AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Shukre, J.—These appeals arising out of the judgment and decree dated 20th July, 1998 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 50/1991 by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The appellants in First Appeal No. 520/1998 are the claimants whose land bearing field survey No. 225/2 of Mouza Asra, Taluka Bhatkuli, District Amravati admeasuring 1.23 H.R. approximately equivalent to 3 acres was acquired by the respondents, who are the appellants in First Appeal No. 164/1999 for extension of village gavthan. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.2.1989. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 6,500/ - per acre and accordingly passed the award on 30.3.1991. Since the claimants felt that the compensation was insufficient and grossly disproportionate to the actual market value of the land, the award was challenged by making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Joint Civil Judge by her judgment and decree passed on 20.7.1998 found some substance in the contentions of the claimants and, therefore, enhanced the compensation by determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 20,000/ - per acre. The claimants were still not satisfied and wanted more. The result was filing of the present appeal by the claimants. On the other hand, the State of Maharashtra was also not satisfied with the judgment and decree impugned herein and therefore, the other appeal has been preferred by the State.
I have heard Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. P.V. Bhoyar, learned AGP for the State of Maharashtra. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and decree and record of the case. Now, the point that arises for my determination is :
Whether the market value of the acquired land determined by the reference Court is fair and reasonable ?
Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the claimants submits that determination of the market value of the land acquired by the reference Court is not in consonance with the evidence available on record. He submits that there have been several comparable sale instances brought on record by the claimants, but they were not considered appropriately by the reference Court and it arrived at a wrong conclusion that the market value of the land acquired was of only Rs. 20,000/ -, although it should have been determined to be at least at the rate of Rs. 6/ - per sq.ft.
Mr. Bhoyar, learned A.G.P. submits that the reference Court has granted more compensation than justified by the evidence available on record and allowing of the appeal filed by the claimants would only amount to granting undue benefit to the claimants. He submits that the reference Court has not considered the evidence available on record showing that the land in question was not useful for commercial purpose and, therefore, there was no possibility of its fetching any price which was more than Paise 70 or more per sq. ft. He submits that the market value of the land determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is based upon the proper consideration of relevant material and, therefore, there is no need for making any interference with the same. On these grounds, he urges that the appeal of the claimants deserves to be dismissed and appeal filed by the State needs to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the claimants and learned A.G.P. for the State both have taken me through the evidence available on record in support of their respective arguments. There are in all 18 sale instances which have been produced in evidence by the claimants. These sale instances are from Exhibit 30 to Exhibit 47. Out of these Exhibits, the sale instances from Exhibit 30 to 34 are of pre -notification sale transactions and the remaining are of post -notification transactions. Therefore, the pre -notification transactions would only have to be taken into account for determination of fair and reasonable market value of the land and the remaining, which are post -notification transactions would have to be ignored as not relevant.
The reference Court has found that all the relevant sale transactions relate to smaller pieces of land, which were as small as 165 sq.ft. to 568 sq.ft. and, therefore, were of no use for making any comparison with the land which was acquired, it being a land having much larger area, although the reference Court found that the acquired land had non -agricultural potential. In fact, there is no dispute about non -agricultural potential of the land acquired in this case. The dispute is only about market value of the acquired land. For determination of market value of the land as a legal principle, there can be no difference of opinion about sale instances of miniscule pieces of lands offering no useful comparisons. But for a piece of land, though having a smaller area, showing residential potential it can hardly be said that it is insignificant for ascertaining market value by comparison. There is one sale instance that stands out in this way from out of pre -notification sale instances. It is the sale instance at Exhibit 30 which appears to be of a comparable sale transaction, as the area of the land involved therein is of 1236 sq. ft. In the remaining pre -notification sale instances from Exhibit 31 to Exhibit 34 the area of the plots is so small, ranging from 165 sq.ft. to 568 sq. ft., as to make them suitable, not for residence, but only for commercial purposes thereby making their prices higher and hence not relevant for bigger lands which can be used for both residential and commercial purposes. The reference Court has also found that the area of all these plots is so small that they are not capable of being used for any residential purpose and possibly they could be used only for non -residential purpose such as setting up of shop and so on. I do not find any illegality in this reasoning of the reference Court. However, it appears that the reference Court has lost sight of the sale instance vide Exhibit 30, wherein piece of plot admeasuring 1236 sq ft. is involved. No one would doubt that any plot of this area can be used for residential purpose and, therefore, it ought to have been taken into account for comparing it with the land acquired in this case. I must add here that in this case the purpose of acquisition being of expansion of gavthan, the most ordinary non -agricultural use of the acquired land can be presumed to be at least for residential activity. Let us, therefore, turn to the index vide Exhibit 30.
