Bombay High Court
Smt.Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia ... vs The State Of Mah. And Ano on 27 September, 2022
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2006
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 621 OF 2006
.............
FIRST APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2006
1. Smt. Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia
Aged 56 Years, Occu : Household,
Resident of Bhartia Bhavan,
Tajnapeth, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola
2. Smt. Ranidevi Brijmohan Bhartia,
Aged 52 Yrs., Occu.: Household, (Dead)
(Amended as per Court's order dated 08.10.2008
and following names have been substituted)
2-A Smt. Taradevi Chimanlalji Bhartia,
Resident of Bhartia Bhavan,
Tajnapeth, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola
2-B Shri Navalkishore Chimanlalji Bhartia,
Resident of Bhartia Bhavan,
Tajnapeth, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola
2-C Shri Shashikant Chimanlalji Bhartia,
Resident of Bhartia Bhavan,
Tajnapeth, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola
2-D Shri Deepakkumar Chimanlalji Bhartia,
Resident of Bhartia Bhavan,
Tajnapeth, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola
.... APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Special Land Acquisition Officer (P),
Akola, Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi
Vidyapeeth, Akola, Tq. and Dist. Akola
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt
2
2. Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Department,
Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola .. RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 621 OF 2006
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Akola (P), Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Akola, Taluka. and Dist. Akola
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Department,
Akola .. APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
1. Smt. Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia
Aged 54 Years, Occu : Household,
R/o Bhartia Bhavan, Tajnapeth,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola
2. Smt. Ranidevi Brijmohan Bhartia,
Aged 50 Yrs., Occu.: Household,
(Amended/Deleted as per Court's order dated 29.09.2008
and following names have been substituted)
1. Smt. Taradevi Chimanlalji Bhartia,
R/o. Bhartia Bhavan, Tajnapeth,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola
2. Shri Navalkishore Chimanlalji Bhartia,
R/o. Bhartia Bhavan, Tajnapeth,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola
3. Shri Shashikant Chimanlalji Bhartia,
R/o. Bhartia Bhavan, Tajnapeth,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt
3
4. Shri Deepakkumar Chimanlalji Bhartia,
R/o. Bhartia Bhavan, Tajnapeth,
Akola, Tq. and Dist. Akola ... RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. L. Khapre, Sr. Advocate a/b. Shri R. B. Agrawal, Advocate for
the claimants in both the appeals.
Shri I. J. Damle, Asst. Govt. Pleader for the State authorities in both appeals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE and G. A. SANAP, JJ.
Date of Reserving Judgment : July 25, 2022
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : September 27, 2022
JUDGMENT :(PER : G. A. SANAP, J.)
1. Both these appeals arise out of Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2006 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Akola in Land Acquisition Case No. 53 of 2005 and therefore, both these appeals are being disposed of by common judgment. First Appeal No. 384 of 2006 is filed by the claimants. First appeal No. 621 of 2006 is filed by the State of Maharashtra through Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Akola. The learned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Akola partly allowed the Land Acquisition Case/Reference and enhanced the compensation @ of Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for the acquired land admeasuring 26016.59 Sq.Ft. with other consequential benefits.
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 4
2. The facts leading to the appeals are as follows:-
In the judgment for the purpose of convenience the parties would be referred by their nomenclature as mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court. The land bearing survey Nos. 6 and 7, admeasuring 0.33 Are, belonging to the claimants, was acquired for the purpose of construction of a flood control wall on the bank of river Morna. The State Government, on 21.07.2000, published a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short 'the Acquisition Act"). The State Government published a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act on 02.02.2001. The process initiated for acquisition of the land culminated into the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27.06.2002. In the acquisition proceedings required inquiry was made. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation @ of Rs.96,364/- per hectare.
3. The claimants being aggrieved filed the Reference. According to the claimants, the acquired land was converted to non agricultural purpose in Revenue Case No. NAP-34/Akoli Khd./3/1982-
83. The claimants laid 188 plots for residential purpose. The plots, roads and lanes had been demarcated on the land. The entry to that effect was FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 5 made in the revenue record. The claimants sold the plots to different persons. The acquired land was non agricultural land. This fact was placed on record before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not accept the same and held the acquired land being agricultural land. The demanded compensation was not awarded on the ground that the land was not developed and was falling in the flood zone. According to the claimants, the acquired land was not covered in flood line area, which is called as blue zone. According to the claimants, the acquired land is situated on the outskirts of Akola city. The area around the acquired land is fully developed. In the surrounding area there are residential colonies. In the vicinity of the acquired land there is Oil Industry and Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti Market. There are educational and other religious institutions in the surrounding area of the acquired land.
4. It is stated that during the course of inquiry the Land Acquisition Officer had called the report of valuation from the Director of Town Planning, Akola. The Assistant Director of Town Planning had referred the matter to the Director of Town Planning, Pune. The Director of Town Planning, Pune by his letter dated 20.10.2000 recorded FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 6 that the acquired land had non agricultural potentiality. The Collector, Akola, therefore, proposed compensation of Rs.21,71,000/- per Hectare and submitted the same to the Commissioner of Amravati for approval. The Commissioner did not approve the proposal and in turn directed the Collector to award the compensation @ of Rs.72,400/- per hectare. The Collector/Land Acquisition Officer accepted this compensation approved by the Commissioner without considering the non agricultural potentiality of the acquired land. The claimants, therefore, claimed compensation @ of Rs.200/- per Sq. Ft. by filing the Reference.
