The State Of Maharashtra vs Ambalal Bholabhai Javeri & Ors.

The State has preferred an appeal challenging the enhancement done by the Reference Court in LAR No. 39 of 86 on 18.04.1990. The said Appeal No. 163 of 1993 was disposed. However, by way of present Cross Objection, the original Claimants have sought for further enhancement.

In Land Acquisition No. 39 of 86, by the said judgment Reference Court has enhanced the rate from Rs. 1.50/- per sq. mtr. to Rs. 8.00/- per sq. mtr. The State has challenged the said enhancement by way of Appeal No. 163 of 1991. The said appeal is already dismissed on 08.02.2002. By way of this Cross objection, the original claimants are praying that the rate enhanced by the Reference Court is insufficient and that is how, they are praying for enhancement of the compensation.

The relevant facts for deciding the Cross objection are as follows:-

That is how the Reference Court has enhanced the rate in a present reference to Rs. 8 per sq. mtr.. The reason given by the Reference Court is the location of a land bearing Gat No. 149 is land locked not having access, whereas Gat No. 53 in the present reference is land which is abutting Thane Belapur Road and that is why enhanced the rate.

The Claimants in support of their enhancement is relying upon the rate fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sabhia Mohanned Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) by legal representatives v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others in Civil Appeal No. 3590 of 2012, dated 02.07.2012. In that matter, the lands are situated at village Roadpali Taluka Panvel, District Raigad and the date of a Notification under Section 4 was 03.02.1970 and the date of declaration under Section 6 was 24.08.1982. The rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtrs. was confirmed. The Claimants contend that the principles of de-escalation can be made applicable. Accordingly, he has filed the written notes of arguments and requested this Court to deescalate the prices at 10% and accordingly, enhanced the rate in the present matter.

It is opposed by learned AGP for the reason, the facts are different and in fact he relied upon the observations by learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 1605 of 2016. In judgment delivered by this Court in case of Bhagwatiprasad Rambhai Patel and Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra in First Appeal No. 1605 of 2016 decided on 18.03.2025. In that case, Section 4 Notification was issued on 20.09.1965 and the enhanced rate from Rs. 3 to Rs. 6 per sq. mtr. was challenged by the Claimants being in excessive and they have prayed for rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. The rate granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was Rs. 3/- per sq. meter and it was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs. 6/- per sq. meter. Whereas by way of First Appeal they have asked for enhancement to Rs. 15/- per sq. meter.. This Court after considering various circumstances has declined to enhance the rate. According to learned AGP, the facts of that case are similar to facts involved in this appeal.

This Court has not accepted the case of enhancement and dismissed the First Appeal. Whereas according to learned advocate for the Claimants, the facts of that appeal are different.

The only circumstance on which the Appellants are relying is the decision given by Supreme Court in case of Sabhia Mohanned Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) by legal representatives v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others in Civil Appeal No. 3590 of 2012, dated 02.07.2012. The lands which were acquired were situated at Roadpali Village of Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 03.02.1970, whereas declaration under Section 6 was issued on 24.08.1972. The award was declared. Whereas the lands situated in a present appeal are at Village Airoli, Taluka and District Thane. After the award by Special Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners have not preferred an appeal but after some time they have applied for redetermination of the compensation as per the provisions of Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. After several proceedings the matter went to Supreme Court at the instance of land owners. The Supreme Court after considering the relevant factors has enhanced the rate to Rs. 25/- per sq. meter and it was the same rate which was granted by the Reference Court. The submission of the Appellants is the notification in that reference is more or less similar in time and according to him by applying the principle of deescalation, this Court can reduce the rate. There are also other judgments relied upon by the Appellants.

Admittedly, the notification issued in the case of Sabhia Mohanned Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) by legal representatives (supra) was on 03.02.1970, that is after the notification was issued in the present appeal. Whereas Section 6 notification was issued on 24.08.1972. According to learned Advocate for the Appellants, the village Roadpali and village Airoli are situated in the same belt and hence the principle of de-escalation can be applied. According to him, even though the notifications were issued subsequently, still the Court can fix the rate in a present appeal by reducing the rate which was granted by the Supreme Court.

Whereas according to learned AGP, the facts of that case are different. There cannot be any dispute about application of principle of de-escalation.

In case of Ram Kishan (since deceased) Through His Legal heirs etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others^{11.2025 8 SCC 431}, observed in para no. 33, clause ‘g’ as under :-

Whereas in case of Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Ors. Vs. Government of Karnataka and Ors.,^{22.2025 INSC 3}, it is observed only in exceptional circumstances, the High Court and Supreme Court can extend the relevant date for determining the market value, when the acquisition proceedings for some reason are required to be quashed and when the compensation is paid with delay, otherwise the market value has to be determined on the date of notification itself. The principles laid down therein is not applicable to the facts of this case, because this cannot be said to be an exceptional circumstance.

It is no doubt true in case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and Ors.,^{33.2024 INSC 435}, the Supreme Court has laid down seven principles and one of them is right of fair compensation. This right is sine qua non for any acquisition process. There cannot be any dispute about this preposition, but the landowners have to justify that they can be granted enhanced rate.

Whereas in case of State of Goa Vs. Agnelo Jose Augusto Pinto^{44.2006 2 AllMR 577}, post notification instances is considered as one of the factor for determining the compensation provided, they should be proximate genuine and acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of resultant improvement in development prospects. In this case, post notification instances are not private sale, but the enhanced rate granted by the Supreme Court.

Now the issue is “on the basis of the observations and the rate enhanced by the Supreme Court in case of Sabhia Mohanned Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) by legal representatives (supra), whether the Appellants can be granted a rate higher than Rs. 8 per sq. mtr.”.

It is true the acquired land is situated on western side of Thane Belapur Road and it is acquired by MIDC for the purpose of residential development and construction of residential houses. It is true there are various industries situated in front of the land, namely Richardson Hindustan Limited, NOCIL and Corn Products Co. on Eastern side. The Reference Court while enhancing the rate to Rs. 8/- considered the enhanced rate by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 45 of 85 in land situated at village Airoli only. The Reference Court has applied the principles of escalation. Land bearing Gat No. 149 is land locked whereas Gat No. 153 is abutting Thane Belapur Road and hence rate is enhanced.

I am not inclined to grant benefit of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. as observed by the Supreme Court in case of Sabhia Mohanned Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) by legal representatives (supra). It is for the reason the dates of notification are different and location of land is also different. In that case, the land situated in Panvel Taluka, whereas in the present matter, the land is situated in Thane Taluka.

At the same time, I am not inclined to accept submission of learned AGP about the dismissal of the First Appeal No. 1605 of 2016 and its effect on present matter. In that case, the date of notification was 20.09.1965 and the rate of Rs. 3/- was enhanced to Rs. 6/-. This Court refused to enhance it to Rs. 15/-. In this case, the date of notification is 13.09.1965.

There is google map produced showing location. It is objected by learned AGP. I agree. It is true neither Claimants nor State, any sale instance of contemporary period is relied upon. It is true rate fixed in earlier matters or subsequent matters can be considered provided there is connection by proximity of time and proximity of location. Even Court can apply principle of escalation and de-escalation. Even I could have applied principle of de-escalation in this case. But I have not applied because village Roadpali and village Airoli are from different Talukas. In an appeal we cannot apply principles of de-escalation unless there is some similarity.

Unfortunately, it is not there. Ultimately, determination of market rate is always guess work particularly when no sale instances are not there. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah tries his level best to convince me but for want of connecting materials, I could not accept his arguments. Hence, I have no alternative but dismiss the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed. No order to costs.