km away.

That area is surrounded by government residential quarters, residence of the Collector, the Chief Executive Officer, Superintendent of Police, etc.. Since prior to 1992, the acquired lands had the non-agricultural potentiality, the road, light drainage and other facilities were available for the acquired lands. The nearby lands were converted to non-agricultural use. The Manjra Distillery is nearby the acquired lands. It is 4 km away from the municipal limit of Latur town.

*382* MIDC LATUR commercial industrial social centre and having biggest jaggery market. The industries are already situated in the vicinity of lands acquired. The airport is at 1 km from the acquired land. The lands were fertile and suitable for garden, sunflower, sugarcane, chilly, vegetables, ground nuts etc.. It could fetch at the annual income of Rs.1 lac per annum. The market price of the acquired land at the relevant time was Rs.50/- per sq.ft. or Rs.15 lac per acre.

281.

The another witness, namely, Gurlin Tukaram Waghale is examined to prove a sale deed dated 27.05.1987 about a plot admeasuring 20 feet x 50 feet for Rs.20,000/-. Besides the sale deed, his deposition is similar to PW-1. 282.

On the basis of the above evidence, the learned counsel Shri Deshpande for the claimants contends that the learned Reference Court has incorrectly determined the market price. The locations and situations of similarly situated lands have not been properly appreciated. The Reference Court has made high deductions. The highest sale price may be considered while computing the compensation. The purpose of the acquired land may be taken into consideration while determining the compensation. The MIDC utterly failed to contradict the oral as

*383* MIDC LATUR well as documentary evidence produced by the claimants. There is no counter evidence. The draft development plan of Latur city (Exhibit 116-117) clearly shows that the municipal limit of Latur and acquired lands, share the same boundaries. He also relies upon the NA orders (Exh.65).

283.

The learned Reference Court discarded the compensation classifying the acquired lands based on the land revenue assessment. He adopted the comparable sale method determining the market price. He divided the lands in four sections i.e. 1) land abutting to the state highway 2) land situated on the inner side from the State Highway and railway tracks. 3) land of village Khandapur and 4) the land of village Chincholiraowadi. He assigned reasons for this classification stating that the lands of village Harangul are soft and rocky and almost situated within developed area having commercial and residential potentiality. It is also held by the Reference Court that village Khandapur is at the farthest distance from Latur city. Hence, the lands are not comparable. The Reference Court discarded the rates determined by the another Reference Court in previous awards. It relied upon the sale deeds dated 03.06.1993 and 05.11.1992 from village Harangul Budruk of Gut Nos.314

*384* MIDC LATUR and 310. On the basis of the said sale deed, it determined the rate of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.30.20 per sq. ft. and deducted 25% charges towards the standard deductions. After deducting the same, it finally determined the rate of the land at the rate of Rs.22.50 per sq.ft..

284.

The sale deed relied upon by the Reference Court dated 03.06.1993 is after the notification under Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 04.03.1993. The law is settled that the sale transactions after the notification shall be considered if it is in proximity in time and a genuine sale exemplar. The law as discussed above is also settled that the sale exemplars of the nearby villages shall be considered if no sale exemplars from the village were available prior to the notification under section 32(2) of the MIDC Act. As against this, the MIDC has filed sale exemplars dated 25.04.1990, 15.06.1990, 23.10.1991, 13.02.1992 of village Khandapur. Sale exemplars prior to the notification under section 32(2) of the MID Act were available in Harangul (Budruk). The sale deeds placed on record by the MIDC have been totally ignored by the Reference Court and there is no mention about the said sale deeds in the judgment.

*385* MIDC LATUR Judgment 13.09.2012 (LAR No.122/1999 F.A. 626/2013) 285.

In this judgment, 6 LARs as noted above have been decided by the learned Reference Court.

The claimants have examined PW1 Baliram below Exhibit 15. In nutshell, he has deposed that his lands were having NA potential, they were intending to sell their properties in open market after obtaining the NA permission from the competent authority and some of them have obtained the NA permission. He has deposed about the location of the State Highway and Manjra Sugar factory at 12 km distance from Latur. One petrol pump is in front of the sugar factory. Navodaya Vidyalaya is also nearby the sugar factory. It is surrounded with temples, marriage function halls and other housing societies in developed conditions. There is deposition as regards the Harangul railway station and other residential colonies situated towards the end portion. They also deposed that the ladies college, women polytechnic college, hostels, hotels, etc. are situated within the municipal limit and the acquired lands are 2 km away from those offices and hostels and colleges. Residential colonies have developed. The lands are fertile yielding Sunflower crop. Various

*386* MIDC LATUR industries are also developed in Latur. They are entitled to not less than Rs.5000/- per R as compensation. The land Survey Nos.377, 280, 381, 373, 370, 360, 305, 206, 207, 208, 210, 392, 364, 383, 309, 319, 320, 372, 336, 300, 183, 284, 199, 225, 287, 297, 184, 210, 218, 228, 179, 279, 181, 226, 211, 212, 295, 223 and 292 are the fields converted to non-agricultural use. 286.

The Reference Court has held that in view of the above scenario it is to be seen that the agricultural area of the village Harangul is converted for non-agricultural purpose. There were two field survey numbers to his field towards the south from the highway. On the basis of this evidence, the Reference Court held that the acquired lands are situated in the developed area and the MIDC accepted this fact. It has also observed that the respondents had not clarified why low rates sale exemplars were considered by the LAO. The acquiring body cannot be blamed for the acts committed by the acquiring body. The court relied on the sale deeds dated 05.11.1992 and 03.06.1993. Both these sale deeds are subsequent to 07.05.1992, the date on which the notification dated 32(2) was published. 287.

Baliram has deposed that Harangul railway station is 6 km away from Latur central bus stand. Therefore, the

*387* MIDC LATUR development towards Barshi side after 1982 started progressing. There was a demand since 1982 about the acquisition of the land for non-commercial, residential and industrial purposes. He also deposed about the high rank offices as well as the list of the temples and function halls in the Latur town. The Reference Court believed the evidence that there was an agreement to sell of Gat No.310 prior to 11.03.1992. It is also observed that the Gat No.314 situated at the west-south corner from Latur-Barshi road is situated at the farthest distance from the Latur city. Lastly, he relied on the sale deed at Exhibit 88 dated 03.06.1993. It is also observed that the lands acquired are situated within the vicinity of the developed area having the facilities of state highway, railway station, approach roads, etc.. The court deducted 25% towards the deduction of development charges which would be just and proper. He rounded the rates at the rate of Rs.22.50 paisa per sq.ft and accordingly directed the amount based on those rates be given.

Judgment dated 15.09.2008 (FA 2308/2010 LAR No.3051 and 3061) 288.

In this judgment 17 LARs have been decided by the

*388* MIDC LATUR common judgment. The lands covered by this judgment were from village Harangul. The witness Madhav Nagavrao Pinnate, the claimant in LAR No.299/01, deposed below Exhibit 17 that his land to the extent of 2 Hectares 61 R was acquired along with the other field survey numbers as described at page 3 of the judgment. The other claimants have consolidated their reference cases in his reference case and have orally instructed him to depose on their behalf. Therefore, he is deposing for himself and for the other claimants. They had claimed the rates of Rs.50/- per sq.ft before the LAO, who rejected it. His land is adjacent to Latur-Barshi State Highway. The distance between central bus stand, Latur and Manjra Sugar Factory is 6 km.

He has also given the description of the nearby colleges, hospitals, industry, residential localities, Harangul railway station. He has reiterated in his deposition, as like other witnesses, that there was a petrol pump in front of the sugar factory and Navodaya Vidyalaya near the factory. There are temples at short distance from his land. The airport is at 5 km away from their lands. Their lands are at plain levels having hard basement suitable for construction of houses and raising buildings. The surrounding lands had been converted to non-agricultural use.

*389* MIDC LATUR 289.

In cross-examination, the above witness deposed that he does not know the location of the acquired land. He cannot tell the details of the sale exemplars filed on record. The sale exemplars were collected by their advocates. The air strip (runway) is about 6 to 7 km from the acquired land. The suggestion that the sale exemplars with exorbitant rates are shown to fetch higher price, has been denied. He further admitted that at the time of the acquisition, all the acquired lands were under cultivation. The lands were dry hard soil. He cannot tell the distance between the property referred to in the sale exemplars and the acquired land.

290.

The Reference Court, relying on its earlier judgment delivered in LAR No.81/2001 and relying on the sale deeds exhibit 21 and 23, has determined the market price at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per R in LAR Case No.305/2001. In another group, Rs.12,000/- per R and Rs.10,000 per R for the rest of the lands. The Reference Court is totally silent about the sale exemplars filed by the MIDC/appellant.

Judgment dated 04.02.2008 291.

In this judgment, 3 LAR Nos.81/2001, 82/2001 and

*390* MIDC LATUR 87/2001 have been decided by a common judgment. The lands in this judgment were from village Khandapur and Harangul. The claimants have led evidence in LAR No.81/2001 at Exhibit 28. In this judgment, the Reference Court has considered the sale exemplars (Exhibits 21 and 23) which were prior to the notification dated 07.05.1992 under Section 32(2) of the MID Act. The Court has discarded the evidence of the expert valuer and NA permission for stone crusher. It also rejected the sale exemplars of lands which are at far distances from Latur town. He observed that he came to know that the rate of enhancement referred in earlier awards Exhibits 34, 66, 67, 68 cannot be made applicable to the present case because of location, utility etc.. In the result, it concluded that there is no scope to grant enhancement exceeding to Rs.

10,000 per R and in the interest of justice, he has fixed the said rate. On examining the evidence, we find that there is absolutely no discussion as to the location and on the basis of which the rates have been determined. The case of the MIDC/appellant has been totally ignored. Judgment dated 22.08.2007 (LAR No.627/1993) 292.

In the above judgment, the field was situated at

*391* MIDC LATUR Khadgaon. The notification under section 32(2) of the MID Act was published on 22.07.1978. The award was passed on 24.11.1992.

293.

The Reference Court has observed that the acquired land was on Latur-Barsi-Miraj State Highway. Latur-Miraj railway line also passes from nearby and old Vanvati Latur road which was just adjacent to the land acquired. The observation recorded by the Reference Court is as if it is an appeal against the award passed by the LAO. It is held by the Reference Court that the land of the claimant had NA potentiality being near to the Latur city. Subsequently, the said plot came within the municipal limit. Considering the locations and the prospective NA locality, the court granted the rate of Rs.10 per sq.ft. Judgment dated 23.02.2010 (LAR No.24,25, 31, 72, 73, 350/1999) 294.

By this common judgment, the Reference Court has determined the rates at the rate of Rs.15 per sq.ft and 20 per sq. ft in LAR No.24/99, 25/99 and 73/99 respectively. In LAR Nos.31/99 and 72/99, it granted the rate of Rs.1,00,000 per hectare. In LAR No.350/99, it granted the rate of Rs.20 per sq.

*392* MIDC LATUR ft. The lands were from village Harangul, Chincholiraowadi and Khandapur.

295.

PW1 Mohammed Ismail Rukhmoddin Patel was examined for himself and for all claimants. PW3 Keshav Pawar was examined below Exhibit 13 on the valuation of trees. It is observed that the maps of village Harangul, Khandapur, Chincholiraowadi show that the development of the Latur city is towards the western side on both sides of Latur-Barshi road. On both the sides of this road, old and new MIDC, Manjra Sugar factory and airport along with other development had taken place. The lands abutting the road has higher market price. However, the prices of land which are at a distance from the road, are lesser.

