Sajan vs State Of Maharashtra And Others

i. Cost of the land @ Rs.6/- per sq.ft. (Deduction a

10%)","t…. Rs.9,40,896/-",,

ii. Dismantling and damage of Civil work costs,"…. Rs.4,26,890/-",,

iii. Replacement of electrical installation,"…. Rs.2,39,000/-",,

iv. Depreciated value of machineries,"…. Rs.6,62,000/-",,

v. Loss of business,"…. Rs.5,00,000/-",,

Total,"…. Rs.21,60,974/-",,

village Mhasekota is a very small village having a population of one thousand, situated in a remote area without any development potentials and there",,,

was no potential value of the acquired land as non-agricultural land. It was further contended that no purchaser will come forward to purchase the,,,

large area of land admeasuring 1.44 hectares on square feet basis and without considering this aspect, the Reference Court had enhanced the",,,

compensation @ Rs. 6.90 per sq.ft. Drawing our attention to the evidence of the State witness Dilip Gudwe, Sub-Divisional Officer, it was submitted",,,

that SDO had visited the site and factory premises and submitted a report (Exh.-54) mentioning that the factory was not in operation and the,,,

machinery was lying idle and considering the same, the High Court has recorded a finding that the claimants had closed the sugar factory. The learned",,,

counsel urged that the High Court rightly reduced the compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court and there is no ground warranting,,,

interference with the impugned judgment.,,,

We have heard Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande and Mr. Sagar N. Pahune Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Rahul",,,

Chitnis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. We have carefully considered the contentions and perused the impugned",,,

judgment and materials on record.,,,

The land Gat No.85 admeasuring 6 acres, situated at Mhasekota in Soygaon Tahsil of Aurangabad district, owned by the appellants-claimants",,,

came to be acquired by the Government for construction of Hiwra medium project. The land Gat No.85 admeasuring 2 hectares 40 R came to be,,,

acquired including 0.16 hectare Potkharaba land. Out of this area, land admeasuring 0.80 hectare has been converted into non-agriculture (N.A)",,,

purpose for installation of Khandsari factory (sugar factory). Rest of the area admeasuring 1.44 hectare is appellants claim that they have been using,,,

for non-agricultural purpose. Though the claimants had asked for non-agricultural permission for the land admeasuing 1.44 hectare out of the land Gat,,,

No.85, the same was not granted by the concerned authority. The S.L.A.O. on 29.03.1982 has published the notification under Section 4 of the Land",,,

Acquisition Act and on 01.09.1986 awarded the compensation for the acquired land admeasuring 0.80 R, since converted into the non-agriculture land,",,,

at the rate of Rs.2.00 per sq. meter i.e. Rs.20,000/- per hectare. The S.L.A.O. has awarded the compensation to the agricultural land admeasuring",,,

1.44 R at the rate of Rs.9500/- per hectare. So far as Potkharaba land, which is 0.16 hectare is concerned, the S.L.A.O. has awarded the",,,

compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per hectare. The S.L.A.O. has awarded total compensation at Rs.29,712/- as the costs of the land, as stated",,,

above.,,,

So far as the use of the entire land for non-agricultural purpose is concerned, the High Court found that the Reference Court is justified in treating",,,

the entire land having the potential for non-agricultural purpose of the remaining area â€" 1.44 hectare. Referring to the Project report â€" Exh.42 -,,,

scheme of the factory approved by the Small Scale industries, Aurangabad, the High Court found that the main raw material required for the sugar",,,

factory is sugarcane and part of the building is used for keeping the raw materials. The High Court further found that besides flow sheet, certain part",,,

of the land would be utilised for office building, workshop, staff quarters, etc. and also used for parking and various other purposes. The High Court",,,

also pointed out that the State has not adduced any evidence to the effect that the land admeasuring 1 hectare 44 R out of the acquired land was,,,

mainly used for agricultural purpose and not for the non-agricultural purpose. In view of the concurrent findings by the Reference Court and by the,,,

