(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
First
Appeal No. 659 of 2001
and Civil Application No.6522/2002+
and Civil Application No.8347/2006
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. , Jalgaon.
versus
Chindha Fakira Patil (deceased)
Heir: Dharma Chindha Patil,
age 45 years, occup. agril.
R/of Deoli Bhoras,Tq.Chalisgaon,
District Jalgaon.
]
]
]
Appellant/
ori.opponent
]
]
]
]
]
Respondent/
Orig.claimant
With
First Appeal No. 660 of
2001
and Civil Application No.6520/2002
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
]
]
Appellant/
orig.Opponent
versus
Sahebrao Rajaram Agone
Age 48 years, occup.Agril.
R/of Deoli Bhoras,
Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
]
]
]
]
Respondent/
Ori.claimant
With
First Appeal No. 661 of
2001
and Civil Application No.6513/2002
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
]
]
versus
Kubabai Ganpat Dhangar
Age 45 years, occup.agril.
]
]
Appellant/
orig.opponent
(2)
R/of Deoli Bhoras,
Taluka Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon.
]
]
Respondent/
orig.claimant
With
First
Appal No. 668 of
2001
and Civil Application No.6515/2002
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
]
]
Appellant/
ori.Respondent
]
]
]
]
]
Respondent/
original
Petitioner
versus
Arjun s/o Sukdeo Patil,
age 52 years,occupation
agriculturist, r/o Bhoras,
Taluka Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon.
With
First Appeal No. 669 of
2001
and Civil Application No.6519/2002+
and Civil Application No.8349/2006
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
]
]
Appellant/
orig.opponent
]
]
]
]
Respondent/
orig.claimant
versus
Santosh Tukaram Dhangar,
Age 45 years, occup. Agril.
R/o Deoli Bhoras, Taluka
Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
With
First Appeal No. 671 of
2001
and Civil Application No.6517/2002
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
]
]
versus
Indubai Bhaleraon (Spl. P.A.)
Shivaji Bhalerao, age 50 years
]
]
Appellant/
orig.opponent
(3)
occup.agril. r/of Deoli Bhoras,
Taluka Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon.
]
]
Respondent/
Ori.Claimant
With
First Appeal No. 672 of
2001
and Civil Application No.6518/2002
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
]
]
Appellant/
orig.opponent
]
]
]
]
]
Respondent
original
Petitioner
versus
Laxman Chandar Dhangar
Age 65 years, occup.agril.
R/of Deoli Bhoras,
Tq.Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon.
With
First
Appeal No. 673
of 2001
and Civil Application No.6514/2002+
and Civil Applicatioin No.8348/2006
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
]
]
Appellant/
orig.opponent
]
]
]
]
Respondent
ori.petitioner
versus
Chintaman Gangadhar Chandasre
age 48 years, occup. agril.
r/o Deoli, Taluka Chalisgaon,
District Jalgaon.
With
First Appeal No. 674 of
2001
and Civil Application No.6516/2002
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
]
]
Appellant/
orig.opponent
]
]
]
]
Respondents
ori. claimants
versus
1. Daga Nana Dhangar
2. Pira Daga Dhangar,
R/o Deoli Bhosar,
Taluka Chalisgaon,
(4)
District : Jalgaon.
]
[Appeal abetted against Resp.
No. 1 vide Registrar’s order
dated 31.1.2006]
]
]
]
With
First Appeal No. 675 of
2001
and Civil Application No.6521/2002
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
]
]
Appellant/
orig.opponent
versus
Shankar Bhaurao,
]
Age 53 years, occup. Agril.
]
R/o Deoli Bhoras,
] Respondent
Taluka Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. ] orig.claimant
----------Shri N. B. Patil, A. G. P. for all Appellants
and for the applicants in Civil Application Nos.
6522 of 2002 in First Appeal No. 659 of 2001,
6520 of 2002 in First Appeal No.660 of 2001, 6513
of 2002 in First Appeal No.661 of 2001, 6515 of
2002 in First Appeal No. 668 of 2001, Civil
Application No. 6519 of 2002 in First Appeal No.
669 of 2001, 6517 of 2002 in First Appeal No. 671
of 2001, 6518 of 2002 in First Appeal No.672 of
2001, Civil Application No.6514 of 2002 in First
Appeal No. 673 of 2001, 6516 of 2002 in First
Appeal No.674 of 2001 and C.A. No. 6521 of 2002
in
First
Appeal
Number
675
of 2001.
Shri V. G. Sakolkar, for Respondents
in First
Appeal Nos. 659/201, 669/2001, 673/2001 and
for
applicants in Civil Application numbers 8347/2006
in First Appeal No.659/2001, 8349/2006 in First
Appeal No. 669
of
2001, and C. A. No. 8348
of 2006 in First Appeal Number 673 of 2001.
Shri P. S. Patil, Advocate, for the Respondents
in
First Appeal
Numbers 660/2001, 661/2001,
668/2001,671/2001,672/2001,674/2001 and
675/2001.
-------------------------------------------------Coram : N.V.Dabholkar and P.R.Borkar, JJ.
Judgment reserved on: October
10, 2006
Judgment pronounced on: November 09, 2006
(Diwali vacation:23.10.2006 to 5.11.2006)
Judgment (Per: Dabholkar, J.)
(5)
01.
These
Land
appeals under Section
54
Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth, "the
Act")
read
with
Procedure,
said
by
ten
1908
Order
41
of
Code
said
of
(by virtue of Section 53
Act), challenge composite judgment
of
Civil
of
the
delivered
Reference Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division),
Jalgaon, on 4.4.2000, thereby disposing of ten Land
Acquisition References i.e.
465,
the
LAR Nos.478, 461, 495,
485, 477, 468, 491, 466 and 481 of 1999.
appeals
aggrieved
granted
are preferred by the
by
in
the
favour
State,
enhancement
of
of
respective
All
feeling
compensation
Respondents
-
claimants, by the Reference Court.
02.
The
which
were
Bhoras
(8
Respondents are the owners of lands,
agricultural lands from village
lands) and Bilakhed (2
Chalisgaon,
acquired
District
by
through
Jalgaon.
lands),
Their
regular land acquisition
Special
Land
Deoli
Taluka
lands
are
proceedings
Acquisition
Officer
(henceforth
referred to as "SLAO") for the purpose
of
Irrigation
Minor
Notification
published
local
Deoli
Bhoras.
under Section 4 of the said Act,
Government Gazette on 14.3.1996,
newspaper on 17.4.1996 and at
office,
was
in
Tank,
on 29.4.1996.
was
in
Grampanchayat
Declaration under Section 6
published in the gazette on 10.4.1997, it
was
(6)
published
in the local newspapers on 7.4.1997
8.4.1997.
The
SLAO
declared
31.3.1999.
The
land
owners
received
had
compensation under protest, because
SLAO
the compensation on the
to
lower
side.
them, the SLAO did not consider
the
market value as on the date of notification
under
Section
those
sale
4, he took into consideration
only
instances, which were transactions
prices,
he
potentiality
SLAO
claimed
on
they
According
low
award
that
awarded
proper
the
and
also neglected rich
quality
of
and
of the lands under acquisition.
The
failed to appoint any expert for doing proper
valuation
of the lands and trees therein.
contrary,
he
On
the
arbitrarily classified the lands
on
the basis of revenue assessment, which was not just
and
proper.
submitted
aforesaid
requesting
of
The Respondents-claimants, therefore,
land acquisition
references,
for payment of compensation at the rate
Rs.3.00 lacs to Rs.400 lac per acre of
jirayat
land.
.
All
disposed
of by the impugned judgment.
that
evidence
Reference
of
these
the
purpose
acquired
is
No.
references
recorded
in
are
decided
Land
It
are
appears
Acquisition
465 of 1999, and by mutual
parties, the same is relied upon
of
all
and
ten references, since
from the same locality and
consent
for
the
for
the
lands
the
(7)
purpose
of
same project.
Even while arguing
the
matter before this Court, the parties have followed
the same pattern.
03.
From
the
copy of the award declared
the
SLAO
(Exhibit 44, all references to
are
from
Land
1999),
it
can
claimants
from
Acquisition
Reference
be seen that the
by
exhibits
No.465
lands
of
of
seven
are from village Bhoras (Budruk) and one
Bhoras
(Khurd)
No.477/1999),
and
Bilakhed
(Shankar
and
of
478
pertaining
two
i.e.
of
lands
are
and Dharma) (i.e.
1999 respectively).
to
Indubai
(LAR
from
village
LAR
Nos.481
From
the
demands placed by claimants
table
before
SLAO, it appears that, eight claimants placed their
demands
and there is no demand placed on behalf of
Indubai and Shankar.
Sahebrao
claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs
hectare,
Kubabai
of
Claimants Santosh, Dharma and
whereas
claimants
Chintaman,
(Kushabai), Laxman and Nimbabai on
per
Arjun,
behalf
Daga, claimed compensation at Rs.3.00 lacs
per
hectare.
(Here itself, it must be noted that
the
reference
court
all
claimants
at
has granted compensation
Rs.
6.00 lacs per hectare,
to
holding
their lands to be Bagayat (irrigated) lands, except
to
Santosh
Tukaram,
whose
land is
held
to
be
(8)
jirayat (dry) and hence, he is awarded compensation
of
Rs.3.00
Gangadhar
lacs per hectare.
(LAR
Rs.80,000/=
No.491
towards
Rs.1,35,000/=
Claimant
1999)
valuation
towards
Arjun
Rs.70,000/=
of
Claimant
(LAR
also
of
valuation
Chintaman
claimed
the
of
well
the
and
trees.
No.465/1999)
claimed
each towards compensation for well and
trees.
Claimant Kubabai (Kushabai) (LAR 495/1999)
claimed
Rs.70,000/= towards well.
(LAR
No.478/1999)
compensation
for
trees.
Claimant
prayed
for
structure
another
claimed
construction.
Claimant
468
for
of
and
1999) have
for
for
trees.
Daga
(LAR
for
well,
Rs.50,000/=
Santosh and
not
the
461/1999)
Rs.50,000/=
behalf
trees
of
of
Rs.70,000/=
for
and
towards
Rs.50,000/=
on
Rs.2,20,000/=
No.485
Rs.1,40,000/=
Sahebrao Rajaram (LAR
Nimbabai
No.466/1999)
Chindha
well and Rs.2,10,000/=
compensation
and
Claimant
claimed
Dharma
Laxman
for
(LAR
claimed
any
additional compensation, except prices of the lands
at desired rate.
.
The
SLAO,
at
internal page
6
of
the
award, has recorded that the interested persons did
not
produce any evidence in support of the
for
compensation.
did
not produce any evidence.