296.

The land block Nos.217 and 284 from village Harangul were adjacent to the railway line on the southern side. Block No.279 is on the northern side to the Latur road. There were two lands between the roads and block No.279. Relying on the observations recorded by the LAO as regards the location, the court held that all those lands of village Harangul had NA potentiality as per the guidelines given in the case of P. Ram Reddy. However, the claim of NA potentiality for the lands of

*393* MIDC LATUR Chincholiraowadi and Khandapur were discarded. Considering the location of the lands involved in these NA cases, the rates have been determined as discussed above. Instead of discussing the evidence which was adduced by the parties before the Court, the Reference Court referred to the observations made by the LAO. The observation of the L.A.O is not the basis to determine the market value. The burden is on the claimants to prove the market price/rate as claimed in the reference. Judgment dated 01.07.2008 297.

By this judgment, 7 LARs have been decided by common judgment. The lands involved in these LARs are from village Harangul (Bk).

298.

PW1 Dastagir s/o Gafur Mistri deposed below Exhibit 29 for himself and for Khawaja Miya Bashu Miya Pathan, Jabbar Bashu Miya Pathan, Kirti Chandrashekhar Thakkar and Afsar Sailullah Patel. He deposed that the lands are situated on the right side of Latur-Barshi road and surrounded by residential houses, commercial shops situated at Latur-Miraj Highway. He deposed about the same location of the Bidwe Engineering College, Maharashtra Steel Industry etc.. There were more than

*394* MIDC LATUR 500 residential houses near Harangul railway station. There are also residential quarters of railway employees and there is a veterinary hospital near Harangul railway station. Many housing societies have constructed the houses in the lands immediately adjacent to the lands acquired from the claimants converting the non-agricultural use. The airport is about 3 kms away towards the north-west. On one side of the acquired land, there is District Court Class-IV employees housing society. It is at 500 feet away from block No.329 to the west. Their lands have NA potentiality. They have claimed the rate @ Rs.100 per sq. ft.. They have filed a copy of the registered sale deed dated 27.05.1987 of a plot out of block No.312 of Harangul Budruk, another sale deed dated 05.11.1992 of a plot out of block No.310, sale deed dated 03.06.

1993 out of block No.340, copy of sale deed dated 17.07.1992 out of block No.122, a sale deed dated 16.08.1995 out of block No.122, sale deed dated 18.08.1995 out of block No.122, sale deed dated 16.06.1992 out of block No.88 of village Warwanti and certified copy Index-II register of sale deed dated 22.10.1993 out of survey No.46/C of Khadgaon, which is 3 km away from the acquired lands.

299.

The second witness Mohammed Afsar Shafiullah

*395* MIDC LATUR Patel deposed below Exhibit 55 for himself and for Khwaja Miya Bashu Miya Pathan, Alimun w/o Jabbar Pathan, Dastagir s/o Gafur Mistri (who has deposed below Exhibit 29) and Kirti Chandrashekhar Thakkar. As regards the location of the fields, he deposed similar to PW1 Dastagir. He reiterated about the certified copies of the sale deed as found in the deposition of Dastagir. He filed a certified copy of registered sale deed dated 27.05.1987 of a plot out of land block no.312 of Harangul Budruk. The said plot is 500 feet away from the acquired land. He produced the NA order of the SDO dated 07.01.1989. He also deposed that in LAR No.327 (Dhananjay Vs. State), the Reference Court has awarded the market value at the rate of Rs.33 per sq.ft and the said judgment was confirmed by the High Court.

The lands in question is just 2 and 1⁄2 km away from the lands involved in that judgment. Similarly, the rate granted @ Rs.66/- per sq. ft. in LAR No.509 of 1993 (Vikram Gojank Munde Vs. State) decided on 30.04.1996, has also been confirmed by the High Court. The land involved in the said judgment is 4 km away from the acquired land. 300.

In the cross-examination, the above witness has admitted that he had purchased the acquired land as agricultural

*396* MIDC LATUR land. He does the business of plotting. He had purchased the land for agriculture. The acquired land was not converted into non-agriculture. In the years 1990, 1991 and 1992, he had sold in all 21 plots from the acquired lands. The plots were not exceeding 40 x 50 sq. ft. in size. The prices referred in the said sale exemplars are in the range of Rs.3000 to Rs.7000 per plot. The sale exemplars of those plots are not filed on record and he is unable to file the same. They sold the plot without converting to non-agriculture. They did not submit their claims before the LAO. Land Gut No.312 is situated by the side of the said road. Same is the position of the land Gat Nos.354 and 310. The broad gauge of the railway was completed in the last two years. Women's Polytechnic College was started around ten years back. The government colony was constructed before 8 to 10 years. 301.

As per the map X-1, the field survey No.329 of village Harangul is on the north after four fields from the highway. Field survey No.310 is adjoining to the highway on the north, which is far away from field survey No.229. Field survey No.366 is after 5 fields from field survey No.310 and to the extreme west of field survey No.229. Field survey No.231 is just adjoining field survey No.329 on the north. Survey No.282

*397* MIDC LATUR is after one plot on the north adjoining the highway and just at the bottom of the field survey No.229 and field survey No.233 is on the north of field survey No.231.

302.

The LAR court discarded the sale exemplars of village Warvanti for the reason that there are sale exemplars from village Harangul where the lands of the claimants were situated. The Reference Court determined the price @ Rs.10000/- per R relying on the judgment passed by the Reference Court in LAR No.81/2001.

303.

In fact, the Reference Court ought to have appreciated the evidence of the witnesses along with the admissions given in the cross-examination. Hence, we find that determining the price of the land based upon the earlier judgment in the absence of any finding of similarity and close proximity of the land, is inappropriate.

Judgment dated 29.04.2010:

304.

By this common judgment, the learned Reference Court decided two LAR No.179 of 1999 and 340 of 1999. The claimants have claimed the compensation @ Rs.200 per sq. ft. The Reference Court granted the rate of Rs.30 per sq. ft. after

*398* MIDC LATUR 25% deduction towards development charges. PW1 Sayyed Abdul Rehman was examined as power of attorney holder. PW3 Vipinchandra Nivruttirao was examined at Exhibit 39 and another PW2 was examined at Exhibit 38. It is observed by the Reference Court that the acquired lands are adjacent to the old MIDC. The acquired lands are about 7 kms from Latur city. However, those are adjacent to Latur-Barshi State Highway on the south of the railway track. The Bidwe Engineering College and hostel is 3 km away from the acquired land. The land owners had demarcated the private plots and sold it for residential purposes. There was a permanent construction including cattle sheds and residential quarters for labours. In certain lands, there was milk dairy, well and pipeline. 305.

The Court found substance in the evidence of the claimants. The court also believed that the lands of the claimants were having NA potentiality. The lands of the claimants were adjacent to the road, railway line, state highway and near to the locality. The purpose of the acquisition is for the expansion of industrial units. It is also observed that the compensation awarded by the LAO @ Rs.600/- per R is improper and unjust. Comments have been made on the awards passed by the LAO

*399* MIDC LATUR ignoring the highest rate of sale exemplars, which is impermissible as the reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an independent proceeding and not an appeal against the award passed by the LAO.

306.

The Reference Court has discarded the sale exemplars of village Warvanti as the sale exemplars from the village from where the lands were acquired, were available. The court relied upon the village map Exhibit 58 and observed that land gut Nos.277 and 307 are adjacent to land gut Nos.309, 307, 304 and 308. Towards the southern side, there is land of gaothan gut No.304 and thereafter, railway track Latur-Barshi road. The land gut No.277 is adjacent to gut Nos.229 and 230, 276 and

278. The adjacent land is a residential plot. The veterinary hospital and water supply tank are adjacent to the land. Land Gat no.223 is also having shops and a residential plot. In land gut no.225, adjacent to the land of the claimants, there Mahananda Cattle Food outlet. The Hindustan Petrol Pump and Venkateshwar Ware Housing building is adjacent to the lands of the claimants towards the west. The Model Engineering School, MSEB Sub-station and railway quarters were towards the eastern side and hotel Eden Garden is on the western side. Considering

*400* MIDC LATUR the situation, the learned Reference Court held that though the lands of the claimants have no NA permission, they have NA potentiality. On the basis of the above observation, the rates have been determined by the learned Reference Court. As per the map X-1, the gut no.277 of village Harangul (bk) is after three fields from the highway. Field gut no.307 is just abutting to the highway.

Judgment dated 29.08.2008 (LAR No.441/99) 307.

In the said case, the claimants had claimed NA potentiality. They have obtained the NA permission (Exh.51). The claimants have claimed compensation @ Rs.100/- per sq.ft. The witnesses have produced the sale deeds in respect of the non-agricultural plots.

308.

Since the distance from Latur to Chincholiraowadi is 13 to 14 kms and there was no representation made that the LAO has mentioned wrong distance from Chincholiraowadi to Latur, the LAR Court accepted the said fact as correct in the award passed by the LAO. The court declined to accept the case of the claimants that their lands have NA potentiality. The court has also discarded the evidence on the sale exemplars filed by the

*401* MIDC LATUR claimants for the reasons that those are of plots. However, a contradictory observation is recorded that it can be compared with the acquired lands being adjacent to the village. While considering the sale deed produced by respondent no.2, the learned court observed that the compensation @ Rs.255/- per R by the LAO appears to be inadequate. The court considered the sale exemplars Exh.37 of 1992. Considering the rate paid in that sale deed, the court held that the prices of the land in the vicinity were around Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per hectare. It is also observed that neither of the party to the proceeding have filed the sale exemplars of village Chincholiraowadi. Having regard to the distance between Chincholiraowadi and Latur town, the learned court observed that the development of Latur city is, therefore, kept away for considering the adequate compensation. 309.

A strange observation with which we do not agree, has been recorded by the Reference Court that the State never acquires any land for the MIDC in the remote area as it has to construct factories with transport facility. In the remote area, if MIDC is started then the State has to bear expenses for the construction of roads. The Reference Court has observed that considering the vicinity of the acquired land, compensation of

*402* MIDC LATUR Rs.5,000/- per R is adequate and accordingly granted the same. Apparently, the Reference Court has not assigned the reasons how it has come to the conclusion that the market rate of fields involved in the proceeding could be or could fetch Rs.5,000/- per R. The judgment impugned is without any reason. The law is settled that the judgment without reason and without appreciating evidence, is no judgment in the eye of law.

Judgment dated 08.07.2008 (LAR No.8/99, 9/99, 16/99, 22/99, 23/99, 184/99 and 334/99) F.A. No.2804/09 with F.A. No.3972/2008.

310.

In these proceedings, the fields involved were from village Khandapur. The Reference Court has observed that in the village map of village Khandapur filed at Exh.55, it appears that the acquired lands were near the vicinity of village Chincholiraowadi. Those were near the road from Harangul to Latur, but there was no direct approach road to those fields. The Reference Court has discarded the judgment passed in LAR No.34/99 holding that the claimant cannot take advantage of the judgment awarding compensation to the acquired land of the adjacent village. He recorded the observation based on case law

*403* MIDC LATUR in 2005 (1) ALL MR.207 Bombay (incorrect citation). Relying on the observations recorded by the LAO, the Reference Court has observed that granting compensation in hectare and R basis is correct and there is no need for interference. Such observations are incorrect for the reasons that the claimants have to prove the market price claimed by them by adducing evidence. The Reference Court has discarded the sale deeds filed by the claimants relying upon Communidade of Saligao vs. Additional Deputy Collector & LAO, 2005 (5) BCR 344 Bombay, that the sale of small portion of land cannot form a basis for fixing the compensation, hence, those cannot be compared with the agricultural lands.

