Bombay High Court
Abhishek Dilip Chintwawar Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 20 June, 2019
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
X-OBJs 32/12 @ Connected XOBJs 1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 32/2012
Pramilabai W/o Madhukar Dhope,
aged about 59 years, Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Arni Taluka Arni, District Yavatmal. CROSS-OBJECTOR
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Minor,
Yavatmal, Taluka and District Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division, Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, counsel for cross-objector.
Ms A.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State.
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 33/2012
Raju s/o Vishwanath Nilawar,
aged about 52 years, Occupation Business
and Agriculturist, Resident of Main Road,
Arni Taluka Arni, District Yavatmal. CROSS-OBJECTOR
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Minor,
Yavatmal, Taluka and District Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division, Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, counsel for cross-objector.
Ms A.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State.
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:55:29 :::
X-OBJs 32/12 @ Connected XOBJs 2 Common Judgment
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 34/2012
Manohar Shriram Keshavwar,
Aged about 59 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Arni, Taluka Arni,
District Yavatmal. CROSS-OBJECTOR
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Minor,
Yavatmal, Taluka and District Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division, Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, counsel for cross-objector.
Ms A.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State.
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 33/2014
1. Surendrakumar S/o Uttamchand Jain,
Aged about 38 years, Occupation : Business
and Agriculturist, Resident of Arni,
Taluka Arni, District Yavatmal.
2. Virendrakumar S/o Uttamchand Jain,
Aged about 40 years, Occupation : Business
and Agriculturist, Resident of Arni,
Taluka Arni, District Yavatmal. CROSS-OBJECTORS
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Minor,
Yavatmal, Taluka & District Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division, Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:55:29 :::
X-OBJs 32/12 @ Connected XOBJs 3 Common Judgment
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, counsel for cross-objectors.
Ms A.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State.
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 53/2016
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer, Special Project,
Public Works Division, Yavatmal. APPELLANTS
.....VERSUS.....
Narsing Thaora Jadhao,
Aged about 50 years, R/o Arni, Tahsil Arni,
District : Yavatmal. RESPONDENT
Ms A.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants.
Shri R.J. Shinde, counsel for respondent/Cross-Objector.
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 35/2016
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer, Special Project,
Public Works Division, Yavatmal. APPELLANTS
.....VERSUS.....
Vimal w/o Narsing Jadhao,
Aged about 44 years, R/o Arni, Tahsil Arni,
District : Yavatmal. RESPONDENT
Ms A.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants.
Shri R.J. Shinde, counsel for respondent/Cross-Objector.
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:55:29 :::
X-OBJs 32/12 @ Connected XOBJs 4 Common Judgment
CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 31/2012
1. Abhishek S/o Dilip Chintawar,
aged about 15 years, Occupation : Student,
Minor, Through his Natural Guardian
Father, Dilip Dhondopant Chintawar,
aged about 44 years, Occupation : Business and
Agriculturist, Resident of Arni Taluka,
Arni, District Yavatmal.
2. Naushad s/o Hasambhai Karani,
Aged about 42 years, Occupation Business and
Agriculturist,
R/o Arni, Taluka. Arni, District Yavatmal.
3. Sainath S/o Yadaorao Motewar,
aged about 35 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
resident of Arni, Taluka Arni,
District Yavatmal. CROSS-OBJECTORS
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Minor, Yavatmal,
Taluka and District Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer, Special Project,
Public Works Division, Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, counsel for Cross-Objectors.
Ms A.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State.
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO. 3574/2019
Vijabai Digambar Nilawar (Dead) Thr. Legal Heirs
1. Anandkumar S/o Digamber Nilawar. (Dead)
Through Legal Heirs.
A. Akshay S/o Anand Nilawar,
Aged about 36 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o Ward No.1, At Post, Tal. Arni,
Dist. Yavatmal.
B. Abhishek S/o Anand Nilawar,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o Ward No.1, At Post Tal. Arni,
Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:55:29 :::
X-OBJs 32/12 @ Connected XOBJs 5 Common Judgment
C. Rakhi W/o Sachin Kotalwar,
Aged about 34 years, Occupation : Housewife,
R/o Somesh Colony, Behind Kala Mandir,
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
2. Shobha Shyam Motewar,
Aged about 67 years, Occupation : Housewife,
R/o Somesh Colony, Behind Kala Mandir,
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
3. Vidya Ramkrishna Revanwar,
Aged about 66 years, Occupation : Housewife,
R/o Shastri Nagar, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
4. Sandhya Chandrakant Borlepawar,
Aged about 65 years, Occupation : Housewife,
R/o Somesh Colony, Behind Kala Mandir,
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
5. Varsha Sanjayrao Nalamwar,
Aged about 51 years, Occupation : Housewife,
R/o Main Road, Digras, Tal. Digras,
Dist. Yavatmal. CROSS-OBJECTORS
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector Yavatmal.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer and Land
Acquisition Officer Darwha,
Tal. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division, Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
Shri M.M. Agnihotri and Shri P.P. Deshmukh, counsel for Cross-Objectors.
