Namdeo Shankar Govardhane (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10217­10250 OF 2011

Namdeo Shankar Govardhane(D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. etc.etc. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10305­10308 OF 2011

AND

CIVIL APPEAL No.10309 OF 2011

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and orders passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay dated 11.10.2007 in First

Signature Not Verified Appeal Nos.2673, 2678­2695, 2697­2708, 2710­2712 Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.07.17 17:23:22 IST Reason: 1 and 2674­2677 of 2006 and order dated 23.08.2007 in

First Appeal No.1241 of 2007.

2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of these appeals, which involve a short

question.

3. The appellants are the landowners (claimants)

whereas the respondents are the State of Maharashtra

and its authorities in the proceedings before the Trial

Court out of which these appeals arise.

4. In exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Act”), the State of Maharashtra issued a notification on

03.03.1994 for acquiring land measuring 26,554.39

hectares situated in village Sanjegaon, Taluka Igatpuri

District Nasik (MH). The purpose of acquisition of the

land in question was construction of Mukane Dam.

This was followed by issuance of declaration under

Section 6 of the Act on 17.06.1994. The appellants’

2 land in question was also acquired in the acquisition

proceedings.

5. This led to initiation of proceedings by the Land

Acquisition Officer (LAO) under Section 11 of the Act

for determination of compensation payable to the

appellants along with other landowners whose lands

were also acquired in the acquisition proceedings.

6. By award dated 14.07.1995, the LAO offered

compensation to the landowners by classifying the

land in three categories, namely, Jirayat land, Bagayat

Land and Pot Kharab land at the rates mentioned

below:

Jirayat land Rs.40,000/­ to Rs.1,11,000/­ per hectare Bagayat land 1.5 times the rate of Jirayat land Pot Kharab land Rs.200/­ per hectare

7. The landowners (appellants herein) felt aggrieved

by the award