311.

Appreciating the admission of the witness in crossexamination that the lands were agricultural lands and those were cultivated till acquisition, there is no need to grant compensation in square feet or square meter basis. He had not filed any NA order from village Khandapur. Thus, there is not a single NA land and hence, the compensation as claimed need not be considered. For want of documentary evidence showing the rates of the acquired land were Rs.50/- per sq.ft., the Reference Court discarded the oral evidence of the witness as regards the

*404* MIDC LATUR rates claimed by the claimants. In view of the admission given by the witness that he had not filed the application for converting the land to non-agricultural, it is observed that the witness is not firm about NA potentiality of the land. The Reference Court has considered the sale exemplars filed by the MIDC below Exh.51 to 53 for determination of the market value of the acquired lands. It appears that without having compared the sale exemplars and recording any similarity, the Reference Court has determined the compensation @ Rs.4,000/- per R. The reasons are missing. However, the court came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation @ Rs.4,000/- per R. We disagree with the compensation determined by the Reference Court for the reasons stated above.

Judgment dated 16.10.2008 (LAR No.343, 176, 375, 377/99) 312.

In the above proceedings, the lands from village Khandapur were involved. The Reference Court granted compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per R i.e. Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The claimants relied on the sale exemplar dated 27.05.1987 of a plot measuring 50 x 25 feet. The consideration was Rs.20,000/-.

*405* MIDC LATUR Another sale exemplar relied on by the claimant was the sale deed dated 05.11.1992 which was also of the plot measuring 70 x 40 feet. The consideration was Rs.60,000/-. Appreciating the village map Exh.38, the Reference Court has recorded the finding that in the entire map there is no mention of the State Highway. Yet, the Reference Court granted the compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per R as the lands are reaching NA potentiality. There appears no appreciation of the evidence. Hence, we do not agree with the conclusions of the Reference Court.

313.

PW1 Hariba Vitthal Padile was examined below Exh.16. He has given the description of the area around the Harangul railway station and the existence of Bidwe Engineering College as well as the Manjra Sugar Factory, Petrol Pump and also Navodaya Vidyalaya. He further deposed that Madhavnagar locality is on the west-north of the acquired land and towards the west of Manjra Sugar Factory. It was in existence since 1984. The housing society was constructed adjacent to the lands of the claimants. The lands were converted to NA by appropriate orders from the competent authority. Further the location nearby the airport appears not relevant as it is far away from village Khandapur. Though it is deposed that there is housing colony of

*406* MIDC LATUR district court class IV employees, but its details are not given. Prior to the notification, the residential, commercial and industrial development had reached upto the acquired land. The acquired land is situated within the locality of Latur town. 314.

This is apparently the deposition against the facts. He deposed about the sale deed dated 27.05.1987 of a plot bearing no.50 x 25 feet and it is claimed that it is at a distance of 500 feet from the acquired lands. Those sale deeds are from the acquired land under the same acquisition notification. He again relied on the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 05.11.1992 for the area measuring 70 x 40 feet out of block no.310 of village Harangul. The consideration was Rs.60,000/-. He then placed on record a certified copy of a registered sale deed dated 03.06.1993 of a plot measuring 60 x 25 feet out of block no.314 of village Harangul. The law is settled that if no sale transactions are available from the area from which the land is acquired, for sale exemplars comparison, then only the sale deed of adjacent villages may be taken into consideration. There were sale exemplars from village Khandapur for the relevant period. Hence, we do not find substance in considering the sale deed from village Harangul and other villages. The sale deed

*407* MIDC LATUR dated 22.10.1993 is after notification and has no relevance. He has filed a bunch of earlier judgments passed in other LARs cases. In view of the settled law, such judgments may not be the basis for determining the market price. The witness admitted in the cross-examination that before the acquisition the acquired lands were under cultivation. Rest of the suggestions as regards the NA potentiality and rates, have been denied. Judgment dated 16.10.2008 (LAR Nos.195/99, 38/99, 163/99, 196/99 and 543/99) F.A. No.1840 of 2009 (MIDC) 315.

The Reference Court has reproduced the copy of the judgment passed in the above lot and granted the same rate. We have already recorded our disagreement with the reasons recorded for arriving at a conclusion granting such compensation.

Judgment dated 30.04.2009 (LAR No.138, 54, 120, 132, 137, 201, 344, 365, 367, 423, 446, 542/99) 316.

The lands involved in these cases were from village Harangul (bk). The claimants have claimed the market price @ 100/- per sq.ft. for the acquired land as it is having NA

*408* MIDC LATUR potentiality.

317.

The witness Mubarak Shaikh was examined for the claimants. The Reference Court has observed that the LAO has considered the distance between Latur and Khandapur. Harangul is 13-14 kms away. A strange observation, with which we do not agree, has been recorded by the Reference Court that the State does not acquire land for industrial purpose in remote areas as the MIDC has to construct roads to provide transport facility. 318.

The Reference Court has observed that it is taking help of judgments in LAR No.219/99 delivered by the Ad-hoc District Judge, Latur dated 01.07.2008 and LAR No.147/99 dated 09.04.2008 delivered by that Court granting compensation for the land from villages Harangul and Khandapur as those are in respect of the lands acquired by the same notification and award. On this basis, without appreciating the evidence and other material or the basis on which the market value is assessed, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the compensation @ 7,000/- per R would be quite adequate and reasonable considering the vicinity of the acquired land. We do not agree with the conclusions of the Reference Court for the reasons stated above.

*409* MIDC LATUR Judgment dated 15.06.2015 (LAR No. 140/99, 42/99, 71/99, 93/00) FA.NO.1523/2017 with F.A. No.3097/15 319.

In this group of proceedings, the lands from Harangul (Bk) were involved. The claimants have claimed the NA potentiality. The witness Malikarjun Baswant Waghmare has deposed before the Court. The Reference Court has reproduced the evidence led by him. He has deposed that the acquired lands were situated at the nearest distance from Latur-Barshi State Highway and Manjra Sugar Factory, petrol pump, Bidwe engineering college, steel industries, Harangul railway station and housing colony etc.. The nearby lands were converted into non-agricultural use. The adjacent area of the acquired land was fully developed as residential, commercial and industrial area. They have claimed the compensation @ Rs. 50/- per sq.ft. 320.

The Reference Court has believed that the lands acquired are situated at 12 km distance from Latur city and the surrounding area of the acquired lands is developed by commercial, residential and industrial area. The lands converted into non-agricultural as per the order, were within the vicinity of acquired lands. The Reference Court relied on the sale

*410* MIDC LATUR exemplars dated 05.11.1992 of village Harangul of gut No.310 since it was prior to the notification and believed that the acquired lands were having NA potentiality. It is also observed that the market price shall be determined on square feet basis. The Reference Court took the basis of the market price in sale deed dated 05.11.1992 i.e. Rs.21/- per sq.ft. and deducted 30% towards the development charges and fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.14/- per sq.ft..

321.

The location of the lands in this group of reference cases as per the map X-1 shows that the field gut no.232 is facing a village road towards the east and after a big plot of the nonagricultural land at 3rd position on the north from Latur-Barshi Highway. However, the survey no.316 is on the extreme west of village Harangul adjoining the village road beginning from the highway on the eastern side. The field survey no.225 is just adjoining field survey no.332. Having regard to the locations of all the fields involved in this group of reference cases/LARs, we do not agree with the method applied by the Reference Court. A vast distance separates survey no.232 and 360. The field survey no.316 is far away from the Latur town and beyond big plots to its south from the Latur-Barshi Highway.

*411* MIDC LATUR Judgment dated 20.04.2015 (LAR No.899/1999) F.A. No.226/2016 322.

In these reference cases, the land of Harangul (Bk) bearing block no.316 was involved. The witness Dnyanoba Shivba Dandime deposed that his land was having NA potentiality. It was adjacent to Barsi State Highway and near to Manjra Sugar Factory, Bidwe Engineering College, Harangul Railway Station etc.. The adjacent land owner converted his land to non-agricultural use. The acquired land was surrounded by residential, commercial and industrial areas and were having all the facilities like electricity, water supply, transport, education and medical to the inhabitant of the vicinity. He claimed the compensation @ Rs. 50/- per sq.ft.. The Reference Court has referred to the village map Exh.25 and observed that the acquired land is situated after leaving land gut no.315 from Latur-Barsi State Highway. The copy of the NA order of the said gut no.315 is placed below Exh.49. The Reference Court has discarded the previous judgment passed in various LARs and applied the sale exemplars comparable method. The sale exemplar dated 27.05.1987 was discarded for the reason that it was of 5 years

*412* MIDC LATUR before the notification and sale exemplar dated 03.06.1993 is of the date after the notification. The court relied upon the sale exemplar dated 05.11.1992, wherein, the value of the land was Rs.21/- per sq.ft. and deducted 30% towards the development charges and determined the market rate @ Rs.14/- per sq.ft.. 323.

The location of field survey no.316 as per the map X-1 shows that it is touching the village road. The highway starts from Barsi direction and field survey no.315 and 314 are towards the south touching the Latur-Barsi Highway. Various rates have been determined by the different courts for the same part of the land. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Reference Court is required to be examined in view of the grounds raised in the appeal memo.

Judgment dated 15.07.2015 LAR Nos.

48/99,194/99,158/99,339/99,586/99. FA 1174/2021. 324.

In these cases, the survey Nos.180, 149, 288, and 186 of village Harangul (Bk) and 272 of village Khandapur are involved. The Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of ₹ 15/- per square feet for the lands situated at village Harangul and Rs.11/- per square feet for the lands situated at village

*413* MIDC LATUR Khandapur. The Reference Court has observed that the lands acquired are at the short distance from Latur City. The sugar factory is adjacent to the lands acquired. Commercial, residential, and educational structures have been constructed at very short distance from the acquired lands. Therefore, it can be said that the acquired lands are situated at such a place that by its location, the acquired lands have gained development prospects. 325.

The Reference Court failed to note that a large area was acquired and determination is claimed on square feet basis. Therefore, it would be dangerous to blindly apply uniform rates to all the lands in the entire acquired area. The sale deeds produced by the MIDC have been discarded by the Reference Court for the reason that it has chosen the sale deeds having less value. These observations are in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal. It is observed that the advantage of State Highway cannot be given to the acquired lands as those are in village. It is one of the minor factors. The size of the land in the sale exemplars relied upon by the claimant was small. Hence, it was another minus factor. Lands, though situated in a developed vicinity, were not developed at the time of the acquisition. The Reference Court applied 30% reductions and calculated the rate

*414* MIDC LATUR of the property at the rate of 14.99 round off Rs.15 per square feet. Relying on the rates determined in LAR no. 539/99, the rates of the lands at village Khandapur were determined at the rate of ₹ 11/- per square feet.

326. The judgment has been assailed by both the parties on the grounds that no appropriate reasons have been assigned to arrive at the conclusion as regards the rates of the land. The Reference Court did not consider the sale exemplars filed by the MIDC.

327.

The map at X-1 shows that survey No. 180 is on the east of village Harangul adjoining the state highway on the north to the railway line. Survey No.149 is on the north adjoining Gat No.232 having a village road towards the west. The survey numbers are bisected by the railway track. Survey No.186 is also on the south to the railway track after one field Survey No.272 of village Khandapur is the extreme south east of village Khandapur. Apparently these fields are at different places having different locations. Therefore, no common rate could have been granted.