Similarly, even acquiring
claims
body
The SLAO refused to
accept the valuation as done by panchas, since that
(9)
was
an
approximation and he decided to take
consideration
transactions
preceding
Act.
he
into
sale instances for comparison, which
were entered into during three
years
notification under Section 4 of the said
For the purpose of convenient consideration,
has
grouped
accordance
being
with
the lands into
nine
revenue assessment,
groups,
first
in
group
of lowest assessment from Rs.1.00 to Rs.1.25
and group No.9 being group of highest assessment at
Rs.10.00
at
or above.
internal
instances
and
As can be seen from the
pages 7 and 8 of the award,
of
table
19
the lands from village Bhoras
sale
(Bdk)
27 instances of sale of the lands from village
Bilakhed,
are tabularised.
with
subsequent table which is pertaining
the
(We are not
concerned
to
non-agricultural lands).
.
While
Bhoras,
to
considering
lands
at
village
the SLAO found the lands to be of group
III.
He rejected some sale instances, as
I
very
low prices and one instance as of exorbitant price.
Taking
into consideration the sale instance
24.5.1995
be
sale
that
ten
prior
the
of Gat No.
dated
244/3/2/1, which appeared to
instance of land of group III,
he
price paid was Rs.61,905 per hectare.
noted
per
Giving
cent rise, because instance was one
year
to the date of notification under Section 4,
SLAO
has
fixed Rs.68,000/=
per
hectare
as
(10)
market
price
for
jirayat
land
of
group
III.
Consequently,
he has fixed the price for group
and
at Rs.58,000/= and
group
hectare.
has
I
Rs.54,000/=
II
per
In accordance with government policy, he
awarded
Rs.1500/= per hectare for pot
kharab
land.
.
For the lands at Bilakhed for class I, as
there were no sale instances, except two which were
too
low
priced, the SLAO has fixed price
64,500/=
per
reckoner.
20
hectare,
reference
to
Rs.
ready
For group II lands, although there were
transactions
satisfied,
were
by
at
as
available,
the
SLAO
was
not
some were too low priced
and
some
excessively priced, in his opinion.
transaction,
land
was
sold
at
From one
Rs.62,000/=
per
hectare.
Consequently, the SLAO has accepted ready
reckoner
and
hectare
fixed
the price
for class II lands.
at
Rs.72,500
For class III
per
lands,
he has accepted the rate of one transaction of 1995
with
10
per cent rise and fixed market
Rs.78,000/=
offer
the
per
hectare, as the same
price
was
at
better
to the agriculturist than that prescribed by
ready
hectare.
reckoner,
which
was
Rs.75,500
For class IV land, ready reckoner
per
price
(11)
at
Rs.80,500/= per hectare, being higher than
sale
instance
considered
for
the
comparison,
is
accepted as awardable market price, by the SLAO.
.
We
worked
do
out
other
not
intend to give
the
details
by the SLAO, in the same manner
classes
of lands.
about
Suffice it to say
that,
after taking into consideration the acceptable sale
instances
and
ready reckoner, the SLAO has
fixed
market price at a rate, which ever is higher out of
the two.
.
So
(LAR
far as Gat No.61 of village
No.481/1999)
although
since
of
Shankar)
is
Bilakhed
concerned,
total land under acquisition is 1.22 are,
there
are 269 trees, the SLAO has
deducted
acreage of land at the rate of 1 are for each group
of six trees and thus for 269 trees, he has reduced
cultivable
acreage
acreage, by 49 ares.
to
rate
remaining
be bagayat land, compensation is
Rs.1,61,085/=
trees.
Taking
towards
price of the fruit
paid
bearing
The SLAO has awarded market price at double
for
jirayat
bagayat
land,
land, after
fixing
price
either by comparison method
or
for
by
reference to ready reckoner.
.
at
So far as fruit bearing trees in the land
village Bhoras (Budruk) are concerned, the SLAO
(12)
has relied upon valuation report by _______________
(Deputy
Director
prepared
on
18.2.1997,
dtd.19.11.1996
same
of Fruit Production)
as
which
also
was
report
obtained by acquiring body from the
authority,
when
the
acquiring
body
took
possession by private negotiations.
.
In
standing
structures
ten
the
appeals
recorded
4,
are referred.
existence
of
our
structures
are
have been found in Gat No.42/A/2
and
Gat No.89/2 i.e.
.
part,
So far as
are
to
concluding
concerned,
the
LAR Nos.461 and 466 of 1999.
We are recording, at the end of paragraph
a
comparative table of the claim by each
owner,
compensation
awarded by SLAO, and also
land
as
awarded by Reference Court.
04.
So
far as reference court is
concerned,
it appears that learned Judge has accepted evidence
of
three
witnesses
claimants,
produced
is
dated
No.97/1
of
on
behalf
of
the
namely, Arjun Sukhdeo Patil-Exh.11 (LAR
No.465/1999),
Dagekha
examined
attesting
(Exh.42)
of
witness
the sole
Latifkha
instance
of
s/o
sale
by the claimant for comparision (instance
2.2.1995, wherein 96 Are land
of Bhilakheda is sold for a
from
Gat
consideration
Rs.2.65 lacs) and valuer of the trees, Ravindra
(13)
Ghanashyam
Court
Chaudhari (Exh.33).
accepted
the
sole
Learned
sale
Reference
instance
for
comparison, observing the comparison to be the best
method
land
10
for
determining market price.
Since
the
was sold at Rs.2,76,000/= per hectare, giving
per
Judge
cent rise for lapse of one
fixed
Rs.3.00
year,
learned
the market price for jirayat land
lacs
per hectare and double of
Rs.6,00,000/=
per
that,
hectare for bagayat land.
report
of
the valuer regarding valuation
trees,
is
accepted
in
toto
and,
at
at
The
of
the
accordingly,
compensation is awarded.
.
It
learned
refer
the
sale
stated
here
itself
that,
to any of the sale instances, considered
by
SLAO, although details of as many as 19 and 27
instances
Bilakhed
the
award,
from
be
Reference court has not at all bothered to
and
there
must
of agricultural lands from
Bhoras
respectively, were available
within
in a tabularized form.
In the
are four transactions of agricultural
village Bhoras and another four
table,
lands
transactions
from village Bilakhed, which are lands described as
"____________________"
i.e.
irrigated with
well,
and those instances also could have been considered
for
comparison
all
referred
method.
to
Learned Judge has not
those and consequently,
he
at
has
(14)
recorded
no reasons why those instances cannot
considered
the
Bagayat
rate
1995
lands in Bilkhed were sold
per
hectare in 1993 May,
April and 1995 April.
which
at
75,500/=
of Rs.58,950/=, 23,438/-,
74,408/=
be
1993
and
October,
Even the sale incident
the SLAO rejected from consideration because
price is too high, the land was sold at the rate of
The
court ought to have considered at
least
per
Reference
these
hectare
in
two sale instances of April 1995 (underlined
above)
the
March,
1996.
Rs.90164/=
and one instance of March, 1996, along with
sale
instance relied upon by
referring
instances
and
without
recording reasons for not using those
for
purpose
Reference
sale
of
determination
of
compensation,
court has taken the approach as if
incident
binding
these other
claimants.
Without
the
to
the
on it.
relied
upon by
the
sole
claimants
In fact, it was obligatory on
is
the
part of Reference court to record reasons as to why
the
rate of market price as fixed by SLAO was
acceptable,
why
that is unreliable or
No such exercise is done.
material
has
available
not
erroneous.
By not addressing to the
in the award, Reference
exhibited an approach to swallow whatever
court
was
placed before it, by the claimants.
.
sale
About village Bilakhed, four instances of
of
Bagayat land with well are of June
1994,
(15)
December,
The
1994,
lands
February 1996 and December
were sold at the rate
of
1994.
Rs.95,890/=,
1,00,000/=, 3,12,500/= and 1,00,000/= per hectare.
.
Unfortunately,
appear
to
Reference court does
have studied the award and has
not
readily
accepted whatever is placed before it by claimants,
without
taking
proper
market
examined
on
any efforts to arrive at just
price.
The claimants
not
and
having
either vendor or vendee, there is nothing
record to show why jirayat land was sold at
high
a
price,
referred
lands
when
hereinabove,
8
transactions
demonstrate
from
that
so
award
Bagayat
were being sold at a price of Rs.75,000/= to
Rs.1,00,000/=
instance
sold
the
is
at the rate of Rs.3,12,500/= per hectare.
If
of
land
hectare in 1995-96, except
December 1994, where Bagayat land
rates
of
per
jirayat lands are to be 50% of
bagayat,
in the sale instance relied upon by claimants
ought
to
have
Rs.1,50,000/=
price.
per
been
sold,
at
the
most,
hectare, or even at some
@
lower
When it is sold @ Rs.3,00,000/= per hectare
in spite of being jirayat land, there must had been
some special reasons for the same, which could have
been
learnt from vendor/vendee.
either,
the
at
By not
examining
claimants have denied such opportunity
Reference Court.
The Reference court has
to
not
all realised this angle and, therefore, has not
(16)
at
all
considered the aspect that
could
not
price
of
have
been accepted for
acquired
lands,
unless
price
therein
fixing
market
same
special
reasons
did exist in case of acquired lands.
The
burden
to
and
similarity
acquired
was
prove
of
special
with
required
special
reasons
of
lands
that of sale instance relied
upon,
reasons in case
to be discharged by claimants.
Reference
court
that
claimants
the
these
is totally unmindful of the
The
have not undertaken
such
fact
an
exercise, much less successfully.
________________________________________________________________
Claimant
Appeal Demand before Award by SLAO Award by
of 2001 SLAO/price
price/P.H.
Ref.Court
per hectare
for well
price/hectare
for well
for trees
for well
for trees
for structure for trees
for structure
for structure
_______________________________________________________________
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
--------------------------------------------------------------Chindha
659
2,00,000
78,000
6,00,000
1,40,000-W
17,146-W
(Pot Kharab
2,10,000-T
19,580-T
3,00,000/P.H.)
1,47,727 (for
17 trees)
--------------------------------------------------------------Sahebrao
660
2,00,000
58,000
6,00,000
50,000-T
1677-T
35,375 (for
50,000-S
26,980-house
5 trees)
--------------------------------------------------------------Kubabai
661
3,00,000
58,000
6,00,000
(Kushabai)
70,000-W
2404-W
(17)
--------------------------------------------------------------Arjun
668
3,00,000
58,000
6,00,000
70,000-W
13,582-W
53,720
70,000-T
2540-T
(for 7 trees)
--------------------------------------------------------------Santosh
669
2,00,000
68,000
3,00,000
--------------------------------------------------------------Indubai
671
No claim
68,000
6,00,000
7,240-W
3,18,934
for 31 trees)
--------------------------------------------------------------Laxman
672
3,00,000
58,000
6,00,000
70,000-W
4,275-W
Pot Kharab at
3,00,000 P.H.
