State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Yavatmal And Another v. Mr. Narendra Ramchandra Bhagat And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 876 OF 2017 1.State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Yavatmal.
2.The Sub Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Tq. Darwha, District Yavatmal ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1.Mr Narendra Ramchandra Bhagat, Aged About 80 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o Vani Pura, Ner, Tq. Ner, District Yavatmal 2.The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Yavatmal.
Tq. & District Yavatmal ...RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 877 OF 2017 The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Yavatmal.
Tq. & District Yavatmal ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1.Narendra Ramchandra Bhagat, Aged About 80 years,Occu. : Agriculturist, R/o Vani Pura, Ner, Tq. Ner, District Yavatmal
2.State of Maharashtra, represented by the Collector, Yavatmal, Tq. and Dist.
Yavatmal 3.The Sub Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Tq. Darwha, District Yavatmal ...RESPONDENTS WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 13 OF 2021 Narendra s/o Ramchandra Bhagat, Aged About 80 years,Occu. : Agriculturist, R/o Vani Pura, Ner, Tq. Ner, District Yavatmal ...CROSS-OBJECTOR
VERSUS
1.State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Yavatmal.
2.The Sub Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Tq. Darwha, District Yavatmal 3.The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Yavatmal.
Tq. & District Yavatmal ...RESPONDENTS _____________________________________________________________ Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Acquiring Body.
Shri J.A. Malnas, Advocate for Claimant.
Shri A.M. Kadukar, A.G.P. for respondent/State. ______________________________________________________________ CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
DATED : 14 th FEBRUARY, 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT :
.
Heard. With consent appeals and cross-objection are taken up for final hearing, mainly in view of the narrow controversy involved in the matter.
2.
These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the said Act") are filed by the Acquiring Body challenging the judgment and award dated 07.04.2014 in Land Acquisition Case No.234 of 2008. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Court has partly allowed the Reference under Section 18 and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to 24,70,000/- per hectare in respect of 1.61 hectares from Gat No.157/7 of village Ner.
3.
The brief facts necessary to decide these appeals are as under:
The respondent no.1- Narendra Ramchandra Bhagat, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, was the owner of land admeasuring 1.36 hectare in Gat No.157/2 of village Ner. The said land was acquired for Resettlement of Project Affected Persons, Kolha Ner. The Notification under Section 4 was published on 15.06.2006. The award was declared on 09.04.2008, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of 2,29,000/- per hectare. Not
being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the Claimant filed reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court relying upon the sale-deed dated 27.12.2002 (Exhibit 38) and sale-deed dated 10.03.2005 (Exhibit 40) enhanced the compensation to 24,47,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved by this judgment and award, the State and Acquiring Body have filed these appeals.
4.
Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Counsel for the Acquiring Body and Shri A.M. Kadukar, learned A.G.P for the State submit that the case is covered by the judgment dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1026 of 2014 with other group of matters. They submit that the Division Bench of this Court has determined the compensation at 22,54,000/- in respect of land admeasuring 1H 61R from Gat No.157/4,which was acquired by the same notification.
5.
Shri J.S. Malnas, learned counsel for the Claimant submits that the Claimants in the said case had not produced the sale deeds in respects of the property, which was acquired and as such the Division Bench of this Court had determined the compensation at 40/- per square feet, on the basis of agreement and other evidence. He submits that in the instant case, the claimant had relied upon the sale-deeds in
respect of the lands in the vicinity. He, therefore, submits that the decision of the Division Bench would not be applicable to the facts of the present case and the claimant is entitled for compensation as awarded by the Reference Court.
6.
I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the respective parties. 7.