Judgment dated 03.02.2016.

*415* MIDC LATUR 328.

LAR case Nos.285/2001, 406/03, 381/04. F.A. No. 35359/2016 with C.A. Nos.15691/2016 and 15692/ 2016. In these reference cases, field survey Nos. 287, 180 of village Harangul and Survey No.181/121 of village Chincholiraowadi, are involved.

329.

The Reference Court took a sale deed dated 5.11.1992 of village Harangul as it was after the date of the notification. The said sale exemplar was of a non-agricultural use land. Survey Nos.287 and 180 of village Harangul is adjacent to the lands mentioned in the above sale exemplar. Whereas, land Survey No.181/121 of village Chinchoilraowadi is on the south of Latur-Barshi highway and sugar factory of Manjara. Therefore, the Reference Court determined the land rates at the rate of ₹ 14/square feet for the lands situated at Harangul and at the rate of ₹ 9 per square foot for the village Chincholiraowadi. 330.

As per map X-1, survey No.180 is on the north and adjacent to the state Highway. However, survey No. 287 is on the south of railway track after 1 survey No. The sale exemplar of survey No.310, which is relied on by the Reference Court, is on the extreme west of village Harangul adjoining to the state Highway. The survey No.181/121 is not the Gat number in the

*416* MIDC LATUR village Chincholiraowadi. It is 121, which is at a far away distance from south side railway track. Looking to the locations of the acquired land with the land mentioned in sale exemplars of survey No.310, it would be difficult to accept that it is a comparable sale exemplar. Hence, we disagree with the rates determined by the Reference Court.

Judgment dated 30.04.2009.

331.

LAR Nos.138/1999, 54, 120, 132, 137, 201, 344, 365, 367, 423, 446, 542/1999. In these references cases, Survey Nos.197, 364, 377, 306, 371, 234, 381, 234, 228, 334, 365, and 182 of village Harangul were involved. The Reference Court determined the market price at the rate of ₹ 7000 per Are. 332.

Mubarak Sheikh was examined at Ex.16. There was no exact evidence as regards the distance of the village from Latur. The Court noted the distance of 13 to 14 km as mentioned in the award passed by the land acquisition officer. In the absence of NA permission, the court did not consider that there was any development of lands towards village Harangul. The court accepted the reasons assigned by the Land Acquisition Officer for not applying the rates of non-agricultural lands for want of

*417* MIDC LATUR non-agricultural conversion orders. The court also approved that the acquired lands are agricultural lands. The court also considered the surroundings and came to the conclusion that there is no NA potentiality. A strange reason has been assigned by the Reference Court that the State never acquires any land for MIDC in remote places. This cannot be a reason to grant compensation in square feet. The Reference Court relied on the earlier decisions in LAR Nos.291/1999 and 147/1999 to determine the rate of the acquired land at the rate of ₹ 7000/- per Are. The conclusions arrived at by the Reference Court are apparently erroneous. Hence, we do not agree with the said findings and conclusions.

Judgment dated 3.7.2009 (LAR's No. 583, 154, 172, 189, 356, 360, 430, 535, 635, 863 and 892/1999) F.A. No.1229/2010.

333.

The Reference Court determined the market price of the lands in these reference cases in field survey numbers 373, 309, 182, 373 of village Harangul, 189 of village Chincholiraowadi, 271, 223, 228, 248 of village Khandapur. The Reference Court has observed that the lands are required for non-

*418* MIDC LATUR agricultural use and therefore, the potentiality can be considered for industrial development. The Court has to consider the enhancement, if any.

334.

The witness PW-1 Jagdish deposed below exhibit 32 that the lands acquired were nearby Manjara sugar factory and "12 number Pati" (Milestone). There was a thick locality, shopping complexes, hotels etc.. He further deposed that the acquired lands where within distance of 3 km from Bidve Engineering college, old MIDC area and government quarters. The lands from village Harangul were already developed for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The lands are situated adjacent to Latur town. He also deposed that all the lands acquired were having NA potentiality. Believing the above witness, the Reference Court has observed that the lands of the petitioners are likely to be converted into non agricultural use. The rates of the lands are increasing hundred times. Hence, the increase in price is to be considered.

The Reference Court has also believed that amenities were available at the time of the acquisition itself. There was no evidence about minus factors from the respondent. The Reference Court has discarded the sale deeds filed by the present appellant below Exh.

*419* MIDC LATUR which were the sale transactions prior to four months of notification. Cogent evidence was not relied upon by the court. 335.

On this aspect, we have already concluded that formal proof by examination of witness to prove these sale exemplars as per Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is not required. The Reference Court has observed on the same line, but declined to read these sale exemplars in evidence. On the basis of evidence, the Reference Court granted the rate to field survey Nos.189 and 271 @ Rs.9,000/- per Are, Field Gut No.323 and 228 @ Rs.10,000/-, Field Gut No.248 @ Rs.12,000/-, Field Gut No.182 and 180 @ 15,000/- per Are and Field Gut No.248, 373, 373 and 309, it has granted the rate @ of Rs.15/- sq. ft.. The above judgment has been assailed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the sale exemplars filed by the appellant MIDC, were the best evidence and comparable sale instances. We find substance in the objections raised. Judgment dated 27.04.2010 - LAR Nos.354, 482, 483, 511, 512, 513, 557, 559, 575 and 581/1999. FA No.2131 of 2010:- 336.

In the above reference cases, the lands from village

*420* MIDC LATUR Chincholiraowadi and village Khandapur were involved. The Reference Court granted compensation @ Rs.20 per sq.ft. to the land survey No.209 of village Chilcholiraowadi and granted the compensation @ Rs.12,000/- per Are. to the remaining lands involved in these reference cases. The Reference Court has recorded erroneous findings and has discarded the sale instances earlier to the notification without sufficient reason. We once again reiterate that the Reference Court need not find out the errors of the LAO, but has to determine the compensation only on the evidence adduced by the parties before it. 337.

The witness PW-1 Bharat Maroti Tele deposed that all the lands were having N.A. Potentiality. The court recorded his evidence considering the situation and location of the lands acquired. The Reference Court has observed that the relevant date for determination of the market price of the land is 04.03.1993, when the notification under section 32(2) of MIDC Act was published in the official gazette. We have concluded that this was an incorrect reference date and the correct date for determination of the market price was 07.05.1992. 338.

The claimants had filed sale exemplars from village Harangul Bk. and Village Warvanti. But the Court rightly

*421* MIDC LATUR discarded it. The court has observed that the land gut No.209 of village Chincholiraowadi was adjacent to village Gaonthan. The land Gut No.179 nearest to the lands of the claimants was converted to N.A. vide order of the competent authority below Exh.40. The Reference Court has determined the market rate @ Rs.20 per sq.ft. for the Gut No.209 considering the surrounding area and the valuation made by a private valuer. The Reference Court had observed that the judgments of the other courts are not binding. But, while determining the price, has observed that the judgment in earlier cases are necessary to be considered. Considering plus-minus factors, the court granted 10 % permissible escalation per year. The lands were situated near the Gaonthan and the runway. Hence, it has non-agricultural potentiality. The lands were adjacent to the Harangul railway station, Manjara sugar factory and Latur-Barshi State highway. On this premise the rates have been determined. 339.

The exact locations of the fields involved are as per X-1. Field survey No.224 of village Khandapur is at the bottom away from the railway track towards the southern side. Field survey No.234 is towards the West after five fields on the north from field survey No.224. Field survey No.10 is touching the

*422* MIDC LATUR village road on the southern side. Field survey No.245 is on the north to field survey No.234 after six fields. Field survey No.273 is almost at the bottom of village Khandapur. Field survey No.236 is after one field above field survey No.234. Field survey No.268 is near field survey No.236. Field survey No.267 is on the West of field survey No.10. Field survey No.271 is below field survey No.10 after one field, but not touching the village road. Field survey No.244 is towards the West of Field survey No.246 abutting the village road. Relying on the sale exemplars Exh.43 and 47 to 55, the rates are determined by the LAO. But, the impugned judgment does not find reference to those sale deeds.

The reason recorded by the Reference Court clearly appears to be deficient and unsustainable.

Judgment dated 15.09.2008 - LAR No.84, 85, 86, 93, 94, 293, 295, 297, 298 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306/2001. FA No.2315 of 2010 and 10 others.

340.

In the above reference cases, the fields of village Harangul are involved.

The Reference Court granted compensation @

*423* MIDC LATUR Rs.8,000/- per Are to the land bearing survey No.373 of village Harangul and Rs.12,000/- per Are for the remaining lands involved in the reference. The Reference Court had discarded the sale instances at Exh.33 and 35 in respect of the plots which were within the local limits of Latur city. The sale instances relied upon the claimants showing rates between the range of Rs.25 to 40 per Sq.ft., were also discarded for the reason that those are from a different village. The Reference Court had taken a view earlier in LAR No.81 of 2001 and on that basis, the rates have been determined. We do not find any merit in such findings which are without appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties.

Judgment date 30.04.2008 - LAR No.34/1999, FA No.4114 of 2008 with 288 of 2008:- 341.

In this reference, the land from village Khandapur was involved. The Reference Court determined the market price @ Rs.8,000/- per Are. The Reference Court, for want of evidence on the part of the claimants that village Khandapur is at 6 to 7 k.m. from Latur, believed the observation of the LAO that the distance between Khandapur and Latur is between 13 to 14 km.. An

*424* MIDC LATUR erroneous observation has been recorded by the Reference Court that the State never acquires land for the MIDC in remote areas as the industries have to construct roads for transport facility and the State has to bear the expenses of construction of roads. It is sufficient to hold that the MIDC is near Latur city area. It is thus observed by the Reference Court that neither party had cited sale deed from village Khandapur and hence, it has placed reliance on the sale deeds filed by the claimants. On the basis of such sale deeds, the rates have been determined @ Rs.8,000/- per Are. The finding recorded by the Reference Court appears to be baseless and without appreciating the evidence.

Judgment Date 30.04.2009 LAR No.346, 43, 139, 148 434, 448 , 50, 495, 496, 506, 568, 571, 598, 901, 910 of 1999 and 91 of 2000. FA No.1302 to 1317 of 2010 :- 342.

In these reference cases, the fields from village Harangul and Khandapur were involved. The Reference Court determined common market price @ Rs.7000/- per Are for the lands situated at Harangul and Rs.6000/- per Are for the land situated at village Khandapur. An erroneous observation has been recorded by the Reference Court that the State never

*425* MIDC LATUR acquires land for the MIDC in remote areas as the industries will require roads for transport facility and the State has to bear the expenses of construction of road. The Reference Court has also observed that it is relying on the judgments delivered in LAR No.219 of 1999 by Adhoc DJ Latur dated 01.07.2008 in respect of lands acquired from Khandapur granting enhanced compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per Are and LAR No.147/1999 dated 09.04.2008 delivered by the same court granting compensation @ Rs.9000/- per Are for the lands acquired from villages Harangul and Khandapur. The Reference Court has also observed that the sale deeds relied upon are for N.A. plots. Yet, they were considered for determination of the market value of acquired land. On the basis of the above findings the market price was determined.

Judgment date 31.12.2009: LAR Nos. 202, 44, 57, 79, 130, 131, 133, 199, 216, 368, 461, 569, 632, 910 of 1999. FA Nos. 2462 of 2010 with Cross Objection No.35607 of 2010. 343.