--------------------------------------------------------------Chintaman 673
3,00,000
58,000
6,00,000
80,000-W
10,792-W
1,35,000-T
--------------------------------------------------------------Daga and
674
3,00,000
58,000
6,00,000
Pira
70,000-W
14,989-W
90,029
2,20,000-T
6,655-T
(for 11 trees)
50,000-S
834-S
--------------------------------------------------------------Shankar
675
No claim
1,60,000
6,00,000
2,23,085-T 14,31,176
(for 279 trees)
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
We
awarded
may
state
compensation
for
here
Pot
itself
that
Kharab
land
SLAO
at
Rs.1500/- per hectare as per Government guidelines.
As
against
compensation
this, the reference Court has
granted
towards Pot Kharab land at 50% of the
market price i.e.
at Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare for
Pot Kharab of Bagayat land and at Rs.1,50,000/- per
hectare for Pot Kharab of Jirayat land.
.
Couple
of salient features, which emerge
(18)
from
the
quoted
above comparative table also need to
here
itself.
Out
of
10
be
claimants,
2
claimants had not raised any specific demand before
SLAO,
5
of
them
had
claimed
Rs.3,00,000/-
per
hectare
Rs.2,00,000/-
per
hectare.
Santosh
paid
and
market
price
remaining
All of
3
them,
at
at
except
whose land is held to be Jirayat land, are
market price at Rs.6,00,000/- per hectare and
Santosh
is
paid
at
Rs.3,00,000/-
per
hectare.
Claimant Sahebrao had not placed any demand towards
well,
yet
land.
his land is also held to
(We
have
noticed from
7/12
be
irrigated
extracts
at
Exhibits 13 to 27 that there are wells in the lands
of all the claimants except Sahebrao.
The wells in
the
referred
lands
of Laxman and Santosh are
as
"Nadge").
.
Prima facie, Sahebrao and Santosh had not
claimed compensation towards well before SLAO.
the
land of Sahebrao is held to be irrigated
and
that
learned
have
of Santosh to be unirrigated land.
Judge
lost
sight of the details available
7/12 extract.
before
SLAO
towards
the
7/12
of Reference Court, thus, seems
in
Yet
land
The
to
the
When Santosh, although raised demand
and
did not claim
any
compensation
well (Nadge) as other claimants, entry
extract also becomes doubtful,
in
although
(19)
otherwise,
those entries have presumptive value by
virtue
Section
of
157 of
1966.
the
Maharashtra
Revenue
Code,
This mess
about
Santosh
makes us somewhat sceptic about the
Land
claim
of
entry
regarding well in the lands of all others, to which
aspect
we shall deal with in more details when
discuss
the
sale
instance
for
the
we
purpose
of
comparison and determination of market price.
5.
Learned AGP Shri Patil was critical about
the
Reference
Reference
sale
According
to
him,
the
Court has mechanically accepted the sole
incident
price
Court.
and arrived at the conclusion
of Jirayat land should be Rs.3,00,000/-
that
per
hectare.
Similarly, the learned Judge has readily
accepted
the
compensation
concerned.
the
valuation
of
the
report
fruit
so
bearing
far
as
trees
is
Referring to the sale-deed produced for
purpose of comparison (Exh.28), the concluding
part
of it indicates that the price quoted in
sale-deed
the
the
includes price for everything, including
trees
attached
to the land
and,
therefore,
according to learned AGP, Reference Court committed
an
error
has,
in not making any reduction for
thus,
calculating
fruit
down
awarded
separately
bearing
by
the
exorbitant
for
compensation
the land as
trees, and against the
Supreme
Court.
it
well
ratio
Although
he
and
by
as
laid
was
(20)
critical,
sale
because
instance
examined,
either vendor or vendee of
produced
for
sale-deed being a registered
can be considered as evidence.
vendor
comparison
the
was
not
sale-deed,
But, examination of
or vendee could have enabled better insight
in the transaction as discussed in para 4 ante.
can
not
be ignored that the claimants could
produced
the
It
have
further material such as 7/12 extract
of
land that was sold under the said sale-deed in
order
to enable the Reference Court to compare the
sale
incident in a better way.
have
shown
vendor
7/12 extract would
the trend of crops cultivated
by
the
and, thus, could have enabled the Court
to
decide whether it was really a Jirayat land.
.
About
the report of valuer, learned
pointed
out that valuer, according to his
visited
the
1996,
whereas
5.6.1999
i.e.
According
is
not
serve
he
has
submitted
height,
the
21st
his
May,
report
on
to learned AGP, the report of the valuer
the
valuer
report,
3 months after the award was drawn.
at all reliable and it is
support
for
land between 16th May and
AGP
tailor-made
purpose of the claimants.
the
has
He tried
proposition by pointing out that
shown all the trees to be of the
to
to
the
same
estimated crop and price of the crop taken
purpose
arbitrarily
of considering
yield
is
taken
and the report is in conflict with the
(21)
7/12
extract
concerned.
that
so
far
as
claimant
Shankar
7/12 extract of land of Shankar
is
shows
there is pomegranate garden over entire
area
of
1 H 22 R without referring to number of
trees.
As
against
jujube
trees.
this
this, the valuer has found
10
(In fact, we may state here itself that on
count, even SLAO is in conflict with the 7/12
extract.
In
calculated
the
space
of
trees.
He
trees.
According
and,
has,
therefore,
compensation
award at Exhibit 44,
1 Are for each
SLAO
has
of
six
for
269
set
thus, spared 49 R land
to valuer, there are 279
Reference
Court
trees
has
paid
for 279 trees plus remaining area
of
73 R land out of 1 H 22 R land of claimant Shankar.
If
we refer to 7/12 extract of Shankar at
Exhibit
23,
it is evident that during the year 1992-93, he
had
grown
Tur
over area of 20 R, 22 R and 80 R respectively,
whereas
crop of Hybrid Jowar, Hybrid Bajra
from
cultivation
cultivation
year
year
and
1993-94
1996-97, entire areas
is
till
shown
covered by pomegranates and there is no other crop.
Viewed
the
thus,
about
area of land under fruit garden and other land
available
extract
fail
imaginary calculation of SLAO
to
is in conflict with entries in the
of
the land of Shankar.
point
out
that
He also did
valuer
is
7/12
not
thoroughly
interested witness, who was eager to depose that he
noticed existence of pipeline in each of the lands,
(22)
whereas
has
of
claimant Arjun examined on behalf of
all,
not claimed existence of pipeline in the
land
any
of
was
also
claimants
have
any bills regarding sale of fruits.
This
critical,
because
produced
added
the claimants.
strength
arbitrarily
none
to
in
decided
the
possession
body,
of
the
his argument that
valuer
has
from
the
the estimated crop
fruit bearing trees.
shown
Learned AGP
It was also submitted that as
award
if the
land
was
taken
in
by private negotiation by the acquiring
in that case, the same must have been before
notification
u/s
4
dated 14.3.1996 and
in
that
case, there was minimal chance of valuer being able
to
see
visit
the
in
May, 1996.
award
there
and
the existence of trees at the time of
(In the internal page 18
under the caption
is
acquiring
possession
by
body
private
of
"_________________),
specific reference that the land
the
his
have
owners
transferred
negotiation and
even
the
80%
advance compensation is paid to the owners.)
6.
While arguing for the claimants, Advocate
Shri
V.G.
aspect
Sakolkar mainly laid emphasis upon
of potential value of the land.
the
He pointed
out that both the villages Bhilakhed and Bhoras are
twin
villages
Taluka
at
within a distance of 5
place Chalisgaon.
Bhoras.
Kms.
from
There is a sugar factory
There is State Highway passing by
the
(23)
side
of
Shri
Sakolkar, both the lower authorities have not
given
these villages and according to
Advocate
due weightage to this potential value of the
lands acquired.
.
He
claimants
of
the
pointed
out
that lands of
have at least one well each.
all
the
The
trend
crop shows that irrigated crops are
being
grown and, therefore, Reference Court, according to
him,
as
was justified in determining the market price
payable
report
for irrigated land.
of
He supported
the
the valuer by claiming that valuer
has
followed Government parameters.
was
relied
market
be
Judicial precedent
upon to support the
proposition
that
price for Bagayat land can be considered to
double that of Jirayat land and Pot Kharab
can
be paid at 50% of the market price.
7.
Learned
remaining
view
out
claimants,
Shri
apart from
P.S.
Patil
for
subscribing
the
propounded by Advocate Shri Sakolkar, pointed
that
although
SLAO
(In
counsel
there is well in the land
not
mentioned in 7/12
of
Sahebrao,
extract,
because
has granted compensation for the well to him.
fact, this submission is factually
Rs.26,980/compensation
Patil,
is
granted
towards
to Sahebrao
house.).
erroneous.
by
SLAO
According to
as
Shri
the existence of well in each land and cult
(24)
of
irrigated crops, such as cotton and
decision
of
groundnuts
justifies
the
Reference
Court
determine
the market price by presuming the
to
lands
to be irrigated lands.
.
At
the
stage of reply, learned AGP
has
filed Civil Application No.9109/2006 for production
of
additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27
the Code of Civil Procedure.
of
In fact, necessity of
the documents sought to be produced was felt during
the
arguments
of learned defence counsel.
Joint
measurement / panchanama drawn at that time, either
as
drawn by SLAO or as drawn by the acquiring body
while
taking
referred
trees,
7/12
in
possession,
was
order to establish the
to
be
existence
of
especially in the light of conflict between
extract
and valuer’s report as discussed
the
case of claimant Shankarrao.
the
production
(1)
(b) of CPC.
allowed
of
necessary
We have
in
allowed
in the light of Order XLI Rule
27
Civil application, therefore,
is
in terms of prayer clause (B) and disposed
and we have allowed the learned counsel for the
claimants
to
refer to this panchanama
documents
filed with Civil Application during
course of their arguments.
and
other
the
We shall refer to these
documents as and when necessary.
8.
So
far as evidence before the
Reference
(25)
Court
is
concerned,
Exh.44.
ten
Claimant
claimants
at
we
have copy
of
award
at
Arjun deposed on behalf of
Exh.11.
The Valuer
all
Mr.
R.G.
Chaudhari is examined at Exh.33, who has proved the
valuation reports of fruit bearing trees at Exhs.36
to
41.
sale
PW Latif Khan is attesting witness of
deed
(Exh.28)
produced for the
the
purpose
of
comparison method for determination of market price
of
the
lands
acquired.
