Shaikh Badruddin Shaikh Chand & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court at Aurangabad in L.A.R. No. 196 of 2002, dated 06.09.2004.

The agricultural land of the appellants bearing block No.121, admeasuring 0.31 Are at Phulambri, situated on Phulambri -Daregaon road, admeasuring came to be acquired for construction of highway.

Learned advocate for the appellants pointed out the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence of the appellants and submitted that the appellants’ land is adjacent to the highway, which was acquired for construction of Phulambri – Daregaon road, District Aurangabad. He further pointed out that block No.132 and 137 were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of widening of Highway. The sale exemplars of those lands were not relied upon by the Reference Court. Those properties are adjacent to the road and the acquired lands are also adjacent to road. However, the learned Reference Court did not accept the evidence of sale exemplars at Exh.11 and 12. He submitted that at the most, 1/3rd amount can be deducted, as those properties were non agricultural plots having small area. If some part of the property is required for development, the acquired lands of the claimant were to be developed. He submitted that the claimants’ property has commercial and NA potentiality, as it abuts to the Highway. He is relying upon the authority of Special Tehsildar Land Acqusition, Vishakapatnam Vs. A. Mangal Gowri (Smt), : (1991) 4 SCC 218, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 1 has observed as under:-

Learned advocate for the appellants further relied upon the judgment in the case of V. Subrahmanya Rao vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, : (2004) 10 SCC 640, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-“ The best evidence of market value would be the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property came to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. These are the relevant factors. If those are not available then the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land have to be taken into consideration. However, in this case the appellant claimant was not relying on those transactions.”

Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that in view of the judgment of Special Tehsildar Land Acqusition, Vishakapatnam Vs. A. Mangal Gowri (Smt) (supra) though the properties are sold by the claimants earlier, that evidence can be considered as the best piece of evidence. He submitted to allow the appeal by enhancing the amount of compensation.

Learned A.G.P. for the respondent State Government strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the evidence has been properly appreciated by the learned Reference Court. The sale exemplars at Exh.11 and 12 are not relevant. The reasons and findings are legal and correct. There is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and award. He submitted to dismiss the appeal.

Perused the record and proceedings, particularly the impugned judgment and evidence. The admitted facts are that the sale exemplars at Exh.11 and 12 are of the purchase of plots by the claimant. The learned Reference Court disbelieved those sale exemplars by holding that it can not be relied upon as it is executed by the claimant-appellant but it is settled that the such evidence cannot be discarded only because it is executed by the claimant as held in the case of V. Subrahmanya Rao vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer (supra). He sold those properties on 12.7.1999 and on 01.10.1999. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30.11.2000. The said sale exemplar Exh.12 is of 1999. The award was passed on 30.3.2000. The S.L.A.O. awarded Rs.1000 per Are. The claimants claimed Rs.1,20,000/- per Are. The learned Reference Court failed to consider the evidence of sale exemplar Exh.12 by holding that there was no such order passed by the Revenue authority for the use of land for non agricultural purpose. The claimants land is also non agricultural land and has N.A. potentiality as well as commercial potentiality.

On perusal of the sale exemplars at Exh. 11 and 12, it discloses that the sale instance at Exh.12 is of highest price i.e. for consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- for the area of 2000 sq.ft. The sale exemplar Exh.12 is of the year 1999 and the notification was issued on 30.11.2000. If 10% escalation per year in price is added, then it comes to Rs.121 per sq. ft. The claimants’ 31 Are land was acquired. Thus, the total area of acquired land is 1076 x 31 i.e. 33368 sq. ft.. If the 1/3rd area is deducted for development purpose out of the acquired land, then deductible area comes to 11122 sq.ft. If it is deducted from 33368 the balance comes to 22246 sq.ft. Thus, the total area for which the compensation is to be awarded is 22246 sq. ft. and if that is multiplied by Rs.121 sq. ft., then it comes to Rs.26,91,766/-. Thus, claimants are entitled to the compensation for Rs.26,91,766/- alongwith statutory benefits i.e. additional component, solatium, interest etc. as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

As far as rental compensation is concerned, learned Advocate for appellants relied upon the authority of Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 15 SCC 657, para no.20 reads as under:-

The ratio of above authority is applicable to the case in hand, as the facts of the case are similar as to the taking of possession of the properties of the claimants prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for rental compensation @ 9% p.a. from the date of possession till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the amount of Rs.26,91,766/- from the year 1982 to 2000. The learned Reference Court erred in not awarding rental compensation to the claimants as per the policy of the State Government.

In view of the above, the reasons and the findings in the impugned judgment and award are not legal and correct and it requires interference. The appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside. Hence, the following order:-