The index vide Exhibit 30 shows that land admeasuring 1236 sq.ft was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 4,000/ -. This would show that the plot was sold at the rate Rs. 3.23 per sq. ft. The sale transaction was of 27.2.1987, before 15.2.1989, the date of Section 4 Notification issued in this case. This plot is undisputedly situated towards south eastern corner of village gavthan, whereas, the acquired land, without any dispute, is situated towards north western corner of village gavthan. It is also an undisputed fact that the plot involved in sale transaction vide Exhibit 30 falls in Survey No. 111, which is adjoining to village gavthan. This would mean that the acquired land was adjoining to village gavthan from north western side and the plot involved in sale transaction vide Exhibit 30 was adjoining village gavthan from south eastern side. Some of the lay outs, as seen from the sale instances, brought in evidence by the claimants, were sanctioned by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Amravati thereby indicating that the village was expanding not only towards the side where the land acquired was situated but also towards side where Survey No. 111 was situated. Such situation of Survey No. 111 would make the bigger plots laid out of it as comparable with the acquired land and relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land. Therefore, the sale instance vide Exhibit 30 showing the rate of Rs. 3.23 per sq. ft. is relevant and capable of being used for comparison for determining the market value of acquired land. It''s sale transaction is of 27.2.1987, two years prior to the date of Notification issued in this case. The rate of land disclosed by the sale transaction vide Exhibit 30 is of Rs. 3.23 per sq. ft. and since time of 2 years had elapsed after the sale transaction, 20% addition to the rate of 3.23 per sq. ft. would have to be made, which would increase the rate to Rs. 3.88 per sq. ft. This would be the rate at which market value of the land acquired in this case would have to be determined and accordingly it is taken as fair and reasonable price the acquired land in this case. It is the price which the acquired land would have fetched, if it were to be willingly sold to a willing buyer in the open market.
The market value of the land in question has been determined by this Court as above on the basis of a comparable sale instance involving a developed plot and, therefore, making of deductions from the total land acquired now would have to be considered. The position of law in this regard has been settled by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrashekar (D) by L.Rs. and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, . In this case, it has been held that whenever market value is determined on the basis of developed exemplar transaction, two components for calculating deductions should be taken into account and on each of the components maximum 33 1/3 % could be deducted thereby making maximum permissible deductions to be of 67%. The first component relates to setting apart some portion of the land for providing indispensable amenities like roads, pavements, sewers, drains, water tanks, water lines, electricity poles and so on. The second component relates to the expenditure or expenses likely to be incurred in providing and raising the infrastructure and civic amenities, including cost for preparing the land for residential or non -residential use.
In the instant case, the acquired land was a completely undeveloped land and if it was to be used for any non -agricultural purpose, the land would have been required to be developed in it''s entirety by reserving some portion of the land for roads, pavements and providing of basic infrastructural facilities. Some expenses would also have been required to be incurred for raising of basic civic amenities. Therefore, deductions on account of both the afore stated counts would be required to be made in this case and thus 67% area from out of the total area of the acquired land would have to be deducted or excluded from the application of rate of Rs. 3.88 per sq. ft., the market value of the land determined by this Court. This would mean that the rate of Rs. 3.88 per sq. ft. would have to be applied to 43124 sq. ft. of the area from out of the total area of 130680 sq. ft. (1 Acre '' 43560 sq.ft. X 3 '' 130680 sq.ft. - 87556 (67% of 3 acres) '' 43124), it being 33% of the total area of acquired land.
The learned Joint Civil Judge has committed an illegality in determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of paise 70 per sq. ft. as learned Civil Judge did not take into account the sale transaction vide Exhibit 30, although it was a relevant and comparable sale instance. The impugned judgment and decree, therefore, deserves to be modified to this extent by partly allowing the appeal No. 520/1998. It would also then follow that there is no substance in First Appeal No. 164/1999, which deserves to be dismissed. The Point is answered accordingly.
In the result, First Appeal No. 520/1998 is allowed and First Appeal No. 164/1999 is dismissed.
The impugned judgment and decree dated 20th July, 1998 are modified in terms that the market value of the acquired land shall be calculated at the rate of Rs. 3.88 per sq. ft. and shall be applied to area of 43124 sq. ft. being 33% area left after making deductions of 67% of the area from the total area of the land acquired.
12% per annum component, 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year and at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum for the period thereafter, as granted by the trial Court, shall be determined by taking into account the modified amount of compensation after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, by the claimants.
The parties to bear their own costs.