Gajanan And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Gajanan and Others ...Appellants

Versus

State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High

Court whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents under Section 54 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') was partly allowed and

the amount of compensation determined by Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Aurangabad (hereinafter described as, `the Reference Court') was

substantially reduced.

2. The appellants' land comprised in Gat No. 85 measuring 6 acres

situated in Mhasekot village, Aurangabad district was acquired by the State

Government in 1982 for Hivra Medium Project. By an award dated

1.9.1986, the Special Land Acquisition Officer directed the respondents to

2

pay compensation amounting to Rs.36,00,385.50/- to the appellants under

the following heads:

1 True area of the land acquisition. 133.42 H.R.

2 The compensation of dry land Rs.13,36,440.00

3 Valuation of trees Rs.83,071.25

4 Valuation of wells Rs.2,00,811.00

5 a) Agril. Lands of S.No.85@ Rs. 9500/- H.R. 1-60 Rs.15,200.00

b) N.A. Land of S.No.85 O-80 @ Rs.20,000/- Rs.16,000.00

c) Building valuation Rs.3,67,100.00

d) Damaged & Shifting charges Rs.2,11,000.00

6 Total Compensation Rs.1,65,522.25

7 30% Solatium Rs.5,95,456.70

8 12% enhancement of compensation on market Rs.8,75,306.50

value w.e.f. notification u/s 4 9 Total Compensation of Amount Rs.36,00,385.50

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants

filed an application under Section 18 of Act and claimed that market value

of the acquired land is Rs.150 per square meter. They also claimed higher

compensation for the civil structure, machinery, electrical and mechanical

installations of the Khandsari factory which they had established on a

3

portion of the land. The respondents filed reply to contest the appellants'

claim for higher compensation and pleaded that the award made by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer was legally correct and justified.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Reference Court framed the

following issues:

"1. Whether the claimant proves that the valuation made by

L.A.O. is improper inadequate and not as per the market value?

2. Whether the claim petition is in limitation?

3. Whether the claimant proves that he accepted

compensation amount under protest? If not, what is its effect?

4. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional amount of

compensation claimed?

5. What order?"

5. After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced

by them, the Reference Court passed order dated 24.4.1996 and determined

the amount of compensation as under:-

(i) Market value of the acquired land (total measuring) at the

rate of Rs.6/- per square feet.

4

(ii) Rs.3,86,867/- towards demolition and dismantling of

electrical, mechanical and other installations.

(iii) Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of earning for the period from

1981 to 1986.

(iv) Rs.91,000/- towards damages and dismantling charges.

(v) Rs.15,000/- towards transportation charges.

The Reference Court also declared that the appellants are entitled to

solatium, interest etc.

6. The Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeal

preferred by the respondents, set aside the determination of market value made

by the Reference Court and restored the one made by the Special Land

Acquisition Collector. The High Court also quashed the compensation awarded

by the Reference Court towards demolition and dismantling charges, damages

to the structure and machinery of the factory and transportation charges. As

regards the loss of earning, the High Court held that the appellants are entitled

to Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of earning for one year instead of Rs.5,00,000/-.

5 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the

record. It is borne out from the record that out of the total acquired land, the

appellants had utilised 0.80 hectares in 1976 for establishing Khandsari factory.

As a sequel to initiation of the acquisition proceedings, the appellants had to

close the factory. The Reference Court referred to the statement of PW-2

Mukund Dharashivkar, a consulting engineer-cum-approved valuer and held

that while the appellants had been able to prove that as a result of the

acquisition of land, they had to close the Khandsari factory and suffered huge

financial loss, the State did not adduce any evidence on the issue of loss of

business and damage to the structure, machinery and electric and mechanical

installation and that the statement made by DW-1 Nilkanth Tukaram Bhosale

was not at all relevant. The discussion on this issue is contained in paragraphs

19 to 41 of the order of the Reference Court.

8. The Reference Court then referred to the sale instance Exhibit 23 by

which land measuring 30' x 32' feet was sold in 1976 for a sum of Rs.3,000/-

and another sale instance Exhibit 35 by which 5023 square feet land was sold in

1982 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- and observed:

"46. The certified copy of sale instance produced at Exh.23 is

in respect of mauza Gondegaon which is of the year, 1976 and

does have evidentiary value which was in respect of land

6

admeasuring 32'x30' for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-. It is

contended that the price of gut No.85 is decided on the basis of

agricultural land in respect of 80 R which was used for

construction of Khandsari sugar mill in respect of which

Petitioner obtained nonagricultural permission from the

concerned authority. The remaining portion of 1 Hector 60 R

with also used as nonagricultural land. As per valuation of PW-

2 Dharashivkar, 5 to 6 acres of land is required for Khandsari

Sugar mill in order to store fuels, sugarcane and other allied

purposes. This fact also has been admitted on behalf of the

State, hence, there is no manner of doubt that 1 Hector 60 R of

land would also fetched more value at the rate of N.A.

assessment. But the learned S.L.A.O. has given the price on the

basis of agricultural land in respect of sale in view of the fact

that no actual permission was obtained by the Petitioner, in

respect of 1 Hector 60 R of land which as per the learned

Counsel for the Petitioner should have been considered

nonagricultural land because of its long use and not taking of

crops on the said field.

