Bilquis vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5008 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.31761/2016)

BILQUIS ...Appellant

Versus

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

Leave granted.

2. The judgment dated 02.09.2014 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in First Appeal No. 83

of 1994 is called in question in this appeal. By the impugned

judgment, the High Court has reduced the compensation to

Rs.50,000/- per hectare for irrigated land and Rs.9,500/- per hectare

for dry land from Rs.1,62,500/- per hectare awarded (uniformly) by the

Reference Court. The High Court has also set aside the award of

compensation to the claimant at Rs.1200/- per orange tree. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.05.15 14:37:48 IST Reason:

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: 2

The land bearing survey no. 32 admeasuring 9 Hectares and 20

Ares of village Pimpri Mokhed, Taluka Karanja, District Akola,

Maharashtra was acquired for the purpose of construction of

‘Percolation Tank’ at village Pimpri Mokhad; notification under Section

4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)

was issued on 13.11.1986; declaration under Section 6 of the Act was

published on 11.04.1987; award was passed on 31.03.1988 by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer granting compensation at the rate of

Rs.9,500/- per hectare for the dry land and Rs.12,500/- for irrigated

land; the award amount was received by the claimant ‘under protest’,

and she thereafter filed a reference application under Section 18 of the

Act seeking enhanced compensation with all statutory benefits.

4. The claimant examined six witnesses and relied upon certain

relevant documents in support of her case before the Reference Court.

On behalf of the State, one witness was examined. The Reference

Court, on evaluation of the material on record and after hearing both

sides, enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.1,62,500/- per

hectare for the land, and Rs.1200/- per orange tree (325 orange trees)

totalling to Rs.3,90,000/-. The Reference Court also awarded a

compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards barbed fencing, babul trees and

underground pipe line etc., apart from other statutory benefits. On

appeal by the State, the High Court has reduced compensation to 3

Rs.50,000/- per hectare for irrigated land and Rs.9,500/- per hectare

for dry land. As mentioned supra, the compensation awarded by the

Reference Court in respect of orange trees and barbed fencing etc. was

also set aside by the High Court.

5. While reducing the compensation, the High Court has relied upon

another judgment of the High Court dated 14.08.2008 passed in First

Appeal No. 282 of 2000 and connected matters. There is nothing on

record to show that the said judgment was relating to the lands

acquired under the very notification dated 13.11.1986 under which the

land in question is acquired. The High Court, while discussing the

material on record to arrive at the conclusion based on a capitalisation

method, has overlooked the ample material on record. Though, the

High Court, while observing in paragraph 11 of its judgment that the

plantation of about 325 orange trees was done in the year 1981-1982,

as is apparent from Exhibit 27, as well as relying upon the report of

the Tahsildar, Exhibit 26, disclosing about 300 to 325 plants of

oranges, has strangely refused to grant compensation for orange trees

solely on the ground that these orange trees were not fruit bearing

trees. Except referring to the afore-mentioned factor, no other factor is

discussed by the High Court while coming to the conclusion on the

point of grant of compensation based on capitalisation method. 4

6. Exhibit 21 is the copy of the valuation report. Exhibit 23 is the

signed valuation report of the well situated in survey no. 32 and the

same was drawn by Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Karanja.

Exhibit 24 is the signed letter of Assistant Engineer addressed to the

Tahshildar, Karanja regarding crop panchanama. Exhibit 26 is the

copy of the crop panchanama of the land in question dated

19.10.1986. Exhibit 27 is the copy of the revenue extract of the land

bearing survey no. 32 for the years 1978-1979 to 1985-1986. All these

records were produced and marked through PW1-Ashok Vibhute.

7. The evidence of PW2-Harun Haji (son of the claimant) discloses

that cotton was being grown without affecting the orange plantation;

the claimant used to grow Chilli, Tur crop and Moong crop also at

different years; that there was barbed fencing around the whole land,

that there were about 325 orange trees in the said land and about 40

babul trees on the boundary. According to PW-2, the land in question

was an irrigated land, inasmuch as the land is fed with the water from

the well situated in the land for irrigation purposes. The well was

constructed with stones and cement and an electric 3HP motor was

installed on the well. According to PW-2, there was a perennial source

of water and the land was being irrigated for 12 months. According to

him, his family was getting a net income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum

from the agricultural crops; that the orange trees were 4 to 5 years old 5

and were fruit bearing at that point of time; that the income from

orange trees was Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. He has also deposed

about the population of the Karanja village and about the situation of

the land and the connectivity of the land through road. Nothing is

brought out in the cross-examination of PW-2 to discard his evidence.

Evidence of PW-3-Vimal Dongaokar also fully supports the evidence of

PWs 1 and 2 to the effect that there was a well and the same was used

for irrigating the land with the assistance of motor pump and pipe line.

He has also deposed about the barbed fencing abound the land and

about the situation of babul trees on the boundaries. PWs 4, 5 and 6

are the neighbouring land owners. All of them have also deposed

supporting the case of the claimant. Though these witnesses were

cross-examined in detail on behalf of the State Government, we do not

find any credible material so as to discard the evidence of these

witnesses.