Exhs.13 to 27
are
7/12
extracts of the lands of the claimants.
.
Learned
reliability
of
AGP
was
critical
all the witnesses.
about
Coming to
the
evidence of claimant Arjun, it must be said that he
has
not done his home work properly.
the
claimants
acquired
Although all
claimed market price of
the
lands
to be Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- per
Hectare, during the course of his deposition, Arjun
claimed
the
price at Rs.7,00,000/-
per
Hectare,
saying, that would be the appropriate market
for
Bagayat
land, as on the date of
price
acquisition.
He
has also faltered about number of trees in each
of
the lands of these claimants.
G.No.
are
as
151/1 of Indubai, according to Arjun, there
21 Jujube and 3 mango trees.
per
Court,
trees
For instance, in
As against this,
valuer’s report accepted by the
Reference
there are 21 Jujube, 7 tamarind and 3 mango
in
this
land.
According
to
Arjun,
in
(26)
g.No.61, which was owned by claimant Shankar, there
are
10
Jujube
460).
As
per
Reference
and
10
and 450 pomegranate
valuer’s report
Court,
trees
(total
accepted
by
there are 269 pomegranate
Jujube trees in that land.
the
trees
It is
evident
from above instances that Arjun has entered the box
determined to exaggerate and extract maximum amount
by
way of compensation.
income
to
According to him,
from the jujube trees was about
Rs.5,000/-;
annual
Rs.4,000/-
from mango trees about Rs.10,000/-
to Rs.12,000/- and from pomegranate / custard apple
trees
about
Rs.10,000/-
to
Rs.15,000/-.
Upon
considering the reports of valuer about the land of
Arjun
160
himself, valuer has fixed estimated yield of
kg.
k.g.
in
jujubes and market price to be Rs.6/- per
i.e.
annual income of Rs.960/-.
For mangoes
the land of Dharma, valuer has fixed
crop
to
k.g.
be 190 kg.
of market price
thus,
income
and
Rs.2,470/-.
For
annual
pomegranates
in
estimated
Rs.13/-
would
the
be
per
about
land
of
Shankarrao, valuer has estimated annual yield to be
30
to
50 kg.
at a price of Rs.15/- per k.g.
In
this context, admission of Arjun must be taken into
consideration.
to
what
He has not been able to narrate as
when these fruit bearing trees were planted and
was their age on the date of acquisition.
He
was
also not able to produce any kind of
evidence
of
supply of sugar-cane to Belganga Sugar
Factory
(27)
although
that
in his chief examination, he has
boasted
all the lands are irrigated lands and all the
claimants
fruit
are
cultivating sugar-cane,
garden.
We
have
examined
wheat
and
the
7/12
all
extracts and ascertained that none of the claimants
have
ever
claimant
cultivated sugar-cane and wheat
Dharma
sugar-cane
wheat
only
only
1993-94.
by
the
who
appears
once
once,
to
has
cultivated
and Laxman
who
cultivated
both in
the
cultivation
The best possible cash crops
claimants
Otherwise,
are
generally
except
cotton
year
cultivated
and
groundnuts.
all of them have
cultivated
hybrid Jawar, Bajra and cereals such as Moog, Toor,
Gram, Udid etc.
.
So far as valuer is concerned, as rightly
pointed
out
by
learned
AGP,
his
eagerness
to
support the claimants is evident from the fact that
he
claimed
lands,
to
which
themselves
as
deposition
of
examination,
present
he
and
the
plantation.
the
is
not
brought
PW
has
future
approximation.
from
have noticed pipeline in
1
the
case
on
record
Arjun.
of
In
of
during
regarding
the
the
the
his
He had not asked for any
claimants
the
claimants
admitted that he
age
all
has
cross
given
trees
by
evidence
year
of
We are inclined to so infer inspite of
fact that he claimed to have seen the receipts
(28)
of
plantation.
plantation,
age
of
If
he had seen the
receipts
of
there was no reason for him to fix the
the trees by approximation (guess work
other words).
in
Even without testing the soil in the
laboratory he has ventured to depose that the lands
were good quality lands with black cotton soil.
has
also admitted in the cross examination, "rough
notes
he
He
and registers are made subsequently".
Thus
has taken the risk of not reducing his notes to
writing at the time of spot inspection.
.
of
We
evidence
Dage Khan, the attesting witness to much depth.
Suffice
it
witnesses
to
do not wish to analyse oral
to
say that
witnesses
are
partisan
and their evidence demonstrates tendency
exaggerate
therefore,
at
the
required
costs
of
truth
and
to be accepted with pinch
is,
of
salt.
9.
In
the
bunch of xerox copies
of
cases
relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents,
we may refer to decisions which we find relevant to
the matter at hands.
.
In the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Pralhad
Single
value
Magar
Judge
of
(1996 Vol.1 B.C.J.
247),
247)
of this High Court fixed the
pot-kharab land equal to 50%
of
learned
market
market
(29)
value
given
for Jirayat land.
Even if we
accept
this as a precedent, we must say that the Reference
Court
has erred on this count.
Jirayat
land
in
Rs.3,00,000/market
After fixing
the sale instance
per
Hectare
and,
was
that
sold
therefore,
at
the
price for Bagayat land is Rs.6,00,000/- per
Hectare, learned Judge has awarded compensation for
pot-kharab
lands
land
i.e.
at 50% of respective category
he
has
granted
compensation
of
for
pot-kharab lands of claimants Chindha and Laxman at
50%
of
market
Rs.3,00,000/-
price
per
of
Hectare.
the
land
Even after
i.e.
at
accepting
the ratio of the case relied upon, market price for
pot-kharab land could not have been granted at rate
exceeding
Rs.1,50,000/-
Rs.1,500/land).
per
Hectare
i.e.
per Are (50% of market price of Jirayat
It
may
not be out of place to
say
that
pot-kharab land of Jirayat land of claimant Santosh
should fetch still lesser price, may be Rs.75,000/per Hectare.
.
State
(1993
of
B.C.J.
justifying
fixing
land
the
in
market
of
Maharashtra Vs.
V.R.
Shinde
230) was relied upon for the purpose
the
action of Reference
price at double the rate
Court
at
in
which
in the sale instance was sold by holding that
acquired lands are Bagayat lands whereas
the
sale
instance is Jirayat land.
In
land
this
(30)
matter,
that
Division Bench of this High Court has held
the
fertile
lands under acquisition
and
capable
of
were
yielding
perennially
irrigated
crops
valuation
of acquired lands at a rate double
the
valuation
justifiable.
like sugar-cane
extremely
of
We
dry
crop
and,
therefore,
land
than
was
held
may only comment that so far
as
matter at hands is concerned, none of the lands are
capable
of
requires
yielding
crop like
sugar-cane
which
perennial irrigation, as is evident
from
the trend of crops taken.
.
In
2005
AIR
Commissioner-cum-L.A.O.
Pompanna
Setty),
Setty)
SCW
345
(Assistant
Bellary
the Supreme Court
Vs.
has
S.T.
observed
that
for the purpose of compensation awardable
case
of
land
compensation
with
is
fruit
awarded
bearing
trees,
on the basis
of
in
when
yield,
multiplier 10 is considered proper and appropriate.
The
case
report
was relied upon to support the
who appears to have taken same
Reliance
learned
was
also
placed upon
the
multiplier.
judgment
Single Judge of this High Court at
in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs.
(2005
action
Vol.1 All M.R.
of
Nagpur
Shridhar
51) in order to justify
the
of the Reference Court in granting separate
compensation
matter,
valuer’s
for
learned
fruit
Single
bearing trees.
Judge
had
In
found
this
that
(31)
separate
compensation awarded for orange trees was
normal practice based on Land Acquisition Manual.
.
of
On
other
these aspects, a reference to
decisions
inevitable,
In
of
the
Supreme
Court
relied
and
is
which were relied upon by learned AGP.
the matter of State of Harayana Vs.
Singh
couple
another
upon
by
(AIR 1996 SC 106),
106)
learned AGP, it was
Gurcharan
which
was
observed
as
follows :
"The
definition of the land includes the
benefits
defined
to
from
the
land
in Section 3 (a) of Act.
compensation
of
arise
as
After
is determined on the
basis
the value of the land from the income
applying
trees
and
suitable
multiplier, then
would be valued only as fire
necessary
compensation
would
the
wood
be
given."
.
Thus,
for compensation of the land
with
fruit bearing trees, separate compensation for land
and
fruit bearing trees was disapproved.
In fact,
in this case the Supreme Court has also observed as
follows :
"Under
no circumstances, the
multiplier
(32)
should be more than 8 years multiplier as
it is settled law of this Court in catena
of
decisions that when the market
value
is
determined on the basis of the
yield
from
the
trees or plantation,
multiplier
shall
be
8
years
appropriate
multiplier."
.
Ayisha
In
AIR
1991
Umma
Vs.
State of Kerala),
Kerala) Supreme
held thus in para No.
"It
is
SC 2027
(Koyappathodi
M.
Court
6 :
thus
that
in
of
the
acquired
property, namely, land and
the
building
or the lands with fruit bearing
evaluating
the
trees
standing
would
not
separate
Land
units;
net
value
one
of
both
unit;
but
it would be open to the
Officer or
the
Court
to assess the lands with all
as
potential value ;and
market value thereof or where
reliable
available
of
law
thereon, value
constitute
advantages
is
market
Acquisition
either
the
settled
the
and
acceptable
its
fix
there
evidence
on record of the annual income
fruit bearing trees, the
income
multiplied
capitalisation
by
annual
appropriate
of 15 years would be
the
(33)
proper
and fair method to determine
market value but not both.
case
the
valued
trees
as
are
the
In the former
to
be
separately
timber and to deduct
salvage
expenses to cut and remove the trees from
the
land.
In this case, the
compensation
of
land
as
of
was based on both the value
the land and trees.
determination
award
Accordingly, the
of the compensation of the
well as the trees
is
illegal.
The High Court laid the law correctly."
.
In the matters of O.Janardhan Reddy Vs.
Deputy
Vs.
to
Collector (1994 Vol.6 SCC 456) and S.L.A.O.
Virupax
has
(1996 Vol.6 SCC 154),
154) Supreme
laid down that the land owner is not
separate
apart
Special
from
Court
entitled
compensation in the well or the
assessment of the market value of
tank
the
land assessed, having regard to the availability of
irrigation facility.
10.