In these reference cases, the fields of villages Harangul and Khandapur were involved. The Reference Court determined the market price of the fields situated at Harangul Bk.

*426* MIDC LATUR @ Rs.20 per sq.ft along with 25 % deduction towards development charges and Rs.12,000/- per Are for the lands of village Khandapur being semi irrigated land.

344.

The Reference Court applied the principle of parity and considered the judgment delivered in LAR No.198/1999 dated 24.08.2009. It was observed that there is no reason to differentiate between the judgment delivered in LAR NO.198/1999. The Reference Court had enhanced the compensation towards the trees component and wells in field survey Nos.217, 374, 318, 380 and 334 of Village Harangul. We do not find the reasons in determining the market price of the lands and the fruit trees, to be sustainable. The impugned judgment is apparently erroneous as it has not followed the basic principle of analyzing the facts, circumstances and evidence adduced in the case.

Judgement dated 31.12.2009 in LAR Nos.372, 359, 373, 341, 564, 631, 182 of 199 and 240 of 2000. FA No.2673 of 2011:- 345.

In these reference cases, the lands from villages Harangul and Khandapur were involved. The Reference Court

*427* MIDC LATUR determined the market value @ Rs.20/- per sq.ft along with 25 % deduction for the lands bearing Gut No.322, 213 of village Harangul Bk. and Rs.12,000/- per Are in Semi irrigated land for the field Gut No.228, 226, 225, 254, 28 and 224 of village Khandapur.

346.

The Reference Court has erroneously considered 04.02.1993 as the reference date for the determination of the market price. The Reference Court has observed that it was expected to consider recent sale exemplars prior to the date of notification dated 04.03.1993. In fact, the notice was issued on 07.05.1992 Under section 32(2) of MIDC Act. It further observed that the certified copies of the sale exemplars below Exh.18 to 24 filed by the claimants were for the period from 1987 to 1995. All said instances were found to be from village Harangul, except the sale deed dated 16.06.1993. The Reference Court has commented on the certified copies filed by the respondent / appellant below Exh.56 to 76, that unless similarity is established, no sale deed filed by the MIDC can be relied upon for determination of the market price of the lands acquired. Actually, there was no discussion as to whether those sale deeds were having any relevance with the rates to be determined by the

*428* MIDC LATUR Reference Court. The lands acquired were not having NA permission. The court has recorded that the claimants are entitled for enhanced market price of the lands acquired. 347.

The claimants had not filed a single sale exemplar of the lands from village Khandapur. However, they relied on the sale exemplars of village Harangul. In cross-examination, the claimants admitted that the lands in the area of Khandapur are rocky. The Reference Court has also observed that in the absence of rebuttal evidence on record, there is reason to discard the valuation for the manner and technique applied. However, the amount of valuation recommended by the valuer in his reports was considered without appreciating evidence and the rates were determined as above.

We can not sustain such a judgment for the reasons that it is delivered without appreciating the evidence available. Judgment dated 29.08.2008 in LAR No.183 of 1999. FA No.2332 of 2009 with FA 4292 of 2008:- 348.

In these reference cases, the lands of village Harangul, were involved. The Reference Court determined the market price @ Rs.7000/- per Are. It has observed that the claimants

*429* MIDC LATUR have relied on the sale deeds Exh.44 to 47. On considering the sale deeds and the compensation granted by LAO @ 600/- per Are, that the amount awarded is inadequate. Hence, the court considered the sale deeds and the village map at Exh.40. By considering the distance of the acquired lands from the developed locality, the amount of compensation was enhanced. It held that "though the court has to grant the compensation at the time of notification under Section 4 and not to consider the present situation but the development of the Latur city is necessary to be noted at this time and to compare at the time of notification. Hence, the compensation should be enhanced". The Reference Court relied on the price determined in LAR No.219 of 1999 dated 01.07.2008 as a binding precedent and accordingly, determined the rates as above. At the costs of repetition, as the evidence produced on record has not been appreciated, we do not agree with the erroneous findings recorded by the Reference Court.

Judgment dated 15.09.2008 in LAR No.87/2001 FA No.145 of 2009 with FA 37 of 2009.

349.

In this reference, the land from village Harangul

*430* MIDC LATUR (field gut No.183) was involved.

The Reference Court has erroneously believed that the notification under Section 32(2) of MIDC Act was dated 18.11.1992 and determined the market price @ Rs.15,000/- per Are.

The Reference Court has observed that it has come on the record that the acquired land is touching the railway station Harangul as well as Latur-Barshi road. Hence, it could fetch more potentiality. It also came to the conclusion that because of this location, it should award enhancement to the acquired lands in this case. It has also observed that the permission to start a small scale industry in the name of claimant has nothing to do so far as the enhancement of the compensation is concerned. It has also observed that the claimants have relied upon sale instances EXh.21, 22, 23, 24 and 30. 350.

We find that Exh.21, 22, 24 are post notification. Similarly, the sale instance at Exh.30 had taken place only 12 to 13 days prior to the date of notification and the possibility could not be ruled out that it was perfectly timed to create evidence, to bring on record a wide difference in the rates. Being misled and without considering the attending circumstances, it formed an

*431* MIDC LATUR opinion that the then market price of the acquired land by all means could not be as low as Rs.300 per sq.ft. and an enhancement @ Rs.15,000/- per Are is justified. Actually, no evidence is analyzed by the Reference Court. We, therefore, do not agree with the findings recorded by the Reference Court. Judgment Date 09.01.2009, in LAR No.180/1999 FA No.180/1999, 1975 of 2010:- 351.

In this reference, the land of village Harangul was involved. The claimants have filed the sale exemplar dated 27.05.1987 below Ex 18. It is a small plot arising out of Gat no. 312 of the village Harangul. Its consideration was Rs. 20000/ for 1089 sq.ft. that comes to Rs. 16/sq.ft. The description of the plot shows that on west side there is a 20' wide road, on the South is the Latur-Barshi road, on the East is plot no.3 and on the North are the remaining plots of the seller. Comparing the said description with the map X-1, it appears that the said Gat number is on the North of the railway track and on the south is the sugar factory. There is no railway gate to reach to the sugar factory. This plot is far away from the Harangul railway station. Nothing is developed around the plot which may show NA potentiality.

*432* MIDC LATUR This was the sole sale transaction as produced from the said field converted to non-agricultural use. There is also no evidence that the purchaser has developed the said plot for non-agricultural use. There is also no evidence that facilities like electricity, road, water etc are available near the plot or the nearby plots. The absence of such evidence, is sufficient to draw the inference that though the land was converted into non-agricultural use, practically there was no development at all. In such a situation, no prudent purchaser would prefer to purchase such plots. Considering these aspects, we are of the view that the acquired land was not converted to non-agricultural use, as there was no demand or NA potentiality.

352.

The second sale exemplar is dated 05.11.1992 Ex.19. This sale exemplar is after the cut off date. Hence, it cannot be considered for the determination of the market price. This land is arising out of Gat no. 310 of village Harangul. The layout is on the East-South corner of the said field and the remaining land is an agricultural parcel. The consideration for 2800 sq.ft. was Rs. 60000/ that comes to Rs. 21/ sq.ft. The description of the plot shows that on the East, the land out of the same gat number was sold to one housing society. On the West and North, the land

*433* MIDC LATUR owned by Angad Surkute from the same gat number was situated. On the south, was Latur-Barshi Highway. This plot/ gat number is near gut no.312 after one field in the West direction. However, we did not find any evidence of development of the plots in the absence of any necessary facilities/ amenities. 353.

The next sale exemplar is dated 29.04.1992. It is of a plot measuring 33x33 sq.ft. The consideration @ Rs. 2000/- is Rs.2/sq.ft. The plot is arising out of Gat no. 373 of village Harangul. The description of the plot sold is that, on the East is a 20' road, on the West is plot no.10, on the North is plot no.14 and on the South is a 20' road. The gat no.373 as per map X-1 is on the extreme East End of the village Harangul touching the village road and away from Gaothan of village Harangul. There is nothing to show any development for non-agricultural use of the land. To the contrary, it is surrounded by agricultural fields. 354.

The location and shape of the acquisitions of the different lands, indicates that major portion of the lands acquired is on the North of the railway line and the Highway. That portion is again divided into East and West as the lands between these two directions is from Harangul. The remaining lands acquired from village Harangul are on the South touching the railway line

*434* MIDC LATUR and away from Harangul railway station. Village Pakharwadi is on the East of those lands. On its East, is village Khandapur. The Southern portion factually is independent being bisected by the railway line. The lands acquired from village Khandapur and Chincholiraowadi are also acquired in uneven shape. The sugar factory is on the North of village Chincholiraowadi. Many fields, in between the acquired lands, have been left out of acquisition. Few lands have been converted to non-agricultural use and those are either at the end or in the middle of the village. The sale transactions of the lands in the middle or corner of the village are of unusual high prices.

So far as the development of the land, town and villages from which the lands are acquired is concerned, we have taken into consideration the locations of these uneven shaped lands and find that the lands which are on the North of the Railway station of village Harangul, are nearest from Latur town with reasonable NA potentiality. The lands on the West direction of the town have very less scope for nonagriculture use. 355.

We are surprised that where there are absolutely no civic facilities/ amenities, particular lands have been sold at exorbitant prices. We have also came across, while appreciating

*435* MIDC LATUR the evidence and the sale exemplars, that though some lands were converted into non-agriculture use, neither the lands were developed nor the plots were sold. We are also astonished, upon examining the impugned awards of the Reference Courts that, the lands in the middle or at the extreme end have been partly converted into non-agricultural use. Many of such lands even have no approach roads. The lands touching or beyond the railway line on the south, though fall in "plus points" for fetching good market price, have no road even upto the railway line. The Latur-Barshi Highway is advantageous to the lands situated on the North direction only. There is no railway gate to reach the Highway so as to utilize the lands on the South side of the railway station.

Though there is a railway station at Village Harangul, there is no evidence of high frequency of passenger or goods trains. There is no evidence that the lands nearby the railway station have been developed. Huge lands measuring 1073.61 hectares have been acquired from this area. Having regard to the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed above, we have come to the conclusion that, the purpose for which the lands are acquired, shall not be considered for the determination of the market value of the acquired lands.

*436* MIDC LATUR 356.

In the case of Bhule Ram v Union of India (2014) 11 SCC 307, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law that, where huge track of land has been acquired and the same is not continuous, the court has always emphasized on applying the principle of belting system for the reason that different lands with different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having different locations, cannot be considered to be a compact block. Land having frontage on the highway would definitely have a better value than lands farther away from the Highway. The market value of the land is to be determined taking into consideration the geographical situation and in such cases belting system may be applied.

357.

We have discussed herein above the geographical situation and locations of the lands acquired. A huge tract of land of 1073.61 Hectares is acquired. The lands acquired have a long frontage in kilometers on the North touching the Highway and few lands at farther distance from Highway. In the light of a huge acquisition, we are of the considered view that the belting method to determine the market value of the lands acquired, shall be applied, except in Khandapur and Chincholiraowadi. 358.

The High court of Calcutta in the case of State of

*437* MIDC LATUR West Bengal vs Musst. Nurjahan Sakil and others, AIR 1985 Cal 39 in paragraph No.8 observed on the belting method as follows:- "8. In the book by Parks on Valuation at page 19 it has been said that the property cannot be valued by what is sometimes called "The Belting Method of Valuation", but by the belting method it is possible to estimate the value of one plot of a land, fairly, accurately in comparison with another plot known value. It is very rare that in a district, plots of land are all of the same size and shape and possessing similar amenities, and a valuer may have to " value an irregular shaped plot and the only known values are for regular shaped plots. Again the normal depth of plots in the stree may be 60 ft. the valuer may have to value an isolated plot having the depth of 60 ft.