8. The only witness examined on behalf of the State was a ‘Talathi’

(inferior revenue officer in the village). He has admitted that he has

not personally visited the land at survey no. 32, and that he has given

evidence about the assessment as per the record. He also admits that

the assessment was determined in the year 1927 and the same was

continuing so far. He has also clearly admitted that prior to 1988,

generally the people were executing sale deeds showing lesser price 6

than the market price to save stamp duty. He had not brought even

the revenue assessment record before the Court at the time of

deposing. In the light of such evidence adduced by the State and in

the light of the fact that no relevant records were produced by the

State, there is no reason as to why the evidence put forth on behalf of

the appellant which has almost remained unrebutted should be

ignored by the High Court.

9. There is ample material on record to show that the claimant’s

land is situated at a distance of five kilometers from Karanja town,

which is having about a population of 50,000 to 60,000, and is having

an Agriculture Produce market. Though the Special Land Acquisition

Officer has shown only 4 to 6 hectares as irrigated land, the

panchanama prepared by the Tahsildar clearly shows that the

claimant’s acquired land contained 8 hectares of irrigated land out of

total extent of about 9 hectares. Be that as it may, there cannot be any

doubt that a major portion of the land (i.e. about 85% to 90%) of the

claimant was irrigated land and the land was being fed with water

drawn from the well situated in that very land. Based on the record,

the Reference Court also found that the well was having a perennial

source of water, the same was being drawn with the electric motor

pump set, and the water was sufficient to irrigate the whole extent of

the claimant’s land. It is also borne out from the order of the 7

Reference Court that the underground pipe line is in four hectares of

land and the land was fully surrounded by barbed fencing. The

records of the acquisition including the panchanama by the authorities

at the time of taking possession clearly reveal that there were more

than 300-325 orange trees which were about 4 to 5 years old. The

documents also reveal the existence of babul trees on the boundary of

the land acquired. The price of babul trees is also found in the

valuation report. Though, the Reference Court has relied upon certain

sale statistics of lands, we find that all those sale statistics are

pertaining to the post acquisition period and hence we do not propose

to rely upon such sale statistics.

10. Though the High Court has clearly observed that there were more

than 300 orange trees which were about 4 to 5 years old, it has

strangely not awarded any compensation in respect of orange trees.

The High Court has also totally ignored the income from the crops

grown over the land.

11. It is not in dispute that generally, the orange trees would start

yielding fruits from the fifth year. Since the orange plants were about

4 to 5 years old, the Reference Court was justified in observing that the

orange trees had just then started yielding fruits to the claimant. Even

otherwise, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the trees were very

much ripe for yielding orange fruits. Therefore, in our considered 8

opinion, the Reference Court was justified in awarding compensation

in respect of the orange trees. The Reference Court on facts has

determined price of each orange tree at Rs.60 which will remain

undisturbed. However, in our considered opinion, the Reference Court

was not justified in adopting twenty years purchase as a multiplier

while qualifying the market value of each orange tree. Rather, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, it would have been proper had the

Reference Court used the ten years purchase as a multiplier. Thus, in

our considered opinion, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.600/- (60

x 10 = 600) per orange tree, instead of Rs.1200/-(60 x 20 = 1200)

awarded by the reference Court. Therefore, the total compensation in

respect of 325 orange trees would be Rs.1,95,000/- (600 x 325 =

1,95,000).

12. The High Court has ignored the higher revenue assessment of the

land of the claimant. The revenue assessment of the land of the

claimant is about Rs.30. As mentioned supra, the Special Land

Acquisition Officer has shown 4 to 6 hectares of the land in question

as irrigated land, but the panchanama, Exhibit 26 prepared by the

Tahsildar shows 8 hectares of the land of the claimant as irrigated

land. Thus, it is clear that as on the date of taking possession,

85%-90% of the acquired land was irrigated land. It is also clear from

the record that one well having perennial source of water and an 9

electric motor pump was installed for the same. The land acquired was

being used for growing varieties of crops in different years including

chilli crops and cotton. Since irrigation facilities were available to the

claimant for 12 months in a year, the Court may take notice of the fact

that there was sufficient agricultural income from the land in question.

Since the land in question is irrigated land having perennial source of

water for 12 months, the High Court, in our considered opinion, is not

justified in awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- per hectare for

irrigated land and Rs.9,500/- for dry land. In our considered opinion,

the Reference Court has assigned certain valid reasons for coming to

the conclusion. Totality of the facts lead us to the conclusion that the

claimant/appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- per

hectare of the land. She is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards barbed

fencing, babul trees, underground pipe line etc. Thus, in all, the

claimant/appellant is entitled to the following compensation:

a) the claimant/appellant shall be awarded Rs.1,50,000/- per

hectare of the acquired land; Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards

barbed fencing, babul trees, underground pipe line etc.; Rs.1,95,000/-

towards compensation for orange trees (600 x 325 = 195,000);

b) the claimant/appellant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits

including solatium and interest as per law.

10

13. The instant appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The

judgment of the High Court is set aside accordingly. No order as to

costs.

……………………………………….J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

…………………………………….….J. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

New Delhi;

May 11, 2018.

11

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.5 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31761/2016

BILQUIS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 11-05-2018 This petition was called on for Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Kunal Cheema, Adv. Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.

Ms. Nidhi, AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar pronounced the

non-reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice

Kurian Joseph and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)