Determination
lands
to
of
market
of the Respondents-claimants.
price
On
of
the
reference
the award by the SLAO, as already discussed
para
3 ante of this judgment, although there
many
instances
available for comparison,
in
were
because
SLAO himself had collected copies of sale instances
during three years preceding the notification under
(34)
Section 4 and because neither the claimants nor the
acquiring
him,
had produced any
evidence
before
the SLAO appears to have ignored quite a good
number
were
body
of sale instances, by observing that
those
of exorbitant prices and might be in peculiar
circumstances,
he has neglected another group,
by
saying that prices in those sale deeds were on very
very
low
side and, therefore, detrimental to
interest
of
instances
were accepted for comparison method.
appears
each
He
the
owners,
if
those
which, according to him was
compared the rate in such
rates
guide-lines
higher,
land
sale
It
that the SLAO took one sale instance
village
mean".
with
the
the
prescribed
and
whichever
by
from
"golden
transaction
the
government
rate was found
to
be
was accepted by the SLAO as "market price"
for the purpose of determination of compensation to
the
claimants.
Eventually, neither of these
instances
seem
to
Reference
Court,
have been referred to
nor either party seems
sale
by
to
the
have
persuaded,
much less insisted the Reference
to
The details of discarded sale instances
do so.
are
available
in
the award passed by
Court
the
SLAO.
Those details were not referred before us also, and
claimants
instance
expected
that
was
us to consider the
considered
by
sole
the
sale
learned
reference judge and which was brought on record, by
them.
(35)
.
It
is
settled legal position
that
the
claimant being in the shoes of the Plaintiff before
the Reference Court, burden of proving market price
and
thus
compensation, to which the
entitled, is upon the claimant.
his
claimant
is
For any lacunae in
evidence, the claimant will have to suffer and
the court may, at the most, in order to do justice,
fill in some gaps, by imagination.
referred
earlier
that,
the
We have already
claimants
examine either the vendor or vendee.
did
not
Consequently,
we do not have details of the land in the sole sale
instance,
know
relied upon by the claimants.
what
instance
crops
were
land.
being grown
in
We do not
the
sale
We do not know whether there
any source of irrigation.
was
Learned Reference Judge,
has
picked up the word ‘jirayat’ (unirrigated)
the
sale
deed
and
considering
that
the
in
lands
acquired have wells therein, fixed the market price
at a rate double than the market price per hectare,
calculated
on the basis of sale instance plus
ten
rise, because the sale instance was
one
year
prior to notification under Section 4 of
the
Act.
The claimants have not bothered to produce on
per
cent
record,
7x12
sale
deed.
AGP,
sale
extract of the land referred in
the
(As rightly pointed out by the learned
deed
"_________________
makes
a
general
description
(36)
___________________________________________________
i.e.
to
"land and all the things within and
the
same,
etc.").
to
including
of any well in this land.
trees
The
sale
with title "sale deed of jirayat
land
deed
opens
from
village Bilakhed".
description
.
plantation,
Of course, there is no specific reference
existence
jirayat
the
affixed
on
one
Within the body, there is
occasion
that
the
land
is
land.
We
comparing
have
prepared
another
table
for
land in the sale instance relied upon by
the
claimant, with the lands of the claimants,
on
the
basis
as
of
revenue
assessment,
which
is
follows:--------------------------------------------------Claimant Gat No. Acrage-Hector- Assessment per
Are and Revenue Are in paisa.
assessment in
Rupees.
--------------------------------------------------Chindha
57
2.47
3.4412 (3.44)
8.50.
--------------------------------------------------Sahebrao 42/A/
0.41
1.8292 (1.83)
2
0.75
--------------------------------------------------Kubabai
42/A
1.61
1.9254 (1.93)
3.10
--------------------------------------------------Arjun
87/B
1.61
1.8633 (1.86)
3.00
--------------------------------------------------Santosh
41/2
0.82
2.6219 (2.62)
2.15
--------------------------------------------------Indubai
151/1
1.38
3.1884 (3.19)
4.40
---------------------------------------------------
(37)
Laxman
42/B
3.17
1.8927 (1.89)
6.00
--------------------------------------------------Chintaman 48/A
1.29
1.5503 (1.55)
2.00
--------------------------------------------------Daga
89/2
1.62
2.2530 (2.25)
& Pira
3.65
--------------------------------------------------Shankar
61
1.22
3.8524 (3.85)
4.70
-------------------------------------------------.
For the purpose of above table, we have
taken
the total acreage of the land (excluding pot
kharab)
and
available
By
total
assessment
of
the
land
as
from 7x12 extract at Exhibits 13 to
27.
exclusion of pot Kharab, revenue assessment per
Are
comes on the higher side, thereby not
any
prejudice
sale
to the claimants.
causing
The land in
the
instance placed before the reference court is
96 Are with revenue assessment of Rs.2.30 and thus,
revenue
deed,
assessment
per
showing
Are
this
of the land in the
is 2.3958 paisa
said
ps.).
By
position to learned Counsel for
the
Respondents-claimants,
we
had
(2.40
sale
invited
them
to
submit as to why ratio of revenue assessment of the
land
under sale instance with the land of each
the
claimants
the
market price of the lands of the claimants, by
maintaining
so
one
determining
the same ratio with the market
far as land in the sale instance is
(i.e.
p.h.
should not be used for
of
Rs.2,65,000/=
for 96
Ares
price,
concerned.
@Rs.2,76,000/=
and, therefore, by 10 per cent increase
for
year, Rs.3.00 lacs per hectare for the land in
(38)
sale
instance,
court.).
the
at
calculated
by
the
reference
Our proposal is tried to be met with, by
learned
upon
as
Counsel for Respondents,
by
the judgment of Gauhati High Court,
relying
reported
AIR 1987 Gauhati 51 (Raja Bhairabendra
Bhup
vs.
Relying
Collector
of
Golpara
at
Dhubari).
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
the
matter of Shyamapada, AIR 1975 S.C.
was
observed
by
classification
cannot
Narayan
Gauhati
of
the
High
Court
land for
1723,
that,
revenue
in
it
the
purpose
be the determinative factor to award lesser
compensation.
judgment
of
In
fact,
observations
the Supreme Court are
from
reproduced
the
in
paragraph 3, as follows:-
".
has
In
Shyamapa,
observed’
the Supreme
that
Court
while
the
classification
for revenue purpose might
have
rationale,
its
uncommon
own
to
it
is
find the land, which has
not
a
lower classification for revenue purpose,
fetching a higher price in the market.
.
nor
First
to
of all, neither the Supreme Court,
the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court,
laid
down the classification for revenue
be
irrelevant.
classification
"
The
observation
has
purpose,
that
the
cannot be the determinative factor,
(39)
by
Gauhati
consider
High Court, does not lay down, not
to
the revenue assessment for the purpose of
comparison
of lands.
Even the observations of the
Supreme Court, as reproduced by Gauhati High Court,
do
not prohibit considering the classification
of
the land on the basis of revenue assessment, as for
comparative
study.
It only indicates that,
there
can be instance, where the land classified on lower
side
for
revenue assessment, may fetch
a
higher
price in the market.
.
be
will
is
Here,
said
at the cost of repetition, it must
that burden of proving the material
that
lead the court to determine the market price,
upon
the
plaintiff.
claimant, who is in the shoes
Even
the Supreme Court
has
of
a
observed
that the classification for revenue purpose has its
own
rationale.
arbitrary.
Thus,
indicate
In
that
identical
it
is
not
held
to
the absence of material that
the
land
under
be
will
acquisition
is
in all respect with the land in the sale
instance
produced
proportion
of
provide
safer
a
comparing
acquisition
revenue
the
determination
of
on
for comparison,
and
two
comparison
assessment per
reasonable
lands
for
Are
market price of the
for
purpose
land
the basis of market price
land in the sale instance.
would
criteria
the
of
of
under
of
the
(40)
.
No
doubt, in the sale deed, the land
is
described
as jirayat and there is no reference
to
existence
of
that
any well/nadge, or water source
land.
It
was,
therefore,
tried
for
to
be
demonstrated
to us that the lands of the claimants
have
source
of irrigation in the form of well
each
of the lands.
the
reference
in
Therefore, it was pleaded that
judge was justified in holding
the
lands to be irrigated lands and the claimants to be
entitled
land
for
double market price, as compared
under sale instance.
double
price
for
land
Certainly,
having
to
considering
some
irrigation
facility,
as compared to land having no irrigation
facility,
is relatively an arbitrary and imaginary
parameter
than the ratio of revenue assessment
of
two lands.
.
While
insisting
to rely upon
the
sole
sale instance, learned Counsel for claimants, never
referred to sale instances tabularized in the award
by
may
the
not
SLAO, much less submitted as to why
be
acceptable for
comparison.
those
We
may
reproduce the details of only 4 instances from each
of
the
reference
villages
Bhoras and
Bilakhed
for
ready
which are transactions of Bagayat
lands
with well as source of irrigation.
(41)
Bhoras
--------------------------------------------------Gut Area
Assess- Price
Date
Rate/H.
No. H.R.
ment
--------------------------------------------------89/1 1.62 3.65
95,000/= 27.05.1993 58,950/=
--------------------------------------------------311
1.92 4.50
45,000/= 29.10.1993 23,438/=
--------------------------------------------------274
2.00 6.45 1,51,000/= 06.04.1995 75,500/=
--------------------------------------------------274
2.11 6.50 1,57,000/= 06.04.1995 74,408/--------------------------------------------------Giving
two
a
rise of 10 per cent to the rate of
last
incidents, because those transactions are
year
before
price
notification under Section 4,
market
for well-irrigated land in April 1996
be about Rs.83,050/= and Rs.81,859/= p.h.
one
would
Even the
last transaction in the same table at internal page
7
of
Gut No.
SLAO’s award shows that in March 1996,
land
319/A-1 was sold @ Rs.90,164/= p.h.
Bilakhed
--------------------------------------------------Gut
Area Assess- Price
Date
Rate/H.
No.
H.R. ment
--------------------------------------------------49
1.46 4.35
1,40,000/= 28.06.1994
95,890/
--------------------------------------------------14/2
0.40 1.94
40,000/= 06.12.1994 1,00,000/
--------------------------------------------------137/
0.40 0.75
1,35,000/= 28.02.1996 3,12,500/
B/1
--------------------------------------------------14/2
0.40 1.94
40,000/= 06.12.1994 1,00,000/
--------------------------------------------------Third
before
transaction
notification
above is just couple of
and
even
if
the
months
same
is
(42)
accepted
for
(irrigated
comparison,
2
p.h.
in
for
of
bagayat
land
by well) at the relevant time was about
Rs.3,00,000/=.
Nos.
rate
If we consider instances at serial
and 4 above, the price was
December 1994.
1-1/2
year
Rs.1,00,000/=
Giving 15 per cent
till April 1996, market
rise
rate
at
relevant time would be Rs.1,15,000/= p.h.