5. The respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra through Special Land Acquisition Officer , Akola opposed the Reference. The respondent No.1 denied the material averments touching the quantum of the compensation pleaded in the claim. It is contended that the acquired land was agricultural land and as such the compensation awarded was just, proper and reasonable. The land was falling in flood line. There was no scope in future for increasing the prices of the acquired land. It is denied that the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Akola had recommended the price @ of Rs.21,71,000/- per hectare, as stated by the claimants.
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 7
6. The respondent No. 2 Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Akola, the acquiring body, has filed the written statement and opposed the claim. According to the respondent No.2, the compensation awarded by respondent No. 1 is just, proper and reasonable. The claim of the claimants seeking compensation @ of Rs.200/- per Sq. Ft is excessive and exorbitant.
7. The claimants adduced oral and documentary evidence. Similarly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer examined himself. The learned Additional District Judge on consideration and analysis of the evidence found that the compensation awarded by the respondent No.1 SLAO was not just, proper and reasonable and therefore, awarded the compensation @ of Rs.100/- per Sq.Ft. The claimants, being aggrieved by partly allowing the Reference, has come before this Court in appeal. The respondent No.1, the State, represented through the Land Acquisition Officer being aggrieved by the enhancement in the compensation has also come in appeal.
8. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate for the claimants and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State authorities in FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 8 both the appeals. Perused the record and proceedings.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the appeals, following points fall for our determination and we record our findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
i] What would be the market price of the acquired ..As awarded by the Reference land at the time of the acquisition ? Court.
ii] Whether the enhancement made in the
compensation @ of Rs.100/- per Sq Ft. is just
proper and reasonable ? ... Yes.
iii] Whether the reference filed by the claimants was .....Yes.
within limitation ?
iv] What order ? As per final
order.
10. Learned Senior Advocate Shri R. L. Khapre submitted that the claimants have proved that the Survey Nos. 6, 7 and 60 were converted to non-agricultural use vide order dated 03.03.1983. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the non agricultural assessment was done by the authority and the tax for the year 1997-98 to 2001-02 has been recovered. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that in view of this Rule 4(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Use of Land and Non Agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969 (For short "Rules FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 9 of 1969") would not be attracted. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that this stand of the claimants has been further fortified by the order passed by the Commissioner, Amravati, Division Amravati, setting aside the order passed by the Collector dated 06.08.2004, whereby the Collector had granted a permission to review the N.A. order dated 03.03.1983. In the submission of the learned Senior Advocate, therefore, for the purpose of quantifying the compensation the acquired land was rightly held to be non agricultural land by the Reference Court. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that after conversion of the land to non agricultural use, the sanctioned layout map was prepared by the authority. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the acquired land was situated in the prime developed locality. The learned Senior Advocate pointed out from the record that the Survey No. 7 was reserved for development of residential tenaments by Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board vide gazette notification dated 11.10.1984. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that in the master plan of Akola City, the acquired land was not shown in a blue zone as sought to be contended by the respondents. The learned Senior Advocate pointed out that to establish this fact the map produced on record was not drawn by the Town Planning Authority as per the provisions of Maharashtra Regional FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 10 Town Planning Act, 1966 (For short "MRTP Act"), but it was prepared by the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that there is no substance in the arguments of the respondents on this count.
11. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that apart from the proof of the fact that the acquired land was non agricultural land, situated in the developed area, the Reference Court has not awarded the enhanced compensation, as claimed by the claimant. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that on the basis of the price of the similarly situated lands quoted in the four sale deeds, relied upon by the claimants, the learned Reference Court ought to have adhered to the rule of drawing the average price on the basis of the sale deeds. In the submission of the learned Senior Advocate, if this rule is applied, then the claimants would be entitled to get compensation @ of Rs.121.25 per Sq. Ft. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that on account of the acquisition of the land in question, the plot Nos. 16 to 19 belonging to the claimants became worthless inasmuch as there is no access road to these plots. The learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted that the learned Reference Court has failed to grant compensation in respect of those plots without FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 11 assigning cogent reasons. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the claimants have proved that they are entitled to get enhanced compensation, as claimed in the Reference. In the submission of the learned Senior Advocate, the Reference was filed within limitation and therefore, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents on this count cannot be sustained. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the learned Reference Court has properly appreciated this point and recorded a finding in favour of the claimants. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that all the objections raised by the respondents have been rejected by the learned Reference Court. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that there is no substance in any of the objections raised by the respondents in the appeal filed, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. The learned Senior Advocate, in support of his submissions noted above, relied upon the following decisions :
1] Chimanlal Hargovinddas .vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 2] Vijaysingh Liladhar .vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (1988) 3 SCC 760.
3] The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. .vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, reported in 2008(6) All M.R. 491.
4] Mahamaya Gen. Finance Co. Ltd. .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2014 (5) MDSC 342 : 2014 (6) SCALE 576 FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 12 5] Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others .vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 141. 6] Ali Mohammad Beigh .vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in 2017 All SCR 813.
