Abraroddin and Others vs State of Maharashtra and Others

V.A. Naik, J—Since the issue involved in both the first appeals relates to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation paid to the claimants and since they arise from the judgment of the reference Court dated 07.08.1999 on a reference filed by the claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

The claimants are the appellants in First Appeal No. 96 of 2000, whereas the acquiring body is the appellant in First Appeal No. 266 of 2000. The land of the claimants was situated in Survey No. 85/2 in village Manora. The claimants were the owners of 3 Hectares and 10 R of land of which 40 R of land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the construction of Electronic Exchange building and Servant Quarters. The Section 4 notification was published on 14.04.1994. The special land acquisition officer passed the Award on 29.03.1997 and granted compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 62,000/- per Hectare. By the Section 4 notification dated 14.04.1994, only the land of the claimants was acquired as no other land was required for the construction of the Electronic Exchange Building and the Servant Quarters. The claimants received the Section 12(2) notice on 20.06.1997 and immediately filed the reference application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 within the prescribed period of limitation, on 21.07.1997. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per square foot on the ground that the acquired land had non-agricultural potential though it was not converted to non-agricultural use. According to the claimants, since village Manora, in which the land was located, had an ''A'' Grade Village Panchayat and the land was situated near the prime market area, the claimants were entitled to much higher compensation and the compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer was inadequate. The reference made by the claimants was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 1998. The reference Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, directed the State Government and the acquiring body to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R along with the other statutory benefits. According to the claimants the grant of compensation by the reference Court at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R is on a lower side and, hence, the claimants have filed First Appeal No. 96 of 2000 for enhancement of compensation. Similarly, First Appeal No. 266 of 2000 has been filed by the acquiring body for setting aside the order of the reference Court granting higher compensation. According to the acquiring body, the compensation determined by the land acquisition officer was just and proper.

Shri Kilor, the learned counsel for the claimants, submitted that the reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation and granting it at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R. It is submitted that though the claimants had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per square foot, it was restricted while making the arguments before the reference Court. It is submitted that the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R is just and proper as the land of the claimants was situated near the prime market area of Manora. It is submitted that though the land was not converted to the non-agricultural use, it had great commercial value as it was situated on Digras - Akola highway. It is stated that Manora is an ''A'' Grade Village Panchayat and there are two Ginning Factories, an A.P.M.C. and Banks in village Manora. It is submitted that the reference Court has rightly considered the extracts of sale index at Exhibits 28, 30 and 31 and the sale-deed at Exhibit 39 to grant compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R. It is submitted that since the acquired land had great potential value, the reference Court has rightly granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R by considering the non-agricultural potential of the land. The learned counsel submitted that the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R is just and proper and the judgment of the reference Court should not be interfered with. The learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in Digamber and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 5 ABR 986 : (2013) 9 AD 21 : AIR 2013 SC 3532 : (2013) 11 JT 278 : (2013) 4 RCR(Civil) 403 : (2013) 10 SCALE 77 : (2013) 14 SCC 406 to substantiate his submission.

Ms Udeshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State Government, submitted that the grant of compensation by the reference Court is on a much higher side. It is submitted that the reference Court did not consider the oral and the documentary evidence tendered on behalf of the State Government and a mere reference is made to the extracts of sale index produced on behalf of the State Government, on record. It is submitted that though the State Government has not challenged the judgment of the reference Court, it appears on a perusal of the record that the compensation granted by the land acquisition officer was just and proper.

Ms Tanna, the learned counsel for the acquiring body, submitted that the judgment of the reference Court is liable to be set aside as the reference Court has granted exorbitant compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the land is situated in the prime market area. It is submitted that merely because the A.P.M.C. is located near the acquired land, it cannot be said that the market value of the land was Rs. 20,000/- per R. It is submitted that though a reference is made to Exhibits 47 to 51 tendered on behalf of the State Government before the reference Court, which were considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in detail, the reference Court has not considered these exhibits while determining the market value of the land. It is submitted that a mere reference to the extracts of sale index at Exhibits 47 to 51 was not enough and it was necessary for the reference Court to have considered these documents, as by the said sale instances, large tracts of land were sold. It is submitted that the reference Court could not have considered the sale instances in respect of small plots of land on which the construction was made when sale-deeds in respect of large agricultural lands were available. It is submitted that it was necessary for the reference Court to have considered whether the quality and nature of the land sold by the sale instances at Exhibits 28 to 32 was like the acquired land before granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R. It is submitted that the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper and this Court may allow the appeal filed by the acquiring body and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the original Record & Proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in these first appeals.

"I) Whether the grant of compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R is just and proper and/or whether it needs to be enhanced or reduced?

II) What order?"