If sufficient data are available the area of plots in a locality can be reduced to units, then by taking into account frontage, depth, shape and size it is possible to compare one plot with another fairly accurately. It has been further mentioned in the said book that the frontage land has greater value that back land: so when making comparisons by Belting, the very first step is to ascertain to what depth of the land does the maximum value extend. The next step is to ascertain the relationship regarding the value of the back land to the front land..."

359.

By applying the belting method, considering the depth and division of lands, we have divided the lands from village Harangul into three belts. The lands from Village Khandapur and Chicholiraowadi are divided into two compact blocks. The depth

*438* MIDC LATUR of the second belt is kept around 50%. Being a peculiar location, size, shape, situation and considering other factors, the lands from Village Harangul on the South, bisected by the railway line, are treated as the third belt. The base price for the first belt has been taken into account on the basis of the sale exemplars of the relevant dates. The benefit of the roads is also to be considered and 2/3rd of the market price of the first belt with 20% additional advantage of village roads available to the gut numbers of each village, is also being considered.

360.

A glaring case of non genuine sale transaction is noticed by us in Harangul village. Plot No.392 (wrongly described as 312) is in the acquired portion of the land on the north west side. It is an NA plot admeasuring 1250 square feet. A sale deed dated 27.05.1987 would indicate the price of the land at the rate of Rs.17,216/- per Are. An adjacent agricultural land outside the acquired region, is Gat No.393 admeasuring 81 R, approximately two acres. The sale instance with regard to the sale of this agricultural land is dated 23.10.1989, which makes the price of the land at Rs.281.25 R. Both the sale deeds are about 2 years and six months apart. There has been no development in this region. There has been no other sale

*439* MIDC LATUR transaction. Gat No.392 cannot be compared with Gat No.393. This sale transaction jacking up the price per R to Rs.17,216/- for a small NA plot, is clearly a non genuine sale transaction in anticipation of acquisition. Yet, the LAR Courts referred to this sale transaction and blindly applied the said rate to several pieces of agricultural land.

361.

In view of the above, we divide the lands into belts as follows:- VILLAGE HARANGUL Group 1.

A.

First belt on the North East:- Gat numbers road frontage/ touching the highway (Except Gat No.280 covered in the judgment of the group of First Appeal No.1066/2014 and others decided by the Hon'ble Single Bench on 20.06.2015.), shall consist of the following Gat numbers:- 179, 180, 181, 182, 218, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 277, 278, 279,280 281, 282, 298, 299, 300, 303, 333, and 334 B.

Second belt on the North of the above field Gat numbers shall consist of the following Gat numbers:- 149, 150, 151, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 (Gat nos. 149, 232 have village road frontage.)

*440* MIDC LATUR C.

Third belt on the South after the railway Station and railway track shall consist of the following Gat numbers:- 178, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214,217, 218, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 294, 295, 296, 297.

Group 2 A.

The First belt on North-West shall consist of the following Gat number (Highway touch):- 301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 323, 324 and 330.

B.

The second belt on the North of above fields Gat no.313. (Gat no.313 is not considered as it was covered in the Judgment passed by the Learned Single Bench in the group of First appeal No. 1066/2014 decided on 20.07.2015) shall consist of the following Gat numbers:- 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 362, 364, 365, 366, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 392 (Gat Nos.316, 317, 362, 364, 365, 366, 371, 372, 373, 375, 377 have 10 ft. front village road).

*441* MIDC LATUR TWO COMPACT BLOCKS 362.

As noted earlier in this judgment, we are treating two parcels of the acquired lands as compact blocks in relation to village Khandapur and village Chincholiraowadi. Insofar as the acquired lands from village Khandapur are concerned, the village boundary road is found on the north side abutting village Harangul. On the south side is the Gavthan. With reference to Chincholiraowadi, the Navodaya School, the Manjra Sugar Factory and Mahadev Nagar (a residential area) are located on the north side. On the south side is the Gavthan and further portion of the village. These are not large areas so as to apply the belting pattern. Hence, we are treating these two areas as compact blocks and granting the same rates to the landowners by considering the highest genuine sale instances upto the cut off date. This would result in granting the benefit of higher rates to the landowners.

363.

To prove the claims, the claimants as well as the Acquiring body have placed on record the following sale exemplars:- SALE EXEMPLARS FILED BY THE CLAIMANTS S r.

x.

Gat No.

Date OF Sale Deed N.A.

Dated Village Area in Square Value as per Value as per R.

*442* MIDC LATUR N o.

N o.

Feet Sq.ft.

27.05.1987 17.04.198 Harangu l sq.ft.

16/- 17,216/- 05.11.1992 05.03.199 Harangu l sq.ft.

21.42/- 23,057/- 03.06.1993 18.08.199 Harangu l sq.ft.

33.33/- 35,886/- sq.ft.

16.06.1993 02.05.199 Warwant i 1,077/- 11,58,852 /- 17.07.1995 07.01.199 Harangu l 88.97 sq.ft.

16.08.1995 09.08.199 Harangu l 572.50 sq.ft.

16/- 17,216/- 124/- 1,33,424/ - 16.08.1995 09.08.199 Harangu l 572.50 sq.ft.

2,01,352/ - 18.08.1995 14.07.199 Harangu l 418.5 sq.ft.

187.13/ - 19.01.1996 - Aarvi -- 364.

The Acquiring body/MIDC also has placed the various sale exemplars from village Harangul as follows:- Sr.

N o.

Value as per R.

23.10.198 Exh.

No.

Date of Sale Deed Village Gat No.

Area in HR/Acre.

Considerati on Value as per Sq.ft.

Harang ul (bk) 2 acre/80 Are Rs.22,500/ - 0.26 06.11.198 Do 1 H 61 R/ 161 R Rs.45,000/ - 0.26 paisa 27.11.198 Do 31 R Rs.11,000/- 0.28 301.28 18.05.199 Do 1H 61R /161R / 4 Acres Rs.72,000/ - - 18.06.199 Do 35 R Rs.11,000/- - - - 02.01.199 Do 1089 sq.f.t Rs.2500/- 0.26 04.04.199 Do 2H 2R/ 202R Rs.61,000/ - - - 07.06.199 Do 1 H/ 100 Are Rs.44,000/ - -- - 12.07.199 Do 2178 sq.ft.

Rs.5,500/- 0.28 301.28

*443* MIDC LATUR 05.10.199 Do 1H Rs.41,000/ - -- - 27.12.199 Do 229/ Non NA plot 50 x feet 1500 sq.ft.

Rs.3000/- Rs.20 - 29.04.199 Do 1090 sq.ft.

Rs.2,000/- 0.26 09/11/92 Do 3000 sq.ft.

Rs.9000/- 02/11/92 Do 1500 sq.ft.

Rs.4500/- MARKET VALUE FOR THE LANDS IN GROUP 1 (A, B & C) 365.

The highest sale exemplar covering this group of lands is from Gat no.229, dated 06.11.1989. It was having a market price of Rs.27,290 per Hectare. The said sale deed was placed below Exh.50. However, the learned counsels for the claimants have pointed out that the sale deed dated 18.02.1992, arising out of the same survey number cannot be ignored as it was before the LAO. The consideration was Rs.1,21,666/- per hectare. This sale deed is after two years and three months of the earlier sale deed dated 06.11.1989. From 1989 to 1992, there were no sale transactions of sales from the said field. In the ordinary course of transactions in such a short period, unless there is a strong reason, such a sudden unusual rise appears abnormal. That apart there is no evidence on record to believe

*444* MIDC LATUR that there are reasons for such a high rise in the market value. The possibility of creating such a high price sale transaction in anticipation of the acquisition of lands by MIDC, cannot be ruled out. Hence, we discard the said sale exemplar. 366.

The L.A.O. had collected the sale exemplars (as per record) of Gat no.280 dated 02.05.1991 for a consideration of Rs.43,200/- per Hectare. It appears a natural transaction with the highest market price. Such a reliable transaction ought to have been fairly referred to by the respective parties, who seem to have lost sight of. However, in the peculiar circumstance, we cannot ignore such a material piece of evidence for the correct determination of the market value. We consider the said transaction for the determination of market value. In the absence of any direct evidence of a sale transaction of the field touching the Highway in this group, we deem it appropriate to resort to permissible "guesswork", keeping in view the law laid down in Bhule Ram (supra) and Avinash Dhavaji Naik (supra). This field Gat No.280 is in the middle of this block on the northern portion. Therefore, the field gat numbers touching the Highway would surely fetch double the market value. Therefore, applying such a market trend, the market value of the lands touching the

*445* MIDC LATUR Highway would be Rs.86,400/- per hectare i.e. Rs.864/- per R. We are applying the belting method and determining the market value on the basis of agricultural land with prospects of nonagricultural potentiality considering the plus factors of the Highway, railway station and the distance of the Latur town and the purchasers' approach. Hence, we add 1⁄2 times to the land value. That comes to Rs.1,29,600/-, which is Rs.1296/- per R (rounded off to Rs.1300/- per R).

367.

Applying the belting method, we have divided this block into two parts dissecting from Gat Nos.229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 149, 150 and 151. This block being away from the state highway and the railway station and behind the first belt, it will get 2/3rd less market value than the field Gat numbers falling in the first belt. Deducting 2/3rd amount from Rs.1300/- per R, that comes to Rs.864/- per R (rounded off to Rs.865/- per R). 368.

The lands having two roads shall be given a 40% additional advantage. The lands having single road frontage shall be given a 10% advantage. The lands owners on the South of the railway track have also claimed the advantage of the railway station and railway track. However, we do not find evidence that there is a parallel road or even a service road on the southern side

*446* MIDC LATUR of the railway track. The evidence of the claimant is consistent that their lands are surrounded by the railway station Harangul and are close to the Manjra Sugar Factory. It is also the evidence of the witnesses/claimants that nearby areas of their lands have been fully developed. However, the evidence is missing that there are frequent passenger trains at Harangul Railway Station. It was not a broad gauge railway line at the relevant time. There is also no evidence that the railway station was used at least for goods train. The said railway station is like a sub-station from the main railway station of Latur town. There are many such railway stations where merely the trains stop to clear the fast trains or goods trains and very few trains have passenger train stops.

We are not oblivious to the fact that the railway station and the roads near the lands, are the plus factors for the determination of the market price. We are of the view that if such plus factors are available, those must be of such a nature that would indicate the development of the lands. No documentary evidence is on record that, near the railway station was a market or commercial shops, hotels etc.. We also do not find any evidence that there were railway gates to reach the Highway from the south side of the railway track.

*447* MIDC LATUR are of the opinion that though the lands situated on the southern side are abutting the railway line, no development is visible, contrary to the claim of the claimants.

369.