12. The learned AGP submitted that the case of the claimants that the acquired land was converted to non agricultural use cannot be accepted. The learned AGP submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that in the year 1983 the land was converted to non agricultural use, there is no evidence to prove that this order was extended beyond one year inasmuch as the land was not actually used for NA purpose. The learned AGP relied upon the provisions of Rule 4(1)
(c) of the Rules of 1969 to buttress his submission. The learned AGP submitted that the respondents by adducing cogent evidence has proved that the acquired land was falling in the blue zone. The learned AGP submitted that, therefore, there was no chance of development of the said land. The learned AGP submitted that there is hardly any evidence to prove that after the alleged conversion of the land to the non agricultural use there was any development or sale of the plots from the land as well as in the vicinity. The learned AGP submitted that the land was falling outside the city of Akola and therefore, had no prospects of development in future. The learned AGP submitted that the sale instances relied upon FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 13 by the claimants cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the compensation of the acquired land. According to the learned AGP, considering the proposal for acquisition of the land, the inflated prices were shown in the sale deeds. Besides, the learned AGP submitted that the sale instances relied upon are in respect of small track of the land and therefore, the same cannot be made the basis to determine the compensation in this case. The learned AGP submitted that out of four sale deeds relied upon by the claimants, three sale deeds are in favour of the business concerns of the claimants. The learned AGP submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed a mistake in granting the enhancement in the amount of the compensation. The learned AGP submitted that the evidence of the valuer, PW-2 examined by the claimants is silent on the complete separation of plot Nos. 16 to 19 from the acquired land and as such having remained without approach road.
The learned AGP submitted that the enhancement in the compensation granted by the Reference Court is excessive and exorbitant. In the submission of the learned AGP, the judgment and award deserves to be set aside. The learned AGP submitted that the reference was barred by limitation inasmuch as it was not filed within a period of six months from the date of award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The learned FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 14 AGP submitted that the learned Reference Court has not properly appreciated this point and came to a wrong conclusion. The learned Additional Government Pleader, in support of his submissions, relied upon following decisions :
1] State of Maharashtra .vs. Digambar Bhimashankar Tandale and others, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 583 2] Chimanlal Hargovinddas .vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 3] Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and another .vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others, reported in 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 168 LIMITATION
13. The point of limitation has been seriously argued by the learned AGP. According to the respondents, that the reference under Section 18(1) of the Acquisition Act ought to have been filed within a period of six months, even if there was no service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act. It is the case of the claimants that notice as per Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act was not served and they were not intimated about the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants, therefore wrote a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer and made an inquiry about the proceedings. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer vide reply dated 25.10.2004 informed the claimants that the award in their proceedings was passed on 27.06.2002. The FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 15 claimants, thereafter, applied for certified copy and received it on 11.02.2004. On receipt of copy, the Reference was filed on 20.12.2004.
It is undisputed that the Reference was not filed within six months from the date of the Collector's Award. In view of the facts, the questions needs to be addressed are (1) Whether the notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act was given to the Claimants by the Collector after passing the award ? and, (2) Whether the Reference filed within a period of six months from the date of knowledge of award, in case the notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act of the passing of the award was not given to the claimants, would be within limitation ?
14. Before we proceed to consider the facts and the material brought on record touching the issue under discussion it would be necessary to consider the settled legal position. We may usefully refer to the decision in the case of Bhagwan Das and ors. .v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors with Nayantara Gupta and ors. .v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545. In this decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the provision of Section 18(2)(b) of the Acquisition Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression "within Six months from the Date of Collector's award" has to FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 16 be read to mean six months from date of actual or constructive knowledge of essential contents of the award. The expression is not to be interpreted literally because such an interpretation leads to absurd results inasmuch as person not having knowledge of award would be deprived of opportunity to seek reference to Court. Besides, procedure would also become unfair and discriminatory, and therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. As far as procedure part is concerned, it is held that onus would be on the applicant. The applicant would be required to state on oath that he or his representative was not present when award was made, he did not receive notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act and that he was not aware of contents of award. It is observed that thereafter, the onus shifts on the Collector to prove otherwise.
15. In order to consider the applicability of the settled principle it would be necessary to advert to the facts and evidence in this appeal. In the Reference the claimants have stated that after passing the award it was not communicated to them. They did not receive notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act. It is stated that they came to know when they received the reply dated 25.10.2004 from the Land Acquisition FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 17 Officer. It is stated that the claimants had no knowledge of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is not the case of the respondents that either the claimants or their representative were present when the award was passed. The Collector accepted the Reference filed on 20.12.2004 by the claimants. On receipt of the Reference, the Collector has to make over the same to the Court. The Collector while making the Reference, is required to state certain facts for the information of the Court. These facts have been set out in Section 19 (1)(a) to (d) of the Acquisition Act. It is not the case of the respondents that while making Reference to the Court, the Collector made a positive statement about the issuance and service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act to the claimants. Perusal of the Reference and the record and proceedings maintained by the Special Land Acquisition Officer would show that there is no mention of issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act either in the Reference or in the record. Consistent with the facts stated in the Reference, the evidence has been adduced. Witness No.1 has categorically stated that the notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act was not received by them. In view of this statement, on oath the onus would shift on the respondents. In the reply/written statement, it is stated that on receipt of the amount from the FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 18 State Government notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act was issued to the respondents. DW-1 is the Land Acquisition Officer. Perusal of his evidence would show that he has not stated a word about the issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act or service of the said notice to the claimants. It is to be noted that if the notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act was issued, then it must be the part of the record and proceedings. The respondents could have easily pointed the said notice from the record. The service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act has to be proved and the onus was on the respondents to prove this. The evidence on record, therefore, supports the contention of the claimants that the notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act was not served after passing the award. No evidence has been adduced by the respondents that the claimants had knowledge of passing of the award. Therefore, contention of the claimants that they had no knowledge of the award till the receipt of the reply from the Land Acquisition Officer dated 25.10.2004 deserves acceptance. In our view, therefore, the law laid down in the case of Bhagwan Das and ors. .v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors (cited supra) would come to the help of the claimants. The Reference was filed within two months from the date of the knowledge of the award by the FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 19 claimants. The Reference Court has considered the relevant facts and came to the conclusion that the Reference was within limitation. In view of above evidence and law, we conclude that the reference filed was within limitation. Therefore, the submissions advanced by the learned AGP deserves rejection.