High Court that apart from 0.80 hectare, the land measuring 1 hectare 44 R be taken as having the potential for non-agricultural purpose, we do not",,,

find any reason to take a different view.,,,

Market value and deduction for development,,,

The High Court has taken Exh.23 dated 03.06.1976 as exemplar which is the sale deed for plot admeasuring 30x32 ft. (960 sq.ft.) for Rs.3,000/-",,,

i.e. at the rate of Rs.3.12 per sq.ft. The appellants have also placed further reliance on the sale deed dated 03.02.1982 Exh.35 wherein, the plot of",,,

admeasuring 5023 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.35,000/- i.e. Rs.6.90 per sq.ft. The High Court has taken Exh.23 sale deed dated 03.06.1976 and had taken",,,

10% increase for every year and arrived at the value at Rs.6 per sq.ft. Even going by Exh.35 sale deed (03.02.1982) under which Rs.5023 sq.ft. was,,,

sold for Rs.35,000/- i.e. Rs.6.90 per sq.ft., Exh.35 sale deed (03.02.1982) is after possession of the land was taken by the State Government",,,

(21.11.1981) and Section 4 Notification dated 10.02.1982. Since Exh.35 sale deed dated 03.02.1982 is between two dates - date of taking possession,,,

of the land and the date of Section 4 Notification, it is necessary to adopt a reasonable valuation. Considering Exh.23 and Exh.35, the value adopted by",,,

the Reference Court at Rs.6.90 per sq.ft., in our view, fixation of valuation at Rs.6.90 per sq.ft., the value adopted is fair and reasonable and the same",,,

is affirmed.,,,

Taking the value at Rs.6.90 per sq.ft, the High Court deducted 40% towards the development cost and calculated the value of the land at",,,

Rs.2,61,300 sq.ft. at Rs.9,40,896.00. While determining the market value of the acquired land, normally one-third deduction i.e. 33 1/3% towards",,,

development charges is allowed. After referring to number of judgments, in Major General Kapil Mehra and Others vs. Union of India and Another",,,

(2015) 2 SCC 262, the Supreme Court held as under:-",,,

“36. While determining the market value of the acquired land, normally one-third deduction i.e. 33 1/3% towards development charges is allowed.",,,

One-third deduction towards development was allowed in Tehsildar (LA) v. 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 Divl. Officer and LAO v. Sk. Azam Saheb (2009) 4 SCC 39,5",,,

A.P. Housing Board v. K. 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.,,,

Depending on the 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 v. Krishan Kumar (2011) 15 SCC 297, Director, Land",,,

Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaid (2006) 12 SCC 87, Mummidi Apparao v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (2009) 4 SCC 402 and Lal Chand v.",,,

Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769.â€​,,,

Rule of one-third deduction towards development is the general rule. But depending upon the purpose of acquisition and taking note of well,,,

planned layouts, if any, the deduction for development cost may vary from 20% to 75%. Observing that deduction towards development can range",,,

from 20% to 75% of the price of the plot, in Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Another (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Supreme Court held as under:-",,,

“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.),,,

…….,,,

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%.â€​,,,

Sr. No.,Description of Items,By the High Court,By the Supreme Court

i.,Land value,"Rs.9,40,896/-","Rs.14,42,707/-

ii.,Civil work,"Rs.4,26,890/-",Amount confirmed

iii.,Replacement of electrical installation,"Rs.2,39,000/-","Rs.3,86,867/- as awarded

by the Reference Court

iv.,"Depreciated value of the machinery

and mechanical installation","Rs.6,62,000/-",Amount confirmed

V.,"Loss of business from the year 1981 to

1986","Rs.5,00,000/-",Amount confirmed

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State, it is stated that the office of the Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project Division-1 has",,,

deposited the decreetal amount of Rs.72,02,224/- by way of a cheque deposited in the Civil court. Further the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid",,,

to the appellant on 21.09.2018 by way of cheque bearing No.000081 vide receipt No.0114362 and the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid to the",,,

appellants on 02.11.2018 by way of the cheque bearing No.000094 (receipt No.0114663). It is stated that the appellant has also executed the receipt,,,

of the above said amount and has also executed an acknowledgement to the effect that, his entire claim has been settled. As per the modified amount",,,

of compensation, the appellants are entitled to the balance amount.",,,

In the result, the impugned judgment and final order dated 21. 08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in",,,

First Appeal No.601 of 1997 along with Cross Objection St. No.22145 of 1997 in the First Appeal, is modified as stated above in Para (22) and these",,,

appeals are partly allowed. The balance amount as per the modified amount of compensation be paid to the appellants/claimants with all statutory,,,

benefits as awarded by the Reference Court.,,,