As regards the converting of the land into nonagricultural use, witness Mohammed Ismail Rukonoddin Patel in LAR No.24/99 deposed below Exh.11 that he had obtained the NA orders of his land Gat no.296/01 which is on the southern side of the railway line in 1988. However, he has candidly admitted in his cross-examination that no plots were sold from Gat no.296 after converting the land into non-agricultural use. The remaining land of the same field was under cultivation. They have purchased the said Gat number, but have no copies of the sale deeds. He further admitted that there were no trees in the portion of the non-agricultural portion of the same land. The evidence further reveals that there were approximately 550 trees in Gat no.217 out of which, 50 were teak, 120 were Eucalyptus, 182 were sapodilla, 30 to 35 were orange, 30 were lemon and 25 to 28 were Alphonso mango. He also admitted that except for his Gat no.286, the other Gat numbers were under agricultural cultivation. He has also admitted the existence of a small Harangul railway station and the Manjra Factory. These

*448* MIDC LATUR admissions destroy the case of the claimants of the lands adjoining the railway track on the southern side that the lands were having large NA potentiality at the relevant time. Group 1 (C) 370.

The witness has admitted that he has purchased the field survey no.296. But, for reasons best known to him, he has not produced the sale deed which must be in his possession. In the above circumstances, the only inference that shall be drawn is that those sale deeds must not be favourable to the claimants. The record does not reveal that the sale exemplars from the Southern side lands of the railway stations were placed on record. The record reveals that the sale exemplars that have been relied upon are of different Gat numbers which are far away from the lands situated on the southern side of the railway line. We have considered the lands falling in the South directions of the railway station as the third belt in group 1-C. However, there being no approach road to these fields, would be a disadvantage/ minus factor. Hence, in the absence of reliable sale exemplars of the gat numbers in this belt, we are of the view that the market value deducting 20% value of the lands in the first belt in group 1 shall be considered for the lands in the third belt of Group 1,

*449* MIDC LATUR which comes to Rs.1040/- per R.

Group 2 (A and B) 371.

In LAR No.340/1999, the Gat no.307 of village Harangul abutting to the highway after Gat no.304 was covered. The witness Syed Abdul Rehman s/o Hasan led the evidence for his wife who was the owner of Gat no.277 of Harangul (bk). In the said case, one witness Vipinchandra Gundre was examined below Exh.39. He deposed about the sale deed dated 05.11.1992 of Gat no.310. He also deposed that it was the sale exemplar of 2800 sq.ft. plot. However, this sale exemplar beyond the cut off date. Hence, it cannot be received in evidence. Besides the above fact, the witness admitted that there was no permission to convert the said land to non-agricultural use.

372.

The learned counsel Shri Satish Manale, referred to a sale deed dated 30.07.1990 of gat no.315 of village Harangul. Its consideration for 1400 sq.ft. is Rs.17000/- i.e. Rs.12.14 per sq.ft. It is abutting the Highway and near the acquired gat no.313. The sale deed does not reflect the N.A permission. No evidence of the development of this land is available on record. The Requiring Body has referred to the sale deed dated 03.06.1993 of a plot measuring 1500 sq. ft. out of gat no. 314 for the

*450* MIDC LATUR consideration of Rs.50,000/- that comes to Rs.33/- per sq. ft., to expose motivated sale deeds for raising the rates exorbitantly. He also placed an order of the Collector dated 12.05.1986 by which gat no.309 was converted for non-agricultural use to show that the permission was for one year from the commencement of the N.A. use. He further correctly pointed out that there was no development and the NA permission was not extended. 373.

For determining the market value of the lands falling in group B, we have the sale exemplars of gat no. 392 dated 17.04.1987, gat no.373 dated 02.01.1991, 27.04.1992 and 12.07.1991. The market value of Gat no. 392, which is at the extreme end from the Highway to the North, is Rs.1250/- per sq. ft., that comes to Rs.17,216/- per R. The adjoining gat no. 393, admeasuring 80 R, which is acquired, was sold on 23.10.1989 for Rs.22,500/-, which comes to Rs.0.26 per sq.ft. i.e. Rs.280 per R. We do not find reliable evidence that the said plots were in demand or that there were civic amenities. No evidence is led that there are frequent or some flights taking off from the said Airport. The possibility of converting the said land to nonagricultural use with the hope that it may be acquired for the airport, cannot be ruled out. The said sale exemplar inspires no

*451* MIDC LATUR confidence of genuineness. Hence, we discard it. 374.

The highest market value sale exemplar of the lands arising out of Gat no.373 is dated 12.07.1991. The market value as per the said transaction is Rs.2.52 per sq.ft., which comes to Rs.2722.77 per R. In sale exemplar dated 02.01.1991, the market price was Rs. 2475.24 per R and shows a fall in price in sale exemplar dated 29.04.1992 i.e. Rs.1980.19 per R. This shows a further heavy fall in the price within seven months. It is evident from such fall that neither there was a demand, nor any development of the lands for want of civic amenities. The plots in this gat number were not laid by obtaining NA permission under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code from the Collector. This is one more ground to disbelieve the claim of the claimants that the said land had such non-agricultural potentiality at the relevant time.

This Gat number is in the middle of village Harangul and far away from the Gaothan and the Highway. These are the sale deeds of small plots. The market value is per square foot. It is far away from gat number 393. It was a sale transaction of 2 acres of land for the consideration of Rs.22,500/-. It is surrounded by agricultural fields. The sale exemplars dated 07.06.1991 was at Exh.49.

*452* MIDC LATUR transaction from village Harangul of 88 R out of Gat no.586. The consideration was Rs.44,000/-. The said land was surrounded by the agricultural fields and the village boundary on the north. 375.

As per the above chart, the sale deed of one NA plot arising out of Gat no.373, is dated 12.07.1991. Considering the consideration, the market price comes to Rs.301.28 per R. This land is in the middle of the west side of village Harangul, but has an advantage of a village road though there is no evidence at all that the non-agricultural plots have been developed or there were civic amenities. There is nothing to suggest that there can be a rapid development in the near future. This sale deed, for our convenience, is now marked as X-2. It reveals that the land was not converted into non-agricultural use. The plots were laid without permission from the competent authority. The sale deed dated 02.01.1991 of a plot of 33x33 sq.ft. size arising out of the said land was for Rs.2,500/-.

Comparing these two sale exemplars, there was no increase in the price within six months. Besides the above sale exemplars, there was one more sale deed of Gat no.393 dated 23.10.1989 which was at the far end of village Harangul towards the Airport. It fetched the market value of Rs.281.25 per Are.

*453* MIDC LATUR exemplar dated 27.05.1987 of Gat no. 392 which was under acquisition. It was a sale deed of plot measuring 50X25 sq.ft. plot for Rs.2000/-. As per the calculations of the Requiring body, its value per R comes to Rs.1726/-, but is Rs.17424/- per R, as per the calculations of the claimants. The claimants' calculations clearly appear to be incorrect, because they have incorrectly held one R is equal to 1089 sq.ft., when it is 1079.39 sq.ft.. 376.

Be that as it may, it is to be considered whether this sale exemplar can be considered for determining the market value. The Reference Court determined the market price for this Gat number @ Rs.7000/R. This field is near the Airport, which is on the extreme North of village Harangul and far away from the Gaothan. There is nothing on record to show that though the land was converted for non-agricultural use, it was used for the said purpose. There is nothing on record to show that the remaining plots arising out of the said gat numbers also were sold and developed. In the absence of evidence of developing the land for non-agricultural use and extension of the permission to use the land for non-agricultural use, we conclude that the land had lost its non-agricultural status. The document does not inspire confidence for its genuineness. The Reference Courts by

*454* MIDC LATUR different judgments have determined different market values of the pieces of lands arising out the said Gat no.373. There could be no such different rates. There appears no basis to determine such different rates. Such sale exemplars do not inspire confidence as to their genuineness. For these reasons, we discard the said sale exemplars. The other sale exemplar relied upon by the claimants are not received in evidence since those are exorbitant and after the cut off date.

377.

There appears a reference to a sale transaction of gat no.321 which is after the two fields beyond the "Highway touch" lands. The sale transaction of this land as appears from the L.A.O record is dated 18.12.1991. It's per hectare value was Rs.89600/-. It was irrigated land. This appears to be a genuine and comparable sale exemplar. However, the nearby lands were Jirayat lands. Adding 10% per annum escalation per year, the market price on the date of the notice comes to Rs.98,660/- per Hectare. Comparing this sale exemplar for determining the market value for the jirayat lands, 2/3 of its value is to be deducted. On deducting the same, the rate is Rs.65773/- per Hectare (rounded off to Rs.67775/- per Hectare). The lands touching the Highway would definitely fetch double market

*455* MIDC LATUR value, particularly land gat no.321. That comes to Rs.1,31,550/- per Hectare. The Highway touching lands have the benefit of non-agricultural potentiality. The claimants have claimed the additional benefit of having a sugar factory and a school near the said lands. But we have already discussed the disadvantages of the lands situated on the South of the railway line. The sugar factory and the school are on the South of the railway line. Hence, it cannot be considered as a factor for the rapid growth of the village. These lands are far away from the Harangul railway station. We have also discussed the situation and nature of the said railway station. We have also considered the factum of nonavailability of the civic amenities.

However, having considered the scope for the non-agricultural potentiality of the nearby lands, these lands would also fetch a little benefit of the conversion of its status from agricultural to non-agricultural. The evidence as we have appreciated above shows that there was no rapid growth in the town. Considering all these aspects, we add 1⁄2 amount to the market value determined above. Adding such an amount, the market value of the lands in the first belt in Group comes to Rs.1,97,325/- per Hectare, which comes to Rs.1973/- per R (rounded off to Rs.1975/- per R).

*456* MIDC LATUR 378.

So far as lands falling in belt 2(B) of this group are concerned, those are away from the Highway. Therefore, 2/3 of the market value of the lands in the first belt shall be deducted. Deducting the same, would render the rate of Rs.1,31,550/- per Hectare i.e. Rs.1315.50 per R (rounded off to Rs.1315/- per R). Few gat numbers have the advantage of the village road. The said land would be given 10% additional market value. However, Gat no.321 is an irrigated land. It would fetch 2/3rd more market value. That benefit is granted to the said gat number, which make it Rs.2191/- per R.

COMPACT BLOCKS-- KHANDAPUR 379.

Now, we turn to determining the market values of the lands from villages Khandapur and Chincholiraowadi. We will refer to the sale exemplars from those villages separately. 380.

So far as the lands of village Khandapur are concerned, the following sale exemplars are placed on record by the Requiring Body:- Sr.

No .

Value as per R.

25.04.199 Ex h No.

Date of Sale Deed Village Gat No.

Area in HR/Acre .

Consideratio n Valu e as per Sq.ft.

Rs.38,500/- 0.17 180.7 15.06.199 Do 1H 50 R/ Rs.27,000/- 0.17 Khanda pur 2.13HR / 213 R

*457* MIDC LATUR 150 R 23.10.199 Do 1H 100R Rs.20,000/- 0.19 01.02.199 Do 80 R RS.17,000/- 0.20 212.5 0 ps 381.

The above sale exemplars are of the Jirayat agricultural lands. The lands of village Khandapur are on the South of the Railway line and Village Harangul. We find that the lands from this village are acquired up to the Gaothan. The lands adjoining and near to the Gaothan fetch high market value. Hence, we are not dividing the lands from this village into belts. 382.

So far as the locations of these lands are concerned, these villages are 13 to 16 kms away from Latur town and about 8 kms away from Harangul railway station. These two villages are on the South of the railway line. The Navodaya Vidaylaya is on the west of village Chincholiraowadi. The sugar factory existing since 1980 is partly in village Khandapur and partly in village Chincholiraowadi. The Mahadev Nagar locality after Gat no.289 from the sugar factory, is situated in village Khandapur. The sugar factory situated in village Chincholraowadi is after 4 fields from Gat no.114 and 6 fields from gat no.123. 383.