16. The Reference Court has accepted the case of the claimants that in the year 1983 the acquired land was converted to non-agricultural purpose. This finding is assailed on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the land was either converted to the actual non agricultural purpose or the order approving the non agricultural use of the land, in the absence of putting the land to non agricultural purpose, was extended by the Collector. It is pointed out that in the absence of material on record it has to be presumed that the N.A. permission had lapsed after expiry of one year from the date of the order. In this connection reliance is placed on Rule 4(1)(c) of the Rules of 1969. Perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court would show that the evidence on record was found sufficient to accept the case of the claimants on this count. The copy of the order of conversion of land to non agricultural purpose is at Exh.22. It was passed on 03.03.1983 in Revenue case No. NAP34/ FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 20 Akoli Khurd/3/82-83. In order to substantiate this contention, non agricultural assessment tax receipts for the year 1977-98 to 2001-02 have been placed on record at Exhs. 41 to 46. The receipts are dated 10.10.2001. Perusal of Exhs. 41 to 46 would show that a specific reference of above case number was made therein. There is no challenge to these receipts. In the receipts, the plot numbers were mentioned. It is therefore apparent on the face of the record that on 10.10.2001 the competent authority accepted the non agricultural tax in respect of the plots, covered under the acquired land, from the claimants.
17. It is further pertinent to note that witness No.1, examined by the claimants, has produced on record NA order which clearly proves that Sub Divisional Officer, Akola before granting NA permission had sought the opinion of the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Akola. The record reveals that Assistant Director of Town Planning, Akola approved the layout after considering the relevant factors vide his letter No. TPAK/CONV/Akoli/Akola/4824 dated 02.12.1982. Further perusal of this letter would show that the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Akola had granted permission for conversion of the land and for layout of residential plots.
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 21
18. PW-1 has deposed that after receiving the permission from Sub Divisional Officer, Akola, plots, roads and service lanes had been demarcated on the land. The plots were sold. In order to substantiate this statement, he has produced on record four sale deeds of different plots. Those sale deeds are marked as Exhs. 51 to 54. Sale Deed at Exh. 51 is in respect of plot No. 78 belonging to one Usha Santosh Gode in favour of Ashok Krushnarao Sapkal. The sale deed is dated 12.02.1999. Exh. 52 is the sale deed of plot No. 50 from survey No. 7/2 of Akoli Khurd, dated 11.05.1999. Exh. 53 is the sale deed of plot No. 117 from Survey Nos. 6, 7 and 60 of Akoli Khurd, dated 04.05.1999. Exh. 54 is the sale deed of plot No.58 from Survey Nos. 6, 7 and 60 of Akoli Khurd, dated 04.05.1999. The above sale deeds would show that after approval of residential layout plan by the competent authority, the plots were sold. The plots as can be seen from the record were sold after layout development. At this stage it is further pertinent to note that all the above plots from the sanctioned layout had been sold prior to issuance of notification dated 21.05.2000 Section 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act. In our view, this fact apart from supporting the contention of the claimants that the land was converted to NA purpose, proves that there was proper development on the plots and in the surrounding areas.
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 22
19. There is one more important document to substantiate this contention of the claimants. It is at Exh. 84. Exh. 84 is the order dated 17.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amaravati. The record reveals that the respondent No.2 had applied to the Sub Divisional Officer, Akola for review of the NA permission granted in favour of the claimants. The Sub Divisional Officer sought the permission of the Collector, Akola for review of the NA permission. The Collector Akola granted permission to review the NA permission granted in favour of the claimants. The claimants preferred the appeal before the Commissioner, Amravati and challenged the said order. The Commissioner, Amravati, Division Amravati set aside the permission granted by the Collector to review the NA permission on the ground that the land was converted to NA purpose in 1983 and as such, the permission granted to review the said permission after 19 years was illegal. This is one more document to substantiate the contention of the claimants.
20. The claimants have relied upon a notification dt. 21.09.1984 published in Government Gazette on 11.10.1984 to substantiate the claim that the land from Survey No. 7 was reserved for development of FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 23 residential tenaments for the middle income group, higher income group and development of the area. The said survey No. 7 was reserved for the above purpose, on representation from the Maharashtra Housing and Area development Authority. In our opinion, this is one more important document to substantiate the contention of the claimants that the land was reserved for development of residential tenaments. It is seen on perusal of the evidence of witness No.1 for respondent no.1 that there is no answer to this document. This document has remained un-rebutted. In our opinion, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents relying upon Rule 4(1)(c) of the Rules of 1969 will have to be considered in the above background. In our view, if the said objection is considered keeping in mind the above voluminous material it would not be of any consequence as well as the same would not survive as well. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants is sufficient to accept the contention of the claimants that the land was converted to NA purpose, and it was fully developed. In our view, therefore, the Reference Court was right in accepting the contention of the claimants that the acquired land, before Section 4 notification, was converted to NA purpose. We do not see any reason to disagree with this finding of fact recorded by the Reference Court.