It is not in dispute that the acquired land was a dry crop land situated in village Ner. The claimant had claimed enhanced compensation of 40,00,000/- per hectare and in support of this contention, had relied upon four sale-deeds i.e. i) Sale-deed dated 27.12.2002 (Exhibit 38) in respect of NA Land admeasuring 1 acre under Gat No.156 which was sold at the rate of 6,00,000/- per acre which is equivalent to 15,00,000/- per hectare.
ii) Sale-deed dated 08.09.2004 (Exhibit 39) in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 1 hectare 61 R from Gat No.157/4, which was sold at the rate of 12,54,658/- per hectare.
iii) Sale-deed dated 07.04.2004 (Exhibit 54) in respect of NA plot admeasuring 278. 70 per square meter, Survey No.100/2 which was sold at the rate of 64,50,000/- per hectare and iv) Sale-deed dated 10.03.2005 (Exhibit 40) in respect of NA plot 270.5 per square meter from Gat No.153/3 which was sold at the rate of 539/- per sq.mtr. equivalent to 53,90,000/- per hectare.
8.
The Reference Court has not relied upon the sale-deed at Exhibits 39, which is in respect of survey no.157/4 but has valued the land on the basis of sale-deed at Exhibits 38 and 40. It is to be noted that the sale-deed at Exhibit 40 is in respect of small developed plot admeasuring 270.5 sq.mtr. The evidence of AW.1- Anil Kamble, as well as the expert witness AW.2 -Suresh Thakare does not indicate the distance between the said sale deed land and the acquired land. There is also no evidence to prove that the acquired land had similar advantages possessed by the said land. Under the circumstances, the sale-deed at Exhibit 54, which pertains to a small develop plot cannot be held to be a comparable instance and consequently cannot be relied upon to determine the market rate of the acquired land, particularly, when the sale deed of a plot of similar size from the same survey
number is available for determining the market rate of the acquired land.
9.
The land under Survey No.156, which is adjoining the acquired land, was sold in the year 2002 vide sale deed at Exhibit 38 at 15,00,000/- per hectare, and not at the rate of 24,00,000/- as observed by the reference Court. Considering the fact that Section 4 Notification was issued on 15.06.2006 and considering increase in price of NA land 10% per annum and upon adding 40% the rate of the land as on the date of Notification would work out to 21,00,000/- per hectare and not 33,60,000/-. Be that as it may, this land had NA potentiality. There is no evidence to prove that the acquired land also had NA potentiality. Hence, the acquired land would not have fetched the same price as the sale deed land under survey No.156. 10.
The sale-deed dated 07.09.2004, Exhibit 39 is in respect of Gat No.157/4. The acquired land is an agricultural land, which is part of the same property. This land which is of similar nature was sold at rate of 12,64,658/- per hectare. Considering the area, nature and location of this land, the sale-deed at Exhibit 54 can be considered to be a comparable instance to determine the market rate of acquired land. The said sale-deed was executed 21 months prior to the date of
Notification and upon adding 20% i.e.10% per annum towards increase in price of the land, the value of the land as on the date of the Notification works out to 14,74,223/- per hectare. 11.
It is to be noted that in the First Appeal No.1026 of 2014, this Court has determined the rate of the said land under Survey no.157/4 at 22,54,000/-. The Division Bench of this Court has valued the land under Survey No.157/4 admeasuring 1H 61R land at the rate of 22,54,000/- which works out to 14,00,000/- per hectare. The saledeed at Exhibit 39 which pertains to the property 154/4 was not relied upon in the said reference. It was under these circumstances that this Court relying upon the agreement and considering other circumstances had valued the land under Survey No.157/4 at 14,00,000/- per hectare. In the instant case the claimant has relied upon the sale deed in respect of the very same property, on the basis of which the market rate of the acquired land is determined as at 14,74,223/- per hectare. 12.
Considering the circumstances and in view of the discussion supra, the appeals are allowed. The market rate of the acquired land admeasuring 1.36 HR from Survey No.157/2 of village Ner is determined at 14,74,223/- per hectare with all other statutory
benefits. The balance amount be refunded to the Acquiring Body. Award be modified accordingly.
The cross objection is dismissed.
Pending Civil Application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE Wagh Signed By:SURESH RAOSAHEB WAGH Personal Assistant to the Hon'ble Judge