Bombay High Court
Chandrashekhar Kondopant Papinwar Yvt vs The Co0Llector & Another on 20 February, 2017
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa702.04
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 702 of 2004
Chandrashekhar son of Kondopant
Papinwar,
aged about 66 years,
occupation Farmer,
resident of New Pusad,
Tq. Distt. Yavatmal. ..... Appellant
Org. Claimant.
Versus
1. The Collector, Yavatmal.
2. The Land Acquisition
Officer & Sub-Divisional
Officer,
Tq. Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. C. S. Kaptan, Senior Adv., with Mr. K.S. Narwade, Adv., for
the appellant.
Mr. M. Ekre, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date : 20th February, 2017
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 17:26:11 :::
fa702.04
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
01. The appellant being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short "the said Act"] has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the said Act praying that the amount of compensation be enhanced.
02. Land admeasuring 2 hectares 43 R situated in Survey No. 44/2 at Warud, Tq. Pusad was the subject matter of acquisition. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 11th May, 1999 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed his Award on 11th October, 2001. He granted an amount of Rs.1,07,200-00 per hectare. In the reference proceedings, the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs.2,50,000-00 per acre being Rs.6,25,000-00 per hectare.
03. Shri C.S. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in granting meagre compensation to the appellant considering the nature of evidence led by him. According to him, the appellant on 29th March, 1993 had made an application for converting the entire survey number admeasuring about 6 hectares 51 R for non-agricultural use. On 19th ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 17:26:11 ::: fa702.04 3 February, 1996, permission was granted to convert 3 hectares 13 R for non-agricultural use. It was the remaining land from said survey number that was acquired for the purpose of extension of Gaothan. According to him, the fact that half the area of the entire survey was already converted for non-agricultural use and the remaining portion was acquired for extension of Gaothan indicated the non-agricultural potentiality of the same. He then submitted that the sale instance dated 16th June, 1998 at Exh.15 by which 0.03 R of land was sold for Rs.30,000/- and the sale instance at Exh.16 by which 2846.11 sq. ft. of land was sold for Rs.57,000-00 on 26th June, 1998 indicated the potentiality of the acquired land. The map at Exh.28 further indicated its location. It was then submitted that even post-notification sale instances at Exhs. 21 and 22 ought to have been taken into consideration. He, therefore, submitted that considering the overall evidence brought on record, a case for substantial enhancement in the amount of compensation was made out. In that regard, he placed reliance upon the decisions in [a] A. Natesam Pillai Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy [ (2010) 9 SCC 118], [b] Digamber & others Vs. State of Mah. & others [AIR 2013 SC 3532], and [c] Mohinder Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 8 SCC 897].
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 17:26:11 :::
fa702.04 4
04. Shri M. Ekre, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents, supported the impugned Award. According to him, the land was acquired for extension of Gaothan which indicated that it was to be used for residential purpose and not for commercial purpose. When land is acquired for extension of Gaothan, the compensation cannot be adjudicated by applying yardsticks that are applied for acquisition of land for commercial purposes. He submitted that as per the map at Exh.30, the acquired land was not adjacent to the highway. The layout map had not been sanctioned. The sale instances at Exhs. 15 and 16 were of small plots of land and considering the extent of the acquired land, the same were not comparable. According to him, the Reference Court rightly refused to take into consideration post- notification sale instances. Without prejudice, it was submitted that if any enhancement was being granted in the amount of compensation, deductions to the extent from twenty per cent to seventy-five per cent as held in Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir Singh & others [(2010) 11 SCC 581] deserve to be made. He also relied upon the decision in Mohammad Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer [ (2009) 14 SCC 367]. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and I ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 17:26:11 ::: fa702.04 5 have perused the records of the case.
06. The following point arises for determination:-
Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation for the acquired land?
07. The claimant examined himself at Exh.12 and referred to sale instances on which he was relying for seeking enhancement. At Exh.15 is a sale instance dated 16th June, 1998 for sale of 0.03 R of land for Rs.30,000-00. The value per acre would be Rs.4,00,000-00. This land was situated in the same village. At Exh.16, Plot No.51 to the extent of 2846.11 sq. ft., was sold for Rs.57,000-00 and the same would come to Rs.8,29,090/- per acre. As per the conversion application at Exh.20, permission had been sought to convert entire 6 hectares 51 R of land for non-agricultural use. The No Objection was granted by the Talathi and by order dated 19th February, 1996 at Exh.29, permission was granted to convert 3 hectares 13 R of land for non-agricultural use. It is not in dispute that the acquired land is from a portion of the remaining land of 6 hectares 51 R. At Exh.18 is the sketch showing location of Survey No. 44/2, while Exh.28 is a map of Survey No. 44. Exh.16 is the sale instance pertaining to portion of the acquired land.
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 17:26:11 :::
fa702.04 6
08. The fact that the land was sought to be acquired for extension of Gaothan indicates that it had non-agricultural potentiality and was located abutting the existing Gaothan. The conversion order at Exh.29 is dated 19th February, 1996 which is almost three years prior to issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the said Act. Another relevant aspect that cannot be ignored is that the sale instance at Exh,.16 pertains to the same survey number of the acquired land. If the sale instances at Exh.15 and 16 are kept in mind, coupled with the fact that Exh.16 pertains to portion of the same survey number where the acquired land is situated, it can be said that an amount of Rs.8,00,000-00 per acre could be treated as the rate of land forming part of Survey No. 44/2.
09. Though the value of the land is taken at Rs.8,00,000-00 per acre, it would be necessary to provide for deductions considering the extent of the area of the land acquired in comparison with the sale instances. Similarly, the acquired land was not converted, but was adjacent to the converted portion of land in said survey number. Considering the law as laid down in Haridwar Development Authority [supra], in the facts of the present case, deduction to the extent of thirty-three per cent is found reasonable. The point as framed is ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 17:26:11 ::: fa702.04 7 answered by holding that the appellant is entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation.
10. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:-
ORDER It is held that the appellant is entitled for compensation for the acquired land by treating it as valued Rs.8,00,000-00 [rupees eight lakhs only] per acre and after making thirty-three per cent deduction from said amount.
11. The judgment of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 185 of 2003 dated 30th April, 2004 is partly modified in aforesaid terms.
12. Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
Judge
-0-0-0-0- |hedau| ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 17:26:11 ::: fa702.04 8 ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 17:26:11 :::