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 24
21. The next ground raised by the respondents to challenge the award is that the acquired land falls in blue zone namely the flood affected zone and therefore, the same had no NA potential and scope for development in future. In order to substantiate this contention, reliance has been placed on the map drawn by respondent No.2. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that this map drawn by the respondent No.2 has no legal sanctity. Witness No.1 for respondent no.1, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in his evidence has clearly admitted that there is no authenticated map on record of land acquisition case to establish that Survey Nos. 6 and 7 are on the river bank, inside the flood protection wall constructed by the respondent No.2. It is to be noted that the competent authority, to draw such a plan or master plan, is constituted under MRTP Act. Section 14 of the MRTP Act provides for drawing the master plan. As per Section 14(j) and Section 22 (j) of the MRTP Act, the master plant must show the flood control area which is popularly known as blue zone. There is no such master plan, either prepared or placed on record by the respondents. On the contrary, the master plan produced on record clearly indicates that the acquired land is situated in orange zone. In our view, therefore, this contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. The Reference Court has rejected this contention of FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 25 the respondents. We fully agree with the reasons recorded by the Reference Court on this count as well.
22. Mr. Khapre, learned Senior Advocate, pointed out that the proposed award prepared by the learned Land Acquisition Officer was submitted to the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati for approval and direction. It is pointed out that the Commissioner, Amravati did not approve the award as it is. He modified the same and drastically brought down the quantum of compensation proposed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Commissioner had no such power. It is submitted that the power of the Commissioner to grant or refuse approval is clearly administrative. In our opinion, this grievance of the claimants seems to have been taken care of by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed on 12.02.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 2045/2003. Perusal of the said order would show that the claimants being aggrieved by the modification of the proposed award by the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati had preferred writ petition in this Court. This Court dismissed the writ petition. The order passed in the writ petition was challenged in the aforesaid Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 26 interfere in the order passed by this Court, but made certain observations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that all the questions raised in the appeal could be available to the claimants before the Reference Court. The claimants consistent with the observation, raised all the available questions before the Reference Court. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that all the questions raised by the claimants on the aforesaid legal points have been specifically dealt with by the Reference Court and the compensation has been enhanced. Learned Senior Advocate, relying upon the decision in the case of Vijayadevi Navalkishor Bhartia and another .vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another , reported in 2003 AIR SCW1807 SC, submitted that the power of the Commissioner to grant or refuse approval is purely administrative. The Commissioner cannot sit in appeal against the proposed award. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijayadevi Bhartia's case (supra) held that the Commissioner has either to grant or refuse approval. The Commissioner cannot sit in appeal against the proposed award and modify the same. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed that the view taken in the decision of State of Bihar and others .vs. Prem Kumar Singh and others, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 573 ; and other judgments are somewhat in conflict and therefore, the issue has been referred to the FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 27 Larger Bench. In the above background, the questions raised in this appeal have to be addressed on the premise that no prejudice has been caused to the claimants inasmuch as, the claimants have raised all these questions in Reference. All the questions have been decided and based on the same, the compensation has been enhanced.
23. It would, therefore, be necessary to appreciate the evidence for the purpose of answering rival contentions on the point of just, proper and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the claimants. In order to prove the prominent location of the acquired land and the development that has taken place in and around the acquired land, the oral and documentary evidence has to be adduced by the claimants. We have accepted the case of the claimants that the acquired land was converted to non-agricultural use. The Reference Court has quantified the compensation bearing in mind the nature of land as non-agricultural land, the prominent location of the land and development taken place in and around the acquired land. PW1 Deepakkumar Bharita and PW2 Brijmohan Modi have deposed on these aspects. It has been proved on the basis of their evidence that the acquired land, apart from being non- agriculture land, was located near Akola city and surrounded by various FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 28 educational, commercial and other institutions. It is to be noted that in the award passed by the SLAO, a reference has been made to the prominent location of the acquired land. The distance of the acquired land from various institutions of prominence and the close proximity of the land to Akola city has been mentioned. It has been proved that on the Northern side of the acquired land, there are police quarters known as Rahat Nagar, Sneh Nagar and to the North-west, there is Ambedkar Nagar, Vijay Oil Industries and Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti market. So also, near the acquired land, there are Ramkrushna Vivekanand Ashram, Maa Sharda Balak Mandir, Ramkrushna Vivekanand Sahitya Kharedi Vikri Kendra, Saint Anne's School of Hyderabad etc. It has been proved that temple of Lord Vyankatesh Balaji, Maratha Seva Sangh, Swami Vivekanand High School, Jijau Vasatigruha. Vyankatesh Restaurant , Wholesale Grain Merchant's Housing and Commercial Complex Society and Alankar Petrol Pump, are located in the close proximity of the acquired land.