47. The Petitioner in order to prove the price of

nonagricultural open plot, placed reliance of the sale deed

Exh.35 in which 5023 square feet of land was sold at

Rs.35,000/- in year, 1982 in respect of land situated at Jargaon

which is at a distance of 2 km. from Mhasekote. However

nothing was but the Petitioner in his cross examination

regarding the non-consideration of this land for the purpose of

determining the valuation or compensation. Thus, the entire gut

No.85 having be used by the Petitioner for the production of

sugar and its allied purposes, the entire land was utilized for

nonagricultural purpose.

48. There is nothing on the record to show that the rest of the

land of 1 Hector 60 R was used for agricultural purpose. This

fact appears to have been not considered by the S.L.A.O.

Moreover, the factory was situated on State Highway going

from Pachora to Sillod and Railway Station of Pachora is at a

distance of just 11 kms. from the factory. Hence looking into

7

its use and situation of the factory on the suit alongwith other

vital factors, the S.L.A.O. was duty bound to consider the value

of the suit land in respect of its nonagricultural use.

51. Thus, if gut No.85 admeasuring 2 Hectors 40 R i.e., 6

acres if converted into gunthas, it comes to 240 gunthas. One

guntha come to 1089 square feet. If this 1089 square feet is

multiplied by 240 gunthas, then it comes to 2,61,360 square feet

and by deducting 10% of the land from the above area, it comes

to 2352224 square feet. Thus, the value at the rate of Rs.6/- per

square feet for 235224 square feet comes to Rs.14,11,344/-.

52. In the instant case, the notification appears to be of the

year, 1981 and the award came to be passed in the year, 1986.

Thus, after six years from the passing of the notification, the

award was passed. The land of 960 square feet of village

Gondegaon as per Exh.23 was sold at Rs.3000/-. Thus, the rate

was nearly between Rs.3 to 4 per square feet. Taking this rate

into consideration from Rs.3/- per square feet, the rate of Rs.6/-

per square feet in the instant case would not be exhorbitant in

light of the submissions made in that behalf accompanied by

the report of the valuer Exh.21 as laid down in 1993 BCJ page

27 even though no formal permission for N.A. purpose was

granted by the concerned authority."

9. On the issue of valuation of the structure of the factory, plant and

machinery and loss of business, the Reference Court observed:

"55. During the course of cross-examination of Mr. Gulwe, it

admitted by him that the valuation which has been shown to

him in respect of electrical and mechanical establishments were

taken into consideration by him in the valuation report given by

the Petitioner himself to the Government approved valuer. It is

further admitted by him that dismantling charges were granted

by him on the valuation report of Mr. Dharashivkar. It is further

admitted by him that the executive engineer had come

8

alongwith him on the site for inspection. The entire report was

based on the valuation given by the Petitioner but he had not

specifically given the valuation of the machinery on the

premises of the factory. It is further admitted by him that the

valuation of the machinery cannot be given by the State but the

valuation of dismantling charges is sustainable. It is further

admitted by him that he had only given the valuation in respect

of civil and no valuation in respect of electrical and mechanical

was done.

56. The valuation certificate given by PW-2 Dharashivkar is

placed at Exh.21. Thus, it appears from the record that as per

the project report that was initially prepared in the year, 1976

the cost of factory installation was given at Rs.6,98,677/- and as

per the award it has been given Rs.5,78,100/-. The plaintiff-

Petitioner has claimed Rs.91,000/-towards dismantling costs

and damages and Rs.15000/- towards transportation and

loading and unloading. Even though the costs of Rs.6,98,677/-

was initially claimed in the project report, the project report is

dated 1974-75. Thus, by the time the award was pronounced,

there would have been depreciation of 10% in the valuation of

the machineries. Thus, the value record by the S.L.A.O.

regarding these machineries to the tune of Rs.5,78,100/- which

has also been admitted by the executive engineer needs to be

accepted as there was no vital dispute on this point. As a matter

of fact, whatever entire claim made by the Petitioner on the

basis of purchase made by him does not sustain in law, the

same was properly assessed by the State as per project report

but it only mentions about the building valuation and damages

and shifting charges, but does not mention about the demolition

and dismantling charges in respect of electrical mechanical and

machinery installation which comes to Rs.1,29,267/-,

1,25,300/- and 1,32,300/-respectively. Thus, cumulatively, the

Petitioner is entitled to get Rs.3,86,867/-.

