AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal filed by acquiring body VIDC against the impugned judgment of reference Court in LAC No. 660 of 2007, dated 28th September,
2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha.
Land of respondent No.1 bearing Survey No. 101 of village mouza Borgaon Hatla area 12.92 HR was acquired for Lower Wardha Project by the
appellant/VIDC. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 15th January, 1999. Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed award on 25th
February, 2003 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.37,500/Â per hectare. Being aggrieved by the said award, respondent No.1 filed LAC No.
660 of 2007. Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/Â per acre and directed the appellant to pay compensation of
Rs.1,12,42,000/Â for acquired land of 32.12 acres.
Heard Shri P.B. Patil with Ms. Amruta Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri J.P. Deshmukh with Shri A.R. Ingole,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri N.H. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out the evidence and sale deeds relied upon by respondent No.1 before the reference
Court. He has submitted that the sale deed dated 03rd January, 2008 is taken into consideration and wrongly granted compensation at the rate of
Rs.3,50,000/Â per acre. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out the decision in the case of Valliyammal and another .v. Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition) and another (reported in 2011(8) SCC, 91) and submitted that deduction is not taken into consideration. He has also submitted that
the post notification sale deed cannot be taken into consideration while determining the compensation. In support of his submission, he has pointed out
the decision in the case of Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others .v. State of Haryana and another (reported in 2018(2) SCC,
474). At last, learned Counsel has submitted that two sale deeds were filed on record by respondent No.1. Sale Deed dated 07th March, 1998 was not
taken into consideration by the reference Court and wrongly relied on the sale deed of the year 2008. Hence, in view of the judgment in the case of
Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others .v. State of Haryana and another (cited supra), the impugned judgment in the instant
appeal is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the land of respondent No.1 adjacent to the railway line, is acquired. The
village Bhaipur is adjacent village and, therefore, post notification sale is rightly considered by the reference Court. In support of his submission, he has
pointed the following judgments.
Sharadamma .v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another (reported in 2007 LAC 301 (SC));
Takhat Singh .v. State of Rajasthan and another (reported in 2011 LAC 33 (Raj));
Satish and others .v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (reported in 2009(14) SCC, 758);
Arawali Power Company Pvt. Ltd. .v. Joginder Singh Tokash and others (reported in 2018(1) All MR, 929 (SC));
The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. .v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another (reported in 2008(6) All MR, 491);
Land Acquisition Officer, PWD Cell, Altinho, Panaji, Goa and another .v. Kalidas Atmaram Savaikar (reported in 2018 (3) Mh.L.J., 769); and
Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar .v. State of Maharashtra (reorted in 2009 ALL SCR, 1335).
The land of village Borgaon Hatla which belongs to respondent No.1 is acquired vide notification dated 15th January, 1999. Nothing is placed on
record in respect of sale transaction of the village Borgaon Hatla. Respondent No.1 himself examined before the reference Court. He has not
examined any other witnesses. He has relied on two sale transactions (Exhs.21 and 22). He has stated in his evidence that his land is valued at the
rate of Rs.3,50,000/Â per acre in view of the sale deed of village Bhaipur (Exh.22).
Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that post sale transaction can be taken into consideration. In support of his
submission, he has pointed out the judgment in the case of The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. .v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai
Patel and another (cited supra). The facts in the said decision are very much different. It is observed that, “one of the fundamental principles of
valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very
acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt
in the prices. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future.†It is further
observed that, “the land acquired situated in one village and reliance on award passed in respect of land in adjacent village. There was close
proximity between two villages can be made basis for determining marked value in absence of comparative sale in village of acquisition.â€
Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that there was no sale transaction of village Borgaon Hatla from the year 1972
as in that area there was ban for sale and, therefore, market value of the adjacent village Bhaipur is rightly taken into consideration by the reference
Court.