24. PW2 Brijmohan Modi, a registered valuer, examined by the claimants, has proved the Valuation Report at Exh.64. The map drawn by the valuer is at Exh.66. On the basis of the evidence of PW1 and FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 29 PW2, prominent location of the acquired land in close proximity of Akola city has been proved. It has been proved that in the vicinity of the acquired land, there has been development. There are residential and commercial complexes. Evidence adduced in rebuttal by the respondents is not sufficient to disprove the above aspects. The only statement reiterated time and again by the respondents is that the acquired land being situated on the bank of Morna river, it had no future prospects of development. In our opinion, this contention of the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the positive evidence adduced by the claimants. Learned Presiding Officer of the Reference Court has accepted this evidence. We do not see any reason to discard or disbelieve this evidence. The material on record is not sufficient to accept the contention of the respondents that the acquired land was falling in blue zone. It has come on record that the land was acquired for construction of flood protection wall. The flood protection wall has been constructed. It is, therefore, apparent on the face of record that threat of flooding to the area has now been diminished. In the given set of facts, it can be safely assumed that after construction of flood protection wall, there would be no hindrance or hitch in the development of the acquired land and its surroundings.
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 30
25. It would, therefore, be necessary to decide the market price of the land on the date of Section 4 notification. According to the claimants, the market rate of the acquired land on the date of Section 4 notification was @ Rs.200/- per sq. ft. PW1 and PW2 have stated that considering development in and around the acquired land, enhancement in the compensation @ Rs.200/- per sq. ft. was necessary. It is to be noted that considering the evidence adduced in the reference, the learned Presiding Officer of the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the market price of the acquired land on the date of Section 4 notification would be Rs.100/- per sq.ft. The learned Judge has recorded the reasons in support of his finding.
26. In order to prove that the market price of the land on the date of Section 4 notification was not less than Rs.200/- per sq.ft., the claimants have placed on record four sale instances at Exhibits-51 to 54. Exh.51 is the sale deed dated 12.02.1999 of plot no.78 of Akoli (Bk.) from survey nos.8 and 5/1. Total area of the plot was 1500 sq.ft. It was sold @ Rs.100/- per sq.ft. It has come on record that this plot was sold by one Usha Santoshrao Gole to Ashok Krushnarao Sapkal and Shalikram Ramkrushna Zamre. It is to be noted that this sale transaction has been FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 31 made the basis for quantifying the enhanced compensation by the learned Presiding Officer of the Reference Court. The vendor and vendee are not concerned with the claimants in any manner. In our opinion, therefore, the contention of the respondents that this sale instance was brought into existence to claim excessive and exorbitant compensation by the claimants cannot be accepted. On a perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the claimants and supporting documentary evidence, we do not see any reason to discard and disbelieve this sale instance. As far as this sale instance is concerned, relying upon the decision in State of Mah. .vs. Digambar Bhimashankar Tandale (supra), the learned AGP submitted that it is in respect of small piece of land and therefore, the same cannot be made basis to determine the market value of the acquired land. In our view, this contention cannot be accepted. There is ample evidence on record that residential layout plan was sanctioned by the competent authority, after the land was put to non-agricultural use on the basis of permission granted by the competent authority. It is, therefore, apparent that for the purpose of deciding market value of the different plots from layout map of the acquired land, the sale deed (Exh.51) of plot no.78, which is from sanctioned layout, can be relied upon. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept this submission. The sale instance is genuine. On FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 32 the basis of the evidence, the contention of the respondents that this sale instance is not genuine and bona fide, cannot be accepted.
27. Exh.52 is the sale instance of plot no.50 from survey no. 7/2 of Akoli (Bk.), dated 11.05.1999. The price of the land quoted in the sale deed was Rs.175/- per sq.ft. The sale deed at Exh.53 is in respect of plot no.117 from survey Nos.6, 7 and 60 of Akoli (Kh.), dated 04.05.1999. The plot was sold at Rs.110/- per sq.ft. Exh.54 is the sale deed of plot no.58 from survey Nos.6, 7 and 60 of Akoli (Kh.), dated 04.05.1999. The plot was sold at Rs.100/- per sq. ft. As far as these sale deeds are concerned, apart from the above objection, the another objection raised is that the sale deeds were executed by the members of the family of the claimants in favour of business concerns of the family of the claimants. Consistent with this defence, a suggestion has been put to the witnesses on the basis of the material. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the sale instances at Exhs. 52, 53 and 54 are in favour of business concerns of the family of the claimants, the same would not be sufficient to set aside the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Reference Court, quantifying compensation @ Rs.100/- per sq. ft.
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 33
28. It is further pertinent to note that the sale instance at Exh.54 is dated 04.05.1999, in respect of plot no. 58 from survey nos.6, 7 and 60 of Akoli (Kh.). The said plot was sold @ Rs.100/- per sq.ft. We do not see any reason to discard and disbelieve this sale instance. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the market price of the plots from four sale deeds would be required to be taken into consideration to draw the average market price of the acquired land. Perusal of the judgment and award of the Reference Court would show that this submission was not accepted. On re-appreciation of the evidence, we are of the opinion that this submission cannot be accepted. The learned Presiding Officer of the Reference Court has given a thoughtful consideration to the location of the land. The learned Presiding Officer of the Reference Court, while determining the market price of the acquired land, took into consideration the fact that the acquired land does not fall in blue zone, however, at the same time while quantifying the enhanced compensation has taken into consideration the fact that the land is situated at some distance from the bank of Morna river and as such considered the same as an important factor against the claimants. Based on this factor, the enhancement sought for has not been granted in entirety. We fully agree with this finding. In our view, keeping in mind the evidence on record, FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 34 the challenge raised by both the parties by filing separate appeals to the impugned judgment and award cannot be sustained. In our view, the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.100/- per sq.ft would be the just, reasonable and proper. The Reference Court has not committed any mistake and error in arriving at said market price of the acquired land.