57. As regards the loss in business sustained by the Petitioner

due to acquisition by the respondent has been requisitioned at

Rs.2 lacs per year as net income for a period of 20 to 25 years.

As per the expert, who is a Government approved valuer,

evidence PW-2 Dharashivkar whose evidence has not been

9

completely shattered on the point of valuation of the factory,

and so also as regards the valuation of structure and machinery,

so also the valuation of executive engineer DW-3 Gulwe to

some extent admitted the report given by Dahrashivkar. Hence

in order to support the factum that the evidence given by the

assessor and valuer as per Exh.21 needs to be taken into

consideration."

10. The Division Bench of the High Court did not make an in-depth

evaluation of the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties and

rejected two sale instances by making a cryptic observation that the lands

were situated at considerable distance. While doing so, the High Court

ignored the law laid down by this Court in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai v.

Executive Engineer, Gujarat (2001) 9 SCC 584, the relevant portions of

which are extracted below:

"So far as the other question of distance between the two

classes of lands is concerned, that by itself cannot derogate the

claim of the claimant unless there are some such other materials

to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior.

However, distance between the land under Ext. 16 and the

present land, even if they are 5 km apart, would not be relevant,

the relevancy could be, their distances from Viramgam town.

We find, as per the map produced by the State, the present

acquired land is about 3 km away from it, while the land under

Ext. 16 is about 2 km away from it. This difference is not such

as to lead to reduce the rate of compensation, specially on the

facts of this case. In the present case, as we have recorded

above, it has been found that the quality including potentiality

of land between Ext. 16 and the present one are similar. No

evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find any

10

difference between the two. In view of this, the inference drawn

by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs 10 per

sq m cannot be sustained."

Indeed, the respondents had not adduced any other evidence which

could be relied upon by the Reference Court for approving the determination

of market value made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

11. We are further of the view that the judgment of the High Court runs

contrary to the law laid down by this Court in recent judgments including

Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789, Atma Singh v.

State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568, Subh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444

and A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707. In Viluben

Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court laid down the

following principles for determination of market value of the acquired land:

"Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be

considered in determining the compensation; the principal

among which is the determination of the market value of the

land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-

section (1) of Section 4.

One of the principles for determination of the amount of

compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness

of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond

any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and

informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases

11

where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property

and in the cases where he is not.

Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in

the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the

special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material

is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands

in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under

Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other

evidences have to be considered.

The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with

mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be

identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as

well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the

market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment

has to be made having regard to various positive and negative

factors vis-`-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two

in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:

Positive factors Negative factors

(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area

(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a

distance from the road

(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with

very small frontage compared

to depth

(iv) nearness to developed (iv) lower level requiring the

area depressed portion to be filled

up

(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed

locality

(vi) level vis-`-vis land (vi) some special

under acquisition disadvantageous factors which

would deter a purchaser

(vii) special value for an

owner of an adjoining

property to whom it may

12

have some very special

advantage

Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a

large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout

plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out

smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an

entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between

20% and 50% of the total price."

12. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), the Court held:

"In order to determine the compensation which the tenure-

holders are entitled to get for their land which has been

acquired, the main question to be considered is what is the

market value of the land. Section 23(1) of the Act lays down

what the court has to take into consideration while Section 24

lays down what the court shall not take into consideration and

have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the

court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The

expression "market value" has been the subject-matter of

consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value

is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing

seller for the property having due regard to its existing

condition with all its existing advantages and its potential

possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner

excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for

which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering

market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land

and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be

disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of

hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a

purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as

a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an anxious

dealing at arm's length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale

brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the

market value. The determination of market value is the

13

prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of

hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities."

13. Another error committed by the High Court is that while reducing the

amount of compensation, it did not keep in view the rules evolved by this

Court for giving benefit of escalation in land prices to the landowners and

making appropriate deduction towards development cost whenever it is

pleaded by the acquiring authority or the beneficiary that it will have to

spend substantial amount for making the land useful for the purpose for

which it is acquired. Yet another error committed by the High Court is that

it did not assign any cogent reasons for reducing the amount of

compensation in lieu of the loss of business and in lieu of the damage to

structure, plant and machinery etc.

14. In the premise aforesaid, we feel that ends of justice will be served by

remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal filed

by the respondents.

15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside

and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal

14

filed by the respondents. It is needless to say that while deciding the appeal

afresh, the High Court will take into consideration the law laid down by this

Court in recent judgments including those referred to hereinabove.

.........................................................J.

(G.S. SINGHVI)

.........................................................J.

(K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN)

New Delhi,

April 20, 2011.