Chandrashekhar Vishambhar Deshmukh & Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

. Heard Mr. P. P. Kotwal, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. H. D. Futane, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

By the present Appeal, Appellants have challenged the Judgment and Award dated 21/1/2010 passed by the 3^rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha in LAC No. 530/2005.

In short, the submission of the Appellants is that they are owner of the field Survey No. 146 admeasuring 5.00 Hectares, out of which, 2.00 Hectares land has been acquired by the Respondents for the purpose of third Gaothan extension programme of village Dhamangaon. In the said land acquisition proceeding, meagre compensation of Rs.2,01,960/- has been awarded vide Award dated 13/2/2002 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Being dissatisfied with the meagre compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Appellants have preferred the reference in the matter. In the reference it is the submission of the present Appellants that the land in question is situated adjacent to the locality of village Dhamangaon and the purpose for which it is acquired by the Respondents clearly established the fact that land in question having non-agricultural potentiality, and being adjacent to the village, was acquired for extension of Gaothan. Accordingly, it is his submission that the land being acquired for residential purpose for extension of Gaothan, the valuation of his land should have done by considering its potentiality as non-agricultural land. Hence, on the basis of this submission, he has prayed before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of compensation of the land by applying the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. and thereby claimed compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-.

The Appellants, in support of their claim, have examined the Applicant No.2 – Sharadchandra Deshmukh. He has reiterated his submissions made in the application before the Reference Court and on that basis he has claimed the compensation in the matter. The Applicant No.2 was cross-examined by the Respondents but his statement remain unshaken to the effect that his land is having non-agricultural potentiality, and therefore, he should be awarded compensation as prayed in the matter.

In the background of abovesaid factual position, the learned Reference Court has decided the reference proceeding. The learned Reference Court, in the light of above submissions made by the parties, has taken the pains to reconsider the sale-purchase instances which were relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, and on the basis of highest value of the sale instance, has relied upon in the matter and thereby awarded compensation of Rs.90,000/- per hectare to the Appellants.

In the present Appeal, submission of the Appellants is that their land being acquired for Gaothan land, the learned Reference Court ought to have considered the potentiality of the land as like of non-agricultural land and on the basis of the same, should have been awarded higher compensation as claimed by them before the Reference Court. They have attempted to make reliance on the sale instances which are reproduced by the Reference Court in the impugned Judgment and stated that last sale instances, which was the part and parcel of the record shows that on 29/3/2000 the rate of agricultural land was Rs.95,890/- per hectare and the sale deed dated 26/6/2000 shows the rate of Rs.76,000/-. Hence, according to them, by considering the highest rate of sale instance which was available before the Land Acquisition Officer, the same should have been awarded to him in the matter.

The learned AGP has strongly opposed the present Appeal. According to the learned AGP, the learned Reference Court, by applying his judicial mind, has considered the best sale exemplar of having highest rate, and thereby compensation has been awarded. It is also pointed out that except examining the Applicant No.2 before the Reference Court, no other evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the submission that Appellants are entitled for the higher rate, and more particularly, at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. by considering the fact that the land is having non-agricultural potentiality. Hence, in absence of any such evidence, no such relief can be granted in the matter. The learned AGP further pointed out that admittedly Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the matter on 10/2/2000. He has also pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer has done survey of the land in the year 1999 and thereby villages got knowledge about the fact that the land acquisition proceedings are going to be initiated in the matter. Hence, according to him, the sale instances of 29/3/2000 and 26/6/2000 cannot be considered in the matter.

In the light of the submissions of both the parties one thing is required to be accepted in the present matter that the agricultural land of the Appellant was acquired for residential purpose and for extension of Gaothan. This fact itself demonstrates that the land in question was situated adjoining to the locality of village Dhamangaon, and therefore, the authorities have selected the land of the Appellants for extension of Gaothan. It is true to say that there were no sale instances showing the rate of non-agricultural land in the village. This may happen because in the village no land has been converted into the non-agricultural purpose, but fact remains that the land in question has been acquired for extension of Gaothan and for the residential purpose, and therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellants were incorrect in saying that they should be given compensation by considering non-agricultural potentiality of his land.

It is, however, pertinent to note that it is the duty of the Appellants to establish on record by bringing concrete evidence on record or at least examined any expert person, to establish correct rate of the land so that same will be helpful to the Reference Court or this Court to draw proper conclusion in the matter. In absence of any expert evidence on record, it is difficult to ascertain the rate, which was stated by the Appellants in their application under Section 18 of the Land Acquition Act and in the evidence of Applicant No.2. Therefore, in absence of such evidence, only on the basis of guesswork, amount is required to be determined for the acquired land, which was adjacent to the village and acquired for the extension of Gaothan.

In the present Appeal, admittedly, the land was acquired for the purpose of extension of Gaothan of village Dhamangaon. As such, in the acquisition proceeding the acquisition of Appellants’ land is only done. Hence, for specific purpose, specific land was acquired in the matter. Hence, in such cases purpose for which acquisition is being done, is an important factor. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard specifically observed in the case of Sanguthala (dead) through L.Rs. V/s Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others, 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 602, particularly in paragraph No.37 as under :

Hence, in my view by considering the purpose, the specific land of Appellants was compulsorily acquired, and therefore, the Appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare in the matter. In the result, I proceed to pass following order.