29. Learned Senior Advocate for the claimants submitted that on account of acquisition of the land in question, the plots belonging to the claimants bearing Nos.16 to 19 had been cut off and left without approach road. He submitted that, therefore, the claimants would be entitled to get damages for the said area. The learned Presiding Officer of the Reference Court was not inclined to accept this contention on the ground that no evidence was adduced by the claimants to establish that these plot nos.16 to 19 cannot be re-demarcated and connected to the road. We are fully in agreement with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Presiding Officer. This submission does not find support from the evidence of the Valuer Shri B.M. Modi (PW2). Shri B.M. Modi (PW2) is a registered Valuer examined by the claimants to substantiate the claim on all aspects. It is the case of the claimants that plot nos.16 to19 had been completely cut off and left without road. If this is so then, the Valuer (PW2) being an expert was the proper person to deal with this FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 35 aspect in his report as well as depose about the same before the Court. It is seen that the evidence of the Valuer as well as his report on this important aspect is silent. In our opinion, since the Valuer had visited the site, he was expected to give a candid opinion that these plots cannot be re-demarcated and connected to the road. In view of this factual position, we are unable to accept this submission advanced by the learned Senior Advocate.
30. Learned Asst. Government Pleader, relying upon the judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1210/2008 and First Appeal No. 06/2009, dated 17.06.2013 submitted that the land acquired in these two appeals was part of the same award. It is submitted that in these two appeals, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had set aside award granting enhancement in the amount of compensation @ Rs.100/- per sq.ft. by the Reference Court. The learned Addl.G.P. submitted that therefore, the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in the above appeals would be required to be considered while deciding the appeals on hand. Learned Senior Advocate for the claimants submitted that the observations made in the judgment by the Division Bench while deciding the appeals would itself be sufficient to reject the submission. Learned Senior Advocate pointed out that the FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 36 Coordinate Bench has observed that the land bearing Survey No.1, the subject matter in the appeals, was not comparable with the land acquired in this case. We have minutely perused the judgment. Perusal of the judgment would reveal that the lands in the appeals before the Coordinate Bench were sought to be compared with the acquired lands in the appeals on hand. The Coordinate Bench has categorically held that the lands in appeals on hand are advantageously placed inasmuch as the same are far away from bank of river Morna. The land involved in the appeals before the Coordinate Bench were Suvey No.1 and it was found to be on the extreme bank of river Morna. The sale instances sought to be relied upon in the appeals before us were not found to be comparable by the Coordinate Bench. In our opinion, relying upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, the learned A.G.P. is not in a position to make good his point. The observations made in the judgment by the Coordinate Bench would itself be sufficient to conclude that the lands in the appeals on hand cannot at all be compared with the lands involved in those appeals. Therefore, the contentions based on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, cannot be accepted.
31. Learned Senior Advocate for the claimants submitted that FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 37 the compensation has not been awarded in respect of the open space area, area covered in roads and lanes. It is pointed out that in this case, the open space And the area covered in roads is 883 sq.mtr. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that since the land is used by the government for its own purpose, the Government cannot enrich itself without paying any compensation to the appellants as ownership of the said land, even after development of a layout, remains with the appellants. In order to substantiate this submission, learned Senior Advocate has placed heavy reliance on a decision in the case of State of Maharashtra .vs. Bramha Shankar and others, reported in 2009 (4) All M.R. 333. In this case, it is held that no existing law empowers the Planning Authority or Executive Officer of any Municipality or Municipal Corporation to impose a condition that an open land in a layout required to be kept as such for the benefit of the plot holders in the layout or for the general public, would vest in the Planning Authority or Municipality or Municipal Corporation free of cost. It is held that in the absence of any specific power in the Act so to do, a condition cannot be imposed that open space in the layout shall be transferred by the owner to the Planning Authority/Municipality, free of costs. In absence of any such powers and authority in law, an order requiring the owner to transfer the ownership of any land or open space FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 38 to the Planning Authority/Municipality, would be void and hit by Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted that in respect of 883 sq. mtr. area of land, the compensation ought to have been awarded @ Rs.618.93 per sq.mtr.
32. Learned Asst. Government Pleader submitted that this factual contention is raised for the first time in this appeal and therefore, the same deserves to be rejected. Learned AGP submitted that in order to record a finding on such point, the material fact must be pleaded and proved on the basis of the evidence. Learned AGP submitted that in absence of pleading of material fact and evidence to prove the said fact, the decision in the case of State of Mah. .vs. Bramha Shankar (supra) would not be applicable to this case.
33. We have perused the record and proceedings. It seen that the relevant facts qua the question raised at this stage have not been pleaded in the reference. Similarly, there is no whisper about this issue in the appeal memo. The learned Senior Advocate, in all fairness, in his synopsis has stated that separate demarcation of the land covered by open layout land and road is not shown. It is stated that however, this can be FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 39 calculated from the pleadings of the parties and particularly, the total area acquired by the respondents. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the claimants have examined PW2 M.B. Modi, registered Valuer. The pleadings and the evidence of the witnesses and particularly, the evidence of the expert is silent on these aspects. In our opinion, the question of fact has to be proved by leading evidence. The question of fact raised for the first time in appeal without pleading, cannot be gone into and decided. The adjudication of such a question of fact on the basis of such submission would not only be against the provisions of law, but would also result in prejudice to the opponents.