.
is
If we take these details into account, it
evident
claimant,
for
is
that
sale
instance
relied
upon
by
which shows market price @ Rs.3,00,000/=
jirayat land, is not safe to rely upon.
because,
that being price offered
by
purchaser,
there
which
purchaser was willing to offer
the
This
willing
may be some special reasons
for
Rs.3.00
lacs per hectare of jirayat land, when trend of the
transactions
shows
that bagayat lands were
Rs.1 lakh per hectare or so.
being
sold
@
rely
upon that instance, it was incumbent upon the
claimants
jirayat
to
land
establish
same
show
and
record
by
the
hence,
it
is
and
only
that,
about
but
that
also
There is no material brought
claimants on these
unsafe
to
to
rely
aspects.
upon
sole
on
And
sale
produced by interested claimant in blind
mathematical
Court.
not
special
to
on record that acquired lands also enjoy
speciality.
instance,
what was
In order
May
be
manner, as is done by
using the
ratio,
Reference
proportion
of
(43)
revenue
if
we
can
assessment of lands would be safer method,
are to rely on the said sale instance.
be
seen
assessment,
crops
to
from the scheme
for
As
settlement
price of the land, yield of
of
principal
and even agricultural resources are required
be
taken
into
consideration.
(Scheme
is
discussed in para 11 below.) This also explains why
land of different claimants is assessed with varied
assessment.
assessment
of
As
can be seen from
7x12
extracts,
rate of 4 claimants is higher and
remaining
6
is
lower than that
of
that
rate
of
assessment of land in the sale instance.
[Lands
of
Sahebrao
and Santosh do not
have
any
well, yet the land of Sahebrao is classified by the
learned
land.
of
Reference Judge, as perennially
We have already pointed out that the amount
Rs.
26,980/= is awarded by SLAO
towards
well,
irrigated
to
Sahebrao
compensation of his house and not for
as
P.S.Patil.]
tried
to
The
rate
be argued
by
the
Advocate
of assessment
of
Shri
land
of
Sahebrao is lesser and that of Santosh is more than
the
[Only
rate
of
assessment of
sale
instance
land.
lands of Daga and Shankar have wells,
which
are described as built up wells, in the panchanama.
Wells
in
the
lands of Chindha,
Arjun,
Indubai,
Laxman, Chintaman, are described as "Kachhi Vihir".
Vihir"
Similarly,
well
in
the
land
of
Kubabai,
is
(44)
described
of
as Nadge.] It can be seen that, the rate
revenue
assessment
of the lands
of
Indubai
and
revenue
assessment of sale instance land.
revenue
assessment
claimants,
Chindha,
Shankar, is higher than the rates
is
of
remaining
lands
lesser than that of
sale
of
Rate of
of
five
instance
land, in spite of some source of irrigation.
.
It can be seen that revenue assessment of
lands
in
the same vicinity is varied and
assessment
well,
of
Sahebrao and Santosh, even
without
is higher than that of some claimants having
well.
(It
recent
improvement after assessment.
so
Revenue
is
nobody’s case that
well/Nadge
It cannot be
presumed, in spite of variation in the rate
assessment,
same
in
well.
because
development,
the
well
the
cult of crop
changed.)
details
about
settled
and,
of
cultivation
case of claimants with well
If
have
cult of crop
irrigation
is
and
without
is
recent
cultivation
would
Taking into consideration all
the
land,
revenue
is
the
assessment
therefore, that should provide
is
safe
parameter for comparison of "worth" of lands.
.
the
Price
market
reasons.
price,
distinctly different than trend of
then
prevailing, can be
for
special
Very needy vendor may sell it for
whereas
needy vendee may purchase
lower
it
for
(45)
higher
price,
than
prevailing trend
of
prices.
Unless
these special reasons are known, comparison
of ratio of assessment would be more safe, just and
proper yardstick than comparison of price rate with
the
land under sale instance.
courts
in
In peculiar
cases,
would be justified in ignoring market
sale instance relied upon by interested
But
since,
rate
party.
in the present case, we find at
least
one transaction from Bilakhed, wherein land Gut No.
137/B/1,
was
sold
@ Rs.3,12,500/= p.h.,
we
are
calculating the price rate of acquired lands on the
basis
of
absence
ratio of assessment.
of
Otherwise, in
special reasons proved on
record,
the
we
could have ignored the sale instance.
11.
In
this context, the scheme as contained
in
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sections 90
to
107 regarding assessment and settlement of land
revenue
given
of
agricultural lands is required
serious consideration.
containing
to
be
In fact, Chapter
VI
sections 90 to 107 is a special chapter
regarding assessment and settlement of land revenue
of
agricultural
lands
interpretation clause.
and
section
90
is
Following three definitions
may usefully be reproduced :
"(a)
"Classification
value"
means
the
relative valuation of land as recorded in
(46)
the
survey records having regard to
soil,
situation,
water
and
its
other
advantages, and includes the valuation of
land
the
expressed in terms of soil units on
basis
of
in
the
of Nagpur, Chanda, Wardha
and
Districts
Bhandara
the factor scale
and Melghat Talukas in Amravati
District :
(Valuation
on
applicable
the
basis
of
factor
scale
is
to Vidarbha area and, therefore, we are
not concerned with it.)
(e)
"Settlement" means the result of the
operations
determine
conducted
the
land
in
a
revenue
zone
to
assessment
therein :
(f) "Standard rate" means, with reference
to
any
particular
class of
land,
the
value (not exceeding one-twenty-fifth) of
the
that
average yield of crops per acre
class
of
land
of
sixteen
for
annas
classification."
Section 91 - forecasts as to settlement.
"(1)
:
Before directing a settlement or
(47)
fresh
settlement
section
cause
of
92,
of
any
land
under
the State Government
shall
a forecast of the probable results
the
settlement
accordance
to
be
prepared
in
with such instructions as may
be issued for the purpose.
(2)
A
State
notice
of the intention
Government to make the
of
the
settlement
together with proposals based on the said
forecast
for
the
determination
or
revision of land revenue and the term for
which
be
the settlement is to be made shall
published
manner
as
for
objections
the
State
in
Government
such
may
determine."
From
sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 91, it is
evident that the forecast settlement is required to
be
circulated to all Members of State Legislature.
Sub-section (5) reads thus :
"(5)
The
any
resolution
forecast
Houses
State Government shall
concerning
the
accept
said
and proposals in which both the
concur
and
shall
take
into
consideration any objections which may be
received
from
the
persons
concerned,
(48)
before directing the settlement."
It
that
is
evident from sub-sections (1), (2) and
the
revenue
assessment
to
be
(5)
settled
is
required to be published and the interested persons
have
a
right
to
raise
objections,
which
are
required to be considered on merits.
"Sec.
94 :
Assessment how determined :-
(1) xxxxxxxxx
(2)
The matters specified in clause
(a)
of
this sub-section shall ordinarily
be
taken
into
consideration
in
forming
groups, but those specified in clause (b)
thereof may also where necessary be taken
into consideration for that purpose :-
(a) (i) physical configuration,
(ii)
climate and rainfall, (iii)
prices
and (iv) yield of principal crops ;
(b)
(i)
(iii)
markets,
standard
Population
agricultural
in
the
and
(ii)
of
supply
communications,
husbandry,
of
labour,
(iv)
(v)
resources, (vi)
variations
area of occupied and
cultivated
lands during the last thirty years, (vii)
wages,
(viii)ordinary
expenses
of
(49)
cultivating principal crops including the
value
of
the labour in cultivating
the
land in terms of wages.
.
Thus,
revenue
by
taking
into consideration all
the lands.
rate
advantages
of
and
of the land including the prices
of
Therefore, unless the price of the land
increased after fixing the revenue
because
of
improvements,
assessment
for
can be seen that the
assessment is fixed by elaborate procedure
disadvantages
is
it
the
assessment,
ratio
of
revenue
should provide a reasonably safe method
determining
acquisition
market
prices
of
lands
under
by maintaining the same ratio with the
market price of sale instance land.
.
95,
No
there
increase
the
is
in
expenses
doubt,
bar in
by virtue of
taking
into
section
consideration
average yield due to improvements
of the holders.
It is
this
at
factor
that may vary the price of the land which otherwise
should be proportionate to the ratio of the revenue
assessment, since revenue assessment is
determined
by taking into consideration almost all the factors
relevant
section
continues
and
to the merits of the land.
93,
it
is evident
that
By virtue
the
of
settlement
to be in force for a period of 30
years
until the commencement of the term of a
fresh
(50)
settlement.
Thus,
improvements
during
one
settlement must be getting due consideration at the
time of next settlement and, therefore, we are of a
considered
view
that unless new
improvement
has
come into existence after the assessment, the ratio
of revenue assessment does provide a reasonable and
reliable
market
parameter
for determining the
ratio
of
price and thus compensation payable for the
land acquired.
12.
By
considering
the
ratio
of
revenue
assessment of the land under sale instance (Rs.2.40
Ps.
per
Are) and the revenue assessment
of
the
lands of the claimants, reasonable market price can
be
arrived
ratio
at
as follows by following
the
same
with the market price of sale instance
land
(Rs.3,00,000/-
per
ourselves
the claimants themselves
that
Hectare).
We
must
remind
had
not
expected more than Rs.3,00,000/- per Hectare, while
placing
their
claims
before
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer.
--------------------------------------------------Claimant
Ratio of per Market price
Amount of
Are revenue
of claimant’s compensation.
assessment
land on the
basis of ratio
P.H. (Rs.)
(Rs.)
---------------------------------------------------Chindha
3.44/2.40
4,30,000/4,90,200/- for
1.14 Hectare +
6,450/- for 6
Are Pot Kharab.
---------------------------------------------------
(51)
Sahebrao
93,787.50 for
41 Are
--------------------------------------------------Kubabai
1.93/2.40
2,41,250/3,88,412.50 for
1.61 Hectare.
--------------------------------------------------Arjun
1.86/2.40
2,32,500/3,74,325/- for
1.61 Hectare.
--------------------------------------------------Santosh
2.62/2.40
3,27,500/2,29,250/- for
70 Are,
Rs.8187.50Ps.
for 10 Are
Pot
Kharab.
--------------------------------------------------Indubai
3.19/2.40
3,98,750/4,14,700/- for
1.04 Hectare.
--------------------------------------------------Laxman
1.89/2.40
2,36,250/7,48,912.50Ps.
for 3.17 Hectare.
11812.50Ps.for
20 Are Pot
Kharab.
--------------------------------------------------Chintaman 1.55/2.40
1,93,750/2,49,937.50Ps.
for 1.29 Hectare.
--------------------------------------------------Daga
2.25/2.40
2,81,250/4,55,625/- for
1.62
Are.