To answer the points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the oral and the documentary evidence tendered by the parties. Admittedly, the land of the petitioner, admeasuring 40R from village Manora and situated in Survey No. 85/2 was acquired by the State Government for the construction of the Electronic Exchange Building and Servant Quarters. Since the Section 4 notification was published on 14.04.1994, it would be necessary to determine the market value of the land, on that date. The Award was passed by the land acquisition officer on 29.03.1997 and by considering various sale instances, the Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 62,000/- per Hectare. There is no dispute that the claimants filed the reference application within the prescribed period of limitation. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per square foot on the ground that their land had great non-agricultural potential. Admittedly, on the date of issuance of the Section 4 notification and even thereafter till the land was acquired, it was not permitted to be used for non-agricultural purpose. No doubt, the land had non-agricultural potential as the same was being acquired for the Electronic Exchange Building and Servant Quarters. It is the case of the claimants that the land was situated in prime market area. We do not, however, find from a perusal of the map filed by the claimants on record and which is exhibited, that the land is situated near prime market area. The A.P.M.C., Manora is located in the vicinity of the acquired land. Normally, the market committees are not located in the market area but, they are located in the outskirts of the village. Manora Village Panchayat is an ''A'' Grade Village Panchayat. It is found from the oral evidence of the claimants that there are two Ginning Factories, an A.P.M.C. and Banks in village Manora. It can, therefore, be said that Manora is a developing village. For determining the market value of the land, it would be necessary to apply either the Income Capitalization method or the method of referring to the sale-deeds of comparable lands. There is no evidence in this case to determine the value of the acquired land by Income Capitalization method. Normally, we do not find the State Government diligently defending a land acquisition case. In the instant case, the reference application made by the claimants is strenuously defended by the State Government. Not only is the written statement filed on record but, the extracts of sale instances have also been produced on behalf of the State Government at Exhibits 47 to 51. Also, witnesses have been examined on behalf of the State Government to disprove the claim of the claimants. There are about twelve sale instances tendered by the parties on record. Five of them are tendered by the State Government and the others are tendered by the claimants. By considering that the acquired land has non-agricultural potential, the reference Court has given much weightage to the sale instances at Exhibits 28 to 32, tendered by the claimants on record. It would be necessary to consider these sale instances. Exhibit 28 is an extract of sale index that shows that 111.60 square meters of plot was sold for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- on 31.03.1994. Exhibit 29 is a sale-deed dated 31.01.1994 by which a godown has been sold for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. Exhibit 30 is an extract of sale index which shows that 27.59 square meters of land was sold on 31.03.1994 for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. So also, by Exhibits 31 and 32, it is sought to be pointed out that on 03.09.1993, 800 square feet and 1200 square feet of plots were sold for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- each. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the State Government and the acquiring body that the reference Court could not have given undue weightage to the sale instances by which extremely small plots of land were sold in or about the time of issuance of Section 4 notification. The acquired land in question admeasured 40R and the same was not put to non-agricultural use till it was acquired. However, we find that the reference Court has merely made a reference to the sale-deeds and extracts of sale index, tendered by the State Government on record at Exhibits 47 to 51 and the said sale instances are not considered in the judgment. There is a mere observation in the judgment of the reference Court that the land acquisition officer has determined the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 62,000/- per Hectare on the basis of the sale instances at Exhibits 47 to 51. It was necessary for the reference Court to have considered the sale instances at Exhibits 47 to 51. Exhibit 47 shows that 86 R of land was sold on 08.10.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- only. Also, Exhibit 48 depicts that 1.21 Hectares of land, which was adjoining the land of the claimants and bearing No. 85/1 was sold on 04.02.1996 for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. So also, Exhibit 49 shows that 1.42 Hectares of land was sold on 30.07.1996 for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/-. Exhibit 50 shows that 86 R of land from village Manora was sold on 21.06.1996 for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. Also on 27.03.1996, 62 R of land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- as could be noticed from Exhibit 51. The documents at Exhibits 47 to 51 throw much light on the controversy in regard to the actual market value of the land on the date of publication of the Section 4 notification on 14.04.1994. By these sale instances, large pieces of land were sold after the issuance of the Section 4 notification at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. It appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had considered these sale instances while determining the compensation of the land of the claimants at Rs. 62,000/- per Hectare. The claimants had produced sale instances at Exhibits 58 and 59 by which extremely small plots of land in village Somthana were sold in the year 1992. These sale instances cannot be considered for determining the compensation as they are not situated in village Manora and by these sale instances, very small plots of land admeasuring 750 square feet and 1200 square feet were sold. The reference Court committed an error in relying on the sale instances of village Somthana along with the sale instances produced by the claimants at Exhibits 28 to 32 while holding that the market value of the acquired land was nearly Rs. 20,000/- per R. The reference Court did not consider the principles enumerated in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as also the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court from time to time, while determining the market value. Even if the land of the claimants had non-agricultural potential and it was acquired for the purpose of construction of Electronic Exchange Building and Servant Quarters, we find that the grant of compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R was on a higher side. We do not find that the land was situated near the main market. Merely because the A.P.M.C. was situated near the land, the compensation could not have been granted at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per R. It was necessary for the reference Court to consider the sale instances of bigger lands at Exhibits 47 to 51 to determine the market value. Exhibit 48 pertains to the land adjacent to the land of the claimants and the said exhibit depicts that on 04.02.1996, 1.21 Hectares of land from Survey No. 85/1 of village Manora (Claimants'' Survey No. is 85/2) was sold for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/- only. Even assuming that in the sale-deed, a lesser value could have been mentioned with a view to avoid the stamp duty, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the market value of the land of the claimants could have been Rs. 20,000/- per R on the date of issuance of the Section 4 notification. We find that the reference Court has given undue weightage to the sale instances at Exhibits 28 to 32 to grant huge compensation to the claimants. By these transactions, very small plots of land were sold and in one of the sale instances at Exhibit 29, only a godown was sold. We find on the perusal of the original Record & Proceedings and the evidence tendered by the parties that it would be appropriate to grant compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per Hectare as the land of the claimants had non-agricultural potential and the agricultural fields in the near vicinity of the land were sold, after the Section 4 notification, at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre, as per the sale-deeds.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, First Appeal No. 96 of 2000 is dismissed. First Appeal No. 266 of 2000 is partly allowed. The judgment of the reference Court dated 07.08.1999 is modified. The claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per Hectare for the acquired land along with the statutory benefits. Since the amount under the Award is deposited by the acquiring body in the reference Court, the reference Court may release the monetary benefits as per this judgment to the claimants and return the balance amount to the acquiring body, at the earliest. No costs.