34. In our opinion, adjudication of this issue without a pleading of material fact and the evidence to prove it, at this stage, would be against the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice as well. It would, with certainty, cause prejudice to the respondents. In our view, therefore, reliance placed on the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra .vs. Bramhashankar Sidramappa Chippa (supra) is misplaced. In this case, it is not the case of the claimants that any condition has been imposed by the authorities to acquire the open area/roads and lanes without paying any compensation to the claimants.
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 40 Therefore, this contention deserves rejection.
35. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, are concerned, in Chimanlal Hargovinddas's case (supra), it is held that when large block of land is required to be valued, appropriate deduction has to be made for setting aside land for carving out roads, leaving open spaces and plotting out smaller plots suitable for construction of buildings. The extent of the area required to be set apart in this connection has to be assessed by the Court having regard to the shape, size and situation of the concerned block of land etc. It is held that there cannot be any hard and fast rule as to how much deduction has to be made to account for this factor. In the appeals on hand, the Reference Court has taken all these factors into consideration and determined the market price of the land.
36. In Vijaysingh Liladhar's case (supra), it is held that the value of the land has to be ascertained on the basis of present developed value of lands, which the land in question would fetch after the estimated period. In the appeals on hand, sale instances of similarly situated land/ plots have been taken into consideration.
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 41
37. In the case of the General Manager, ONGC .vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel's case (supra), it is held that the Reference Court can rely on the Award passed in respect of land in adjacent village. The Court has to bear in mind the close proximity between two villages. Such award can be made basis for determining market value in absence of comparative sale in village of acquisition. In the appeals on hand, the sale instances of the adjoining plots of the acquired land and one sale deed of the plot from acquired land has been taken into consideration. It was, therefore, not necessary to look into the sale instances from adjoining village and/or the award passed in respect of the land in adjoining village.
38. In Mahamaya Gen. Finance Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), it is held that the Sale Deeds in respect of adjoining land have to be taken into consideration. It is held that such sale deeds cannot be rejected on the ground that the claimant had prior knowledge about proposed acquisition and on that basis he executed a sale deed in hurried manner. It is held that such a vital evidence should not be rejected on the basis of such surmise and conjectures. In the appeals on hand, the specific contention of the respondents that the sale deeds had been brought into existence to show inflated price of the land/plots, has been dealt with. The sale deeds FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 42 executed prior to the Section 4 notification have been taken into consideration to quantify the compensation.
39. In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust's case (supra), it is held that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on on behalf of the State, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest, unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is held that it is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/Court for fixing fair compensation. In the appeals on hand, only two sale deeds have been taken into consideration. It has been found in this case that relying upon the remaining two sale deeds, it would not be desirable to draw average price of the acquired land based on all the sale deeds.
40. In Ali Mohd. Beigh and others's case (supra), it is held that where the lands are more or less situated nearby and when acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, then there is no justification to discriminate between land owners to pay compensation, unless there are strong reasons to do so. In the appeals on hand, the sale deeds of the similarly situated lands have been taken into consideration. The claimants, on the basis of the sale deeds, have been FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 43 found entitled to get the compensation as quantified by the learned Reference Court, which according to us, is justified, proper and reasonable.
41. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader, in support of his submissions, are concerned, in State of Mah. .vs. Digambar Bhimashankar Tandale's case (supra), it is held that determination of compensation on square foot basis for large extent of land is illegal, even though the land is converted for non-agricultural purpose and there is no development in that area and no potential value of the lands. In the appeals on hand, the land apart from being converted to NA purpose, there has been development in and around the acquired land. Similarly, the quantification of compensation on square feet basis is fully justified inasmuch as the acquired land is not a large tract.
42. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas's case (supra), it is held that the land situated in interior in large undeveloped area will have lower value than land situated near developed area. It is held that some guesswork is permissible in determining the market value of the land on this basis. In FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 44 the appeals on hand, the acquired land is situated in the midst of developed area. It has been established that the lands from the sale instances, relied upon by the claimants, and the acquired land are similarly situated. All these facts have been taken into consideration while quantifying the compensation in this case.
43. In S.L.A.O. and another .vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari's case (supra), it is held that sale price of small extent of land should not ordinarily be made the basis for determination of market value of large extent of land. It is held that however, such price can be relied on, if the small land is a portion of the large extent of land itself. It is held that even then all relevant factors, which would reduce the value of the large extent of land, should be taken into account. In the appeals on hand, the claimants have proved that layout plots have been sanctioned by the authority after the land was converted to NA purpose. The sale instances, which have been made the basis to quantify the compensation, are in respect of the plots of the same area. The plots from the sale instances are comparable with the acquired land/plots from the acquired land. All these facts have been proved and taken into consideration.
FA 384.2006+1 (J).odt 45
44. In our opinion, enhancement in the compensation, awarded by the Reference Court, is just, proper and reasonable. No case has been made out by the claimants, by placing reliance on the reported judgments cited supra, to grant them compensation at higher rate than one awarded by the Reference Court. Similarly, no case has been made out by the respondents, on the basis of the judgments cited supra, to deny enhanced compensation at the rate quantified by the Reference Court. In our view, therefore, there is no substance in both the appeals. The appeals, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :
ORDER First Appeal No.384 of 2006 filed by the claimants and First Appeal No. 621/2006 filed by the State stand dismissed. No order as to the costs.
(G. A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Namrata / Diwale
Digitally signed byPARAG
PRABHAKARRAO DIWALE
Signing Date:27.09.2022
18:08