--------------------------------------------------Shankar
3.85/2.40
4,81,250/5,87,125/- for
1.22 Are.
--------------------------------------------------[Notes :
1.83/2.40
We
2,28,750/-
have awarded 25% of market price
for
Pot Kharab land.
.
By
error,
Reference Court
has
granted
compensation only for 17 Ares instead of 70 Ares to
Santosh.
We have confirmed correct acreage of
70
Ares plus 10 Ares Pot Kharab that was acquired from
the
land of Santosh, by referring to award by SLAO
and 7x12 extracts and compensation for correct area
is
being
awarded,
in the
interest
of
justice,
although there is no cross-objection / appeal.
(52)
.
S.L.A.O.
as well as the Reference Court
have
granted
Ares
and 49 Ares are considered to be under
garden
compensation to Shankar only for
of
pomegranate
compensation
is awarded.
for
which
73
fruit
separate
But on reference to 7/12
extract of G.No.61 owned by Shankar (Exh.23), it is
evident
that
1996-97,
under
from cultivation year
entire
1993-94
acreage of 1.22 Hectare is
pomegranate
garden.
till
shown
In the light of
ratio
laid
down by the Supreme Court, therefore, Shankar
will
have to be paid higher out of the two methods
of
calculation
compensation
of
compensation
i.e.
either
of the land or compensation of
fruit
bearing trees.Hence,we have calculated compensation
for entire land of Shankar i.e.
13.
ratio
than
Rates
by us on the basis
of
of revenue assessment are on the higher side
rates
in the transactions of
considered
sale
calculated
1.22 Hectare.]
by S.L.A.O.
instance
Bagayat
lands
Being proportionate to the
market price, it would be just
and
proper to award compensation at these rates, so far
as market price of the lands is concerned.
14.
So
concerned,
valuation
and
far
as
Reference
fruit
Court
bearing
has
swallowed
report of valuer, examined by
without
recording
trees
are
the
claimants
any reasons as to
why
he
(53)
rejects
the
authority
valuation
report
of
(Deputy Director of Fruits
Government
Production).
which was relied upon by the SLAO.
.
Only
compensation
six
5
for
claimants
bearing
trees.
claimants
had
demanded
trees, before the SLAO,
are granted compensation for
whereas
fruit
These details can be tabulated
as
follows:-
--------------------------------------------------Claimant
Demand
Award by
Award by
& date of
before SLAO SLAO
Ref. Court
for trees
for trees for trees
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
--------------------------------------------------Chindha
2,10,000/=
19,580/= 1,47,727/= for
01.04.1997
seventeen trees
in 1.20 H. land
--------------------------------------------------Sahebrao
50,000/=
1,677/= 35,375/= for
01.04.1997
five trees in
41 R land
--------------------------------------------------Arjun
70,000/2,540/= 53,720/= for
01.04.1994
seven trees
in 1.61 R land.
---------------------------------------------------
Indubai
11.04.1990
No claim
______
3,18,934/= for
thirty one
trees in 1.04
H. land
--------------------------------------------------Daga
2,20,000/=
6,655/= 90,029/= for
01.04.1994
eleven trees in
1.62 R land.
--------------------------------------------------Shankar
No claim
2,23,085/= 14,31,176/= for
01.04.1997
Two Hundredseventy nine
trees in 49 R.
land.
(54)
--------------------------------------------------.
Although
Rs.1,35,000/=
granted
SLAO
no
or
Chintaman
had
demanded
towards compensation of trees, he is
compensation on that count, either
by
measurement
Reference
Court,
although
panchanama produced before this
by
joint
Court
shows six jujube trees in his land.
.
We
referred
to joint measurement panchanama (Exh.A to
Civil
of
have
invited
from learned
AGP
and
Application No.9109 of 2006) for the purpose
confirming
existence of fruit
bearing
trees.
Exhibit A is said to have been drawn on 30.09.1995.
The said panchanama and inspection report by valuer
can
be
compared
by following table,
so
far
as
number of trees are concerned.
--------------------------------------------------Claimant and
Trees as per the
Trees as
per
the date of
joint measurement
valuer’s report
jt.panchanama panchanama
-------------------------------------------------Chindha
Mango
(3)
Mango
(2)
01.04.1997
Tamarind (1)
Tamarind (1)
Jujube
(8)
Jujube
(8)
custard apple (6) custard apple (6)
--------------------------------------------------Sahebrao
Jujube
(5)
Jujube (5)
01.04.1997
--------------------------------------------------Kubabai
Nil
----------
(55)
11.12.1990
--------------------------------------------------Arjun
Jujube
(7)
Jujube (7)
01.04.1994
--------------------------------------------------Santosh
Nil
---------01.04.1997
--------------------------------------------------Indubai
Jujube
(3)
jujube (21)
11.04.1990
Tamrind (07)
Mango
(03)
--------------------------------------------------Laxman
Nil
---------01.04.1997
--------------------------------------------------Chintaman
Jujube
(6)
---------05.02.1990
--------------------------------------------------Daga
Jujube
(11)
Jujube (10)
01.04.1994
Lemon
(1)
Lemon
(1)
--------------------------------------------------Shankar
Jujube
(10)
Jujube (10)
01.04.1997
pomogranate (269) Pomogranate (269)
--------------------------------------------------.
Learned
raise
doubts
about
measurement,
upon
by
the
land
Counsel
for claimants tried
reliability
joint
relied
learned A.G.P., for pointing out that
of
Indubai,
number
increased,
valuer,
from 3 to 31.
i.e.
panchanama
should
this
when the same was tried to be
substantially
the
of
to
not
does
during
of
trees
has
inspection
by
They pointed out that
not bear date and
be believed.
in
hence
By reference to
it
record,
learned AGP claimed that it was drawn on 30.9.2005.
When
number
claimants
claimants,
of
are
trees in the lands of
all
other
accurately, the same as claimed
there
is no reason to disbelieve
panchanama only against Indubai.
by
this
(56)
.
Learned
Annexure
"A",
possession
the
AGP has also produced copies
which
shows
dates
of
by acquiring body and we have
of
taking
recorded
dates below the names of the claimants in
table above.
order
the
Learned AGP has relied upon those, in
to falsify the report of valuer.
Possession
of
the lands of Arjun, Indubai and Daga was
taken
in
April 1994, 1990 and 1994, that of remaining
3
(Chindha, Sahebrao and Shankar) was taken in April,
1997.
Learned Counsel Shri P.S.Patil for claimants
desired us to disbelieve these possession receipts.
[pages
16
because
bears
do
to
only
26
of
record
of
C.A.No.9109/06]
one receipt pertaining to
Chintaman
a panchanama on its backside, whereas
not.
According
5.2.1990,
there
pomegranate,
to
are
this
10
other
panchanama
jujube,
50
dated
mango,
50 Guava and 50 lemon trees.
As
50
per
joint measurement dated 30.9.1995, there are only 6
jujube
towards
has
trees.
Chintaman did claim
valuation
Rs.1,35,000/=
of trees before SLAO.
But,
not filed any appeal/cross objection for
compensation
either
by
although same is not granted to
SLAO, or by Reference Court.
extract
of
the
Exhibit
24
shows
1996-97
and
it
percolation tank.
land
of
Chintaman
cultivation
years
shows that land is
he
this
him,
The
7x12
produced
at
1990-91
to
acquired
for
Position of any cultivation year
showing orchard with 210 fruit bearing trees is not
(57)
on
record.
If
possession
could
in
have
persisted
bearing
two
the
trees
April
removed
1990, earlier
been produced.
in
were
7x12
after
extract
If Chintaman
has
establishing existence of 210
not
fruit
trees and claiming compensation for those,
possibilities are open.
removed
after
Chintaman,
One, those trees
are
acquiring body took possession
and
hence,
does
not
wish
to
claim
compensation on the basis of yield of fruit bearing
trees,
there
OR,
two, no such fruit bearing trees
and
were
that makes the panchanama doubtful,
so
far as existence of trees is concerned.
.
Submission
of
learned AGP,
by
relying
upon the dates of possession, it must be said, that
there
the
is quite a substance in his submission
valuer
could
observe
trees
Indubai
and
acquiring
visit
in
could
have
the
opportunity
at least couple of
of
trees as
been
Arjun,
by
before
in
For Indubai,
argued that trees
to
justified
depicted
of joint measurement.
SLAO,
years
We may, therefore, be
number
acquiring body.
by
had
Daga, whose lands were taken over
of valuer.
panchanama
have
in the lands of 3 claimants
body,
taking
not
that
were
cut
the
it
by
But, as can be seen from the award
she
had not
compensation towards trees.
laid
any
claim
for
Claim for compensation
of trees, so far as Indubai is concerned, will have
(58)
to
be reduced to compensation of 3 trees only,
in
stead of 31 trees.
15.
Otherwise also, coming again to the ratio
laid
down
State
106)
of
by the Supreme Court in the matters
of Haryana vs.
referred
supra in
to
State
the
are not entitled to compensation by
way
market price of the land plus compensation
for
income from fruit bearing trees.
either,
paragraph
SC
9,
claimants
of
Gurcharan Sing (AIR 1996
and AIR 1971 SC 2027, Koyappathodi vs.
Kerala,
of
They are entitled
may be whichever is higher out of
the
two.
.
On
reference
relation
to
area, none of the
Shankar,
seem to be cultivating fruit garden.
per
of
to
number
of
trees
claimants,
except
since
is
covered by 269
pomegranate
very
area
of land.
only
jujube
Others
few fruit bearing trees as compared
Sahebrao, Arjun and Chintaman
trees,
5, 7 and 6
Chindha
to
have
respectively,
lands admeasuring 0.41 H., 1.61 H and 1.29 H.
11
H.
trees
1993-94 and there is no other crop.
have
has
As
7x12 extract, entire land admeasuring 1.22
Shankar
in
in
Daga
jujube and 1 lemon tree in 1.62 H.
land.
has
apple
3 mango, 1 tamarind, 6 custard
and 8 jujube trees and his land is 1.20 H.
None of
(59)
these
can
fruit
be said to be systematically
gardens.
sporadically
covered
located.
of
circumference
mango
trees,
probably
Otherwise also,
the
land
other
crops,
for
within
the
of spread over of large trees,
such
tamarind.Indubai
claimed
for trees before the SLAO.
no
But, even
number of trees said to have been inspected
her
land
sake
21
any
and
compensation
if
are
by these trees would not be available
cultivation
as,
These
developed
by valuer is taken into account for
of arguments, those were 31 trees
jujube,
this
and
income
case
fruit
market price
from fruit yield is not necessary,
of either of these claimants.
it
attempt
the part of Chintaman and
on
must
be
in
At the cost of
repetition,
establish
Again,
be said to be a well developed
Hence, duel calculation i.e.
the
comprising
7 tamarind and 3 mango trees.
cannot
garden.
in
said that
there
is
no
Indubai
to
number
of
the
existence
of type
trees,
before
acquiring
body
Hence,
for giving better option of the two (market
price
and
fruit
yield),
we
and
took
are
possession.
taking
into
consideration claim of Shankar alone.