It is pertinent to note that the notification under Section 4 was published on 15th January, 1999. The respondent No.1 relied on Exh.21 i.e. sale deed
in respect of land of village Pachegaon. One Dr. Ramesh Panditrao Kale purchased agricultural land admeasuring area 1.21 hectare (three acres) for
consideration of Rs.2,70,000/Â. This sale deed is dated 07th March, 1998. This sale consideration is before notification under Section 4(1) dated 15th
January, 1999. This sale deed is not taken into consideration by the reference Court and wrongly relied on sale deed (Exh.22) of village Bhaipur.
Respondent No.1 himself produced the map before the reference Court. The map filed by him does not show the location of village Bhaipur. On
the other hand, village Pachegaon is shown in the map which is adjacent to village Borgaon Hatla. Admittedly, the land of respondent No.1 situated at
Borgaon Hatla is acquired which is adjacent to village Pachegaon. Therefore, it was necessary for the reference Court to place reliance on the sale
deed of village Pachegaon (Exh.21). The post notification sale deed (Exh.22) of the year 1998 is taken into consideration. In view of the judgment in
the case of Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives .v. State of Hryana and another (cited supra), post notification sale deed cannot be
taken into consideration by the reference Court, based upon the market value of acquired land at the date of publication of notification under Section
4(1) in Gazette. In para 5 of the judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under Â
“5. So far as the first contention is concerned, the sale deed relied upon by the appellant claimants dated 27 12Â1988 is post notification. SubÂ‐
section (1) of Section 23 of the Act provides that the compensation to be awarded shall be determined by the reference Court, based upon the market
value of the acquired land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). In Kolkata Metropolitan Dev. Authority .v. Gobinda
Chandra Makal, it was held that the relevant date for determining the compensation is the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act in the Gazette.â€
In view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives .v. State of Hryana and another (cited
supra), sale deed (Exh.22) of the year 1998 is wrongly taken into consideration by the reference Court. The map (Exh.20) filed by respondent No.1
itself shows that the village Pachegaon is adjacent to village Borgaon Hatla. The location of village Bhaipur is not shown in the map (Exh.20). Even in
the cross examination, he has admitted that the village Bhaipur is at the distance of two and half kilometers. It was suggested that it is at the distance
of sixÂseven kilometers, but he has denied the same. Admission of respondent No.1 in his crossÂexamination shows that the village Bhaipur is not
near as compared to village Pachegaon. Therefore, sale transaction of the year 1998 i.e. post notification is wrongly considered by the reference
Court. Sale deed (Exh.21) of village Pachegaon shows that three acres land was purchased for consideration at Rs.2,70,000/Â i.e. Rs.2,25,000/Â per
hectare. Even the increase is taken into consideration then also respondent No.1 at the most entitle for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/Â per
hectare.
Other cited judgments by the side of respondent No.1 are on the point of NA potential value of the land. There is nothing on record to show that
the land of respondent No.1 is having any NA potential value. Hence, all those citations are not applicable to the case in hand.
In view of the judgment in the case of Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives .v. State of Hryana and another (cited supra), the
reference Court ought not to have taken into consideration post notification sale (Exh.22). Respondent No.1 himself has relied on the sale deed of the
year 1998 (Exh.21). The reference Court has not given any reasons as to why sale deed (Exh.21) is discarded. Sale deed (Exh.21) is in respect of the
sale before notification. Exh.21 sale deed shows that three acres land was purchased for consideration at Rs.2,70,000/Â. The value of per hectare
comes to Rs.2,25,000/Â. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 15th January, 1999 and Exh.21 sale deed is dated 07th March, 1998.
Therefore, increase is taken into consideration and respondent No.1 is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/Â per hectare. Hence,
impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award in LAC No. 660 of 2007, dated 28th September, 2012 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, in respect of granting compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/Â per acre is hereby quashed and set
aside. In stead of Rs.3,50,000/Â per acre, the appellant shall pay compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/Â per hectare. Remaining part of the
judgment is maintained as it is.