Ms A.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT
These cross-objections can be decided together as the proceedings for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the said Act') arise out of the notification dated ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:55:29 ::: X-OBJs 32/12 @ Connected XOBJs 6 Common Judgment 02.07.1998 by which, various lands situated at village Arni were acquired for the purpose of constructing a bypass road.
2. In all about 357R land was acquired from various Gat Numbers. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 05.08.2000. Not being satisfied with the compensation as awarded, the claimants filed reference proceedings seeking compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per square feet. The claim was thereafter restricted to Rs.300/- per square feet. The reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per square feet.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the claimants that in other appeals arising out of acquisition proceedings under the same notification, the State has withdrawn various appeals filed by it as a result of which the award of compensation of Rs.250/- per square feet stands accepted by the State. It is therefore submitted that the present appeals that have been filed by the State seeking reduction in the amount of compensation as awarded by the reference Court do not deserve to be entertained and on the basis of parity, the claimants would be entitled at least to compensation at Rs.250/- per square feet. Reference in that regard has been made to the adjudication in First Appeal No.1071 of 2013 wherein pursis to that effect was filed.
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:55:29 :::
X-OBJs 32/12 @ Connected XOBJs 7 Common Judgment
4. Ms A.R. Kulkarni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State after verifying the records does not dispute this position. In that view of the matter, the challenge with regard to the award for compensation by the reference Court at the rate of Rs.250/- per square feet does not deserve to be entertained.
5. Cross-objections have been filed by various land owners seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded. The learned counsel for the claimants have referred to sale instances at Exhibits 18 and 19 in Cross-Objection No.33 of 2012. It is submitted that as per the sale instance at Exhibit 18, adjoining land from the same village was sold on 27.04.1998 at the rate of Rs.277/- per square feet. Another transaction dated 05.10.1998 indicating sale of adjoining land also at the rate of Rs.277/- per square feet is placed at Exhibit 19. It is submitted that considering these sale instances, the Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per square feet. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot & Others Versus State of Punjab & Others [(2012) 5 SCC 432] to urge that these sale transactions could not have been ignored. It is then submitted that as the acquisition was for the purposes of constructing the bypass road, there was no question of any deduction being made for development purposes. In that regard, reference was made to the decision ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:55:29 ::: X-OBJs 32/12 @ Connected XOBJs 8 Common Judgment in C.R. Nagaraja Sheetty Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer & Another [(2009) 11 SCC 75] and it was submitted that since the reference Court has proceeded to deduct 33% of the value of the land for development charges, that direction deserves to be set aside. The aforesaid contentions are opposed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. It is stated that sale instance at Exhibit 19 is after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the said Act. Similarly, deduction towards development charges was warranted and the deduction effected to the extent of 1/3rd amount was reasonable.
6. The following point arises for adjudication:-
"Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation?"
7. Heard the learned counsel and perused the documents placed on record. As noted above, insofar as the grant of compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.250/- per square feet is concerned, that rate stands accepted by the Acquiring Body by virtue of having withdrawn various appeals filed by it challenging the judgment of the Reference Court awarding such compensation. Insofar as the aspect of further enhancement is concerned, the Reference Court has referred to the sale instance at Exhibits 18 and 19. The sale instance at Exhibit 18 is dated 27.04.1998 wherein land was sold at the rate of Rs.277/- per square feet. ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:55:29 :::
X-OBJs 32/12 @ Connected XOBJs 9 Common Judgment This sale transaction is prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the said Act which is dated 02.07.1998. The subsequent sale instance dated 05.10.1998 also indicates sale of land at the rate of Rs.277/- per square feet. Though this sale instance is subsequent to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the said Act, the value of the land has not increased. Even if this sale transaction is ignored from consideration, following the law as laid down in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra), the sale transaction at Exhibit 18 dated 27.04.1998 which is prior to issuance of the notification can be taken into consideration. It is thus found that the market rate of the land can be reasonably taken at Rs.275/- per square feet when the notification under Section 4 of the said Act came to be issued. As regards deduction for development charges, the facts in C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (supra) are somewhat similar to the case in hand. The acquisition therein was for widening of the national highway and Rs.25/- per square feet was deducted for development charges. It was observed that since the acquisition was only for widening of the highway there was no question of any development and therefore deduction on that count was not necessary. In the present case, acquisition is for construction of the bypass road. Considering the similarity of the facts, the deduction to the extent of 33% is therefore not warranted. That part of the award directing deduction of 33% is liable to be set aside. The point as framed is answered accordingly.
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:55:29 :::
X-OBJs 32/12 @ Connected XOBJs 10 Common Judgment
8. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the judgment of the Reference Court is partly modified. It is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.275/- per square feet with all statutory benefits. There would be no deduction of amount towards development charges. The cross-objections are allowed in aforesaid terms. The compensation be disbursed after requisite Court fees is paid by the claimants, if not already paid. The balance amount of compensation be deposited in this Court within a period of six months from today after which the claimants would be free to withdraw the same in terms of this judgment.
(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:55:29 :::