.
entire
such,
There
269 pomegranate trees in
his
of 1.22 H., as per 7x12 extract.
As
land
it
calculate
was
that
are
erroneous on the part
6 trees cover 1 R.
of
SLAO
land and
to
thus
(60)
only
49
R.
remaining
7x12
land is covered by fruit
73 R land is available for
extract
shows
absence
of
garden
and
cultivation.
any
other
crop
cultivation.
.
In
Counsel
the
literature provided
by
learned
for claimants, there is a table of
prices
market
of various fruits for various years and for
pomegranates
in
the
years 1995-96
and
1996-97,
lowest, highest and average rates per dozen were;
--------------------------------------------------1995-96
Rs.10/=
Rs.60/=
Rs.40/= per dozen
1996-97
Rs. 5/=
Rs.80/=
Rs.35/= per dozen
--------------------------------------------------Taking
into
would
be
price
i.e.
consideration, the
desirable
provided
fluctuations,
to rely upon
latest
@ Rs.35/= per dozen.
by
Agricultural
it
average
(These rates are
Produce
Market
Committee.).
.
According
Government
years
has
We
to
another
table
from
literature, pomegranate trees aged
or above, produce 60 to 120 fruits.(
six
Valuer
recorded that these trees were six years old).
can, therefore, take average yield to be
90 fruit per tree.
about
(61)
.
In
the
same table, life of
pomegranate
tress
is said to be 20 to 30 years and thus, these
trees
were
to provide yield for another 14 to
24
years (average 19 years).
.
We
because
have preferred to rely on
there
is
no
evidence
"average"
",
produced
by
the
claimant Shankar of his yield and income, may be of
last 2/3 years.
.
Above
total
income
details
enable
us
to
from each trees during
calculate
entire
life
remaining, as under;
Rs.35 x 7-1/2 dozens x 19 years=Rs.4987.50 per tree
.
Rounding
up, life time income from
each
pomegranate tree can be taken to be Rs.5000/=.
then
deducting about 10 per cent for
each
tree
tree
is
calculation
down
in
to
of
compensation
fruits,
on
we
have
not
of
the
confined
the
highest multiplier of 15
AIR
consideration,
garden
maintenance,
is worth Rs.4500/= [Since life
available,
1991
income
269
SC
2027,
but
for 19 years].
trees
over
And
1.22
as
taken
laid
into
If it is
a
Hectares,
on the basis of total yield/income of
the
basis of life time of
the
trees
would be:- Rs.4500 x 269 trees = Rs.12,10,500/=.
Rs.12,10,500/=
(62)
This
amount being higher than the market price
of
the land of Shankar (Rs.5,87,125/=) on the basis of
comparison
would
with
be
sale instance,
entitled
compensation
to
this
claimant
amount,
as market price i.e.
Shankar
by
way
of
Rs.12,10,500/-
(and not the total of both amounts)
16.
Much emphasis is laid by both the learned
Advocates about potential capacity of the land and,
therefore,
they have prayed for grant of
compensation,
potential
and
by
value.
taking into
enhanced
consideration
It was pointed out that
such
Bhoras
Bilakhed are the twin villages situated within
a distance of 5 to 10 kms.
from Taluka Chalisgaon.
There
is sugar factory at Bhoras, called
Sugar
Factory
Belganga
and there is also State Highway
the side of these villages.
by
Claimant Arjun, during
his deposition, also claimed that there are hotels,
petrol
pumps,
residential
Bhoras.
on
also
and
plastic
industries,
crushers
and
houses situated between Chalisgaon and
Some details are also tried to be brought
record, in the deposition of Latifkha, who
deposed that housing societies, petrol
Nylon
Chalisgaon
belongs
rope
and
factories are
Bilakhed.
developed
However,
this
has
pumps
between
witness
to village Kadgaon Tanda and not Bilakhed.
(63)
He
admitted that at the time of acquisition, there
were no hotels or petrol pumps, near the land under
sale
instance,
which
is
said
to
be
within
a
distance of a kilometre from the acquired lands.
.
are
All
of
the
the
claims, regarding
location between
twin
development,
villages
and
taluka
place Chalisgaon.
value,
claimants have not been able to produce any
instance,
lands,
where
has
been
development.
for
minor
brought
under
the
use
acquired
for
any
urban development.
Counsel for the claimants
bright
therefore,
prospects of urban
lands
should
against
We
not inclined to swallow the
learned
urban
The fact that the lands are acquired
of
therefore,
were
adjacent to
irrigation tank, itself speaks
possibility
of
land,
While claiming potential
are,
contention
that
development
be considered
as
there
and,
lands
having potential capacity and, therefore, prices of
the lands should be considered much higher than the
price of the land under sale instance, relied upon,
either by the claimants or by the SLAO.
.
Otherwise also, as the rates, at which we
have
determined the compensation,are by ratio proportion
with
the
land,the
revenue assessment of the sale
market
expectation
price
placed
is fixed higher
before the SLAO, by
instance
than
the
claimants
(64)
and this should cover potential value, if any.
17.
the
Consequently, the compensation payable to
claimants
by way of market price of the
land
shall be as follows;(1)
--------------------------------------------------Sr.No. Claimant
Amount (Rs.)
Total amt.(Rs.)
--------------------------------------------------01.
Chindha
4,90,200.00
(Dharma)
+6,450.00
=
4,96,650.00 ps
--------------------------------------------------02.
Sahebrao
93,787.50
=
93,787.50 ps
--------------------------------------------------03.
Kubabai
3,88,412.50
=
3,88,412.50 ps
(Kushabai)
--------------------------------------------------04.
Arjun
3,74,325.00
=
3,74,325.00 ps
--------------------------------------------------05.
Santosh
2,29,250.00
+8,187.50
=
2,37,437.50 ps
--------------------------------------------------06.
Indubai
4,14,700.00
= 4,14,700.00 ps
--------------------------------------------------07.
Laxman
7,48,912.50
+11,812.50
= 7,60,725.00 ps
--------------------------------------------------08.
Chintaman 2,49,937.50
= 2,49,937.50 ps
--------------------------------------------------09.
Daga
4,55,625.00
= 4,55,625.00 ps
--------------------------------------------------10.
Shankar
12,10,500.00
= 12,10,500.00 ps
--------------------------------------------------.
(2)
entitled
to 30 per cent solatium as under
23(2)
of
the
Respondents-claimants
shall
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
be
Section
on
the
aforesaid amounts.
.
(3).
(3)
They shall also be entitled to 12
(65)
per cent component on these amounts, for the period
between the date of notification under section 4 of
the
Act (29.4.1996) and the date of award by
SLAO
(31.3.1999) as under Section 23-1(A) of the Act.
.
Act
(4).
shall
amount,
as
be
Interest
under Section 28 of the
calculated only
on
the
remainder
after deducting amount as awarded by SLAO,
per column No.17 in the tabularized annexure to
this
award,
addition
of
from the total amount arrived
at
amounts
above.
in paras 1, 2 and
3
by
(Table annexed as Annexure "A").
"A")
.
(5).
interest
as above under Section 28, from the
The
amounts shall cease to carry
date
of payment to the claimants, or deposit either with
Reference Court or this court, to that extent.
.
are
(6).
credited
withdrawn
accrued
In
in
case
FDR,
the amounts
because
deposited,
those
/ not allowed to be withdrawn,
are
not
interest
on the amount with the bank, shall also be
payable to the claimants proportionately.
.
before
(7).
the
extravagant,
Since
Reference
the
claims,
Court,
are
as
found
raised
to
be
no orders as to costs and the parties
(66)
shall bear their respective costs.
18.
The
therefore,
award passed by Reference Court
set
aside and that of the SLAO,
stand merged into this award.
is,
shall
The amounts, if any,
already paid, soon after the award by SLAO, or soon
after
the award of Reference Court, or at any time
before
passing of this award, shall be taken
consideration
for
payment,
awarded
as
the purpose of computing
by
us.
into
total
Excess
amount
recoverable.
19.
All
the First Appeals are partly allowed
as above and disposed of.
20.
8947
2002,
Civil
Application
Nos.
6522
of
2002,
of 2006, 6520 of 2002, 6513 of 2002, 6515
6519
of 2002, 8349 of 2006, 6517
of
of
2002,
6518
of 2002, 6514 of 2002, 8348 of 2006, 6516
of
2002
and 6512 of 2002 in above respective
appeals
shall
not survive, in view of disposal of
appeals
and hence, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.
(P.R.Borkar, J.)
(N.V.Dabholkar, J.)
(67)
pnd/uniplex
fa659.01
ANNEXURE "A"
Statement of calculation
regarding payment of
compensation, including solatium and component AND
amount chargeable with interest under Section 28 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Claimant Market
Solatium u/S
Component
Total
Total amount Amou
value
23 (2) @ 30%
u/S 23(1-A) compenof compenchar
@ 12% p.a.
sation as sation as
with
u/s
for 29.4.96 payable
awarded by
to 31.03.99
SLAO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(1+2+3)
(4------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chindha
4,96,665.00 1,48,999.50 1,74,230.08
8,19,895/- 1,80,595/- 6,39
(Dharma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sahebrao
93,787.50
28,136.25
32,900.65
1,54,824/86,552/68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kubabai
(Kushabai) 3,88,412.50 1,16,523.75 1,36,255.10
6,41,191/- 1,37,574/- 5,03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Arjun
3,74,325.00 1,12,997.50 1,31,313.20
6,18,636/- 1,57,277/- 4,61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Santosh
2,37,437.50
71,231.25
83,293.07
3,91,962/68,583/- 3,23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Induabi
4,14,700.00 1,24,410.00 1,45,476.76
6,84,587/- 1,11,973/- 5,72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Laxman
7,60,725.00 2,28,217.50 2,66,862.33 12,55,805/= 2,70,649/- 9,85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chintaman 2,49,937.50
74,981.25
87,678.07
4,12,597/- 1,22,965/- 2,89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Daga and
4,55,625.00 1,36,687.50 1,59,833.25
7,52,146/- 1,67,226/- 5,84
Pira
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shankar
12,10,500.00 3,63,150.00 4,24,643.40 19,98,293/- 4,52,104/- 15,46
------------------------------------------------------------------------------sd/sd/(P.R.Borkar,J.)
(N.V.Dabholkar,J)