As per the LAO record, the sale transaction of gat no.255 of village Khandapur dated 01.04.1992 was for

*458* MIDC LATUR Rs.24,844/- per hectare. The sale exemplar of gat nos.79, 65 and 86 of village Khandapur placed on record by the Requiring Body are far away from the lands acquired. However, the Gaothan is not far away from Gat no.274. Gat no.255 is close to Mahadev Nagar locality. But there is nothing on record to show that the field gat numbers adjoining Mahadev Nagar were developed due to its proximity to Manjra Sugar Factory, from 1980 till the acquisition of the lands.

384.

The other sale exemplar is dated 25.04.1990 for gat no.28 for Rs.38,500/- for land measuring 2 H 13 which comes to Rs.18075/- per Hectare, which was under acquisition. Unfortunately, nobody pointed out to us, the sale exemplar of gat no.248 which is under acquisition. It is the highest market value of Rs.30,434/- observed by the L.A.O. It was a sale transaction dated 28.08.1989 just around two years before the cut off date. Adding 10% per annum escalation, it comes to Rs.41,000/- per Hectare. It is the best and highest comparable sale exemplar to determine the market price of the acquired lands. The lands acquired were purely agricultural and were having no immediate or near future non-agricultural potentiality at the relevant time. The sugar factory is there since 1980. All sugar factories have a

*459* MIDC LATUR great disadvantage of the great dirty smell emanating because of the water used for beet processing (contains dirt from the beets and other organic materials). This may be the ground for no nonagricultural development. So far as the locality near the factory as canvassed is concerned, the labourers have no option but to reside near the factory for various reasons. So that would not be the factor in these peculiar facts to consider the non-agricultural use.

385.

This was the situation before the acquisition of the lands. During the acquisition, this position of the market value must have changed. The scope of converting the lands adjoining Mahadeo Nagar must have been increased. Here we again apply the Armchair Rule. A prudent purchaser may think of the benefit of the residential locality and the close approach to the school. He may also hope to have an access to the Highway in near future. The seller also has a scope to compare the rates of the lands from village Harangul which is adjoining to the said village. These circumstances may bring about a reasonable hike in the market value. So, applying the Armchair rule, we think, the scope to convert the use of agricultural use to non-agricultural use is definitely high. We apply the same principle as applied for

*460* MIDC LATUR the market value in village Harangul. The highest market value of Rs.41,000/- per Hectare shall be made double which comes to Rs.82,000/- per Hectare. We again add 1⁄2 of the said amount for change of the status of the land in near future. This comes to Rs.123,000/- per Hectare. It is Rs.1230/- per R for all Gat numbers. Adding 10% advantage of village road to the field Gat nos. 250, 251, 252, 257, 258, 249, 247, 246, comes to Rs.1353/- per R. (rounded off to Rs.1355 per R).

CHINCHOLIRAOWADI 386.

We now determine the market value of the lands from Village Chincholiraowadi. For the reasons stated hereinafter and looking to the particular locations of the lands acquired, in the case of this village, instead of dividing the lands into the belts, we consider it as a single block.

387.

The following are the sale exemplars on record:- SALE EXEMPLARS OF CHINCHOLIRAOWADI Sr.

No .

Value as per R.

14.02.1990 Chinch oliraow adi Ex h No.

Date of Sale Deed Village Gat No.

Area in HR/Acre .

Consideration Value as per Sq.ft.

1H 21HR / 121R Rs.22,000/- 0.17 181.8 04.04.1990 Do Hectare 99R i.e.

Rs.36,000/- 0.17 180.6

*461* MIDC LATUR 199 Are 21.04.1990 Do 120R i.e.

1.20 H Rs.22,000/- 0.17 183.3 13.07.1990 Do 163R i.e.

1.63 H Rs.30,000/- 0.17 23.05.1991 Do 81R i.e.

1.1 acre Rs.15,000/- 0.17 185.1 388.

The highest sale transaction as per the above chart is for the consideration of Rs.15,000/- of gat no.65 for land measuring 81 R, dated 23.05.1991. That comes to Rs. 18518/ per Hectare . It is a less valued land. We have examined the record of the cases decided by the learned Reference Court in the group of LAR No.337/1999 dated 17.04.2008. The sale exemplars filed in the said group by the claimants does not consist of a single sale instance from village Chincholiraowadi. The same is the position in the group of LAR case no.24/199 decided on 23.02.2010. The claimants have not put forth a case that there were no sale transaction from the said village. However, it is canvassed that the sale instances from the nearby villages if having real and good market value, shall be considered. It is pointed out that the LAO has some sale exemplars of good market price from the same village, but he ignored it for no reason. 389.

Examining the record of the above cases reveals that the copy of the award passed by the LAO is also relied upon. In

*462* MIDC LATUR the judgment dated 17.04.2008, the Reference Court, while discussing the arguments of the counsels for the State and the Requiring Body, has observed in paragraph no. 15, that "Ld. Counsel Mr. Kale argued like AGP. His submission is the sale deeds DB No.1444 dated 20.11.1992, No.36, dated 02.01.1992 and 61 dated 19.12.1992 in which the sale transactions are from Rs.40,000 to Rs.45,000 per Hectare, that should be the ratio for granting compensation." However, no such sale exemplars find place in the record. It is well settled that the land loser shall get fair compensation for his lands.

390.

The Award of LAO reveals that there were sale transactions of Gat Nos.55 and 57 of village Chicholiraowadi dated 23.03.1989 and 24.12.1990 for the consideration of Rs.30221/- and Rs.37040/- per Hectare, respectively. Both these sale exemplars are near to the lands acquired. Hence, we have no hesitation to consider these exemplars, obviously being highvalue transaction, for the determination of the market value of the lands from the said village.

391.

We take the sale exemplar dated 23.03.1990 which was for Rs.37040/- per Hectare. Adding 10% escalation per annum for two years, makes it Rs.43998/- per Hectare (rounded

*463* MIDC LATUR off to Rs.44,000 per Hectare).

392.

Evaluating the property transactions in the village, it appears that, there was no development before the acquisition of the lands. However, during the acquisition, the scope for development must have been increased. In the wake of such proposed development, the villagers/prudent purchaser may think of the benefit of the residential locality of Mahadeo Nagar which is near Gat No.114 of Chincholiraowadi. That Gat number is just adjoining Gat numbers 250 and 251 of village Khandapur which were also under acquisition. As discussed above, the other peculiar circumstance in the acquisition is that the lands adjoining or close to the Gaothan as well as near the Sugar Factory and Mahadeo Nagar, have been acquired. The geographical situation shows the scope of good market value for the lands from both ends. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the entire acquired lands from this village should get the same rates.

393.

As the lands Gat Nos.55 and 57 are at some distance, we double the highest market value of Rs.44,000/- double, which comes to Rs.88,000/- per Hectare. We again add 1⁄2 of the said amount towards the change of user prospects. That

*464* MIDC LATUR comes to Rs.13200/- per Hectare. That is Rs.1320 per R. The additional benefit of 10% shall be given to the fields having the village road.

394.

There is no dispute as regards the trees and wells, before us. Hence, we are not required to disturb the market value determined for trees and well by the learned Reference Courts. 395.

In view of the above, we answer the points for determination that the claimants are entitled to the market values as determined above. The Reference Courts without any justifiable reasons and evidence have exorbitantly determined the market value of the lands. We, accordingly, set aside all the judgments/awards and decrees passed by the various Reference Courts and come to the conclusion that the appeals preferred by the Requiring body/ MIDC are partly allowed and the crossobjections and appeals preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement in compensations, are dismissed.

396.

Accordingly, we pass the following order:-

ORDER

1.

All Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay, are allowed.

2.

The Civil Applications for bringing legal

*465* MIDC LATUR representatives on record, are allowed. The legal representatives be brought on record, and preferably within one week. 3.

The intervention applications stand disposed off. 4.

All the First Appeals preferred by the Appellant/ MIDC are partly allowed.

5.

The First Appeals/ Cross Objections preferred by the original claimants seeking enhancement, are dismissed. 6.

The judgments/ awards and decrees passed by the learned Reference Courts in the Land Reference Cases, impugned in the appeals before us in this group, are set aside. 7.

The market value of the lands Gat Nos.179, 180, 181, 218, 219, 224, 226, 227, 228, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 298, 299, 300, 303, 333 and 334, is determined @ Rs.1300/- per R. 8.

The market price of the lands Gat Nos.225 and 182 of village Harangul is determined @ Rs.1820/- per R. 9.

The market value of the lands Gat Nos.150, 151, 229, 230, 231, 233 and 234 of village Harangul is determined @ Rs.865/- per R.

10.

The market price of the lands Gat Nos.149 and 232 is determined @ Rs.951.50 per R and rounded off to Rs.952/- per R. (10% road advantage).

*466* MIDC LATUR 11.

The market value of the lands Survey Nos.178, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214,217, 218, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 294, 295, 296, 297 of village Harangul (south direction of railway line) is determined @ Rs.1040/- per R.

12.

The market value of the lands Gat Nos.301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 323, 324 and 330 of village Harangul is determined @ Rs.1975/- per R. 13.

The market value of the lands Gat Nos.319, 320, 322, 374, 376, 379, 380, 381, 382 and 392 of village Harangul is determined @ Rs.1315/- per R. The market value of Gat No.321 is determined @ Rs.2191/- per R (Irrigated land). 14.

The market value of the lands Gat Nos.316, 317, 318, 362, 364, 365 , 366, 371, 372, 373, 375, 377 and 383 of village Harangul is determined @ Rs.1446/- per R (10% road advantage).

15.

The market value of all Gat numbers of village Khandapur is determined @ Rs.1355/- per R.

16.

The market value of the lands Gat Nos.09, 224, 223, 27422, 23, 24, 25, 251, 252, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 249 and 247 of village Khandapur is determined @ Rs.1390/- per R (10%

*467* MIDC LATUR road advantage).

17.

The market value of all Gat numbers of village Chincholiraowadi is determined @ Rs.1320/- per R. 19.

The market value of the lands Gat Nos.119, 120, 121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138 and 139 of village Chincholiraowadi is determined @ Rs.1452/- per R, rounded off to Rs.1455/- per R (10% road advantage). 20.

The claimants are entitled to 30% solatium as provided under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 21.

The claimants are entitled to 12% interest on the market value of the lands determined by this Court from 07.05.1992 till 03.01.1998.

22.

The Acquiring Body/MIDC shall pay the amounts determined as above, to the claimants, within four months. 23.

The awards be drawn up accordingly.

24.

No order as to costs.

25.

The claimants, who have received the amount deposited by the acquiring body / MIDC, in view of the orders earlier passed by this Court, shall redeposit the amount, if is in excess of the rates determined by this Court, within four months as per the directions issued by this Court. In case, the claimants

*468* MIDC LATUR are entitled to more amount as per the market value determined by this Court, they shall be entitled to receive the balance amount.

26.

After the compensation amount, as determined by this Court, is paid or redeposited by the claimants, the balance amount be refunded to the acquiring body / MIDC after one month thereafter.

397.

The physical copy of the map identified as "Annexure X-1" shall be a part and parcel of this judgment. Anybody seeking certified copy of this judgment, will be delivered a physical copy of the said map as a part thereof. 398.

We express our sincere gratitude to the learned Advocate General Shri Kumbhakoni and his team of lawyers, to Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned advocate, Shri R.S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate, Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate and the lawyers representing the claimants, for rendering admirable assistance to this Court.

(S.G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) [Kalyan P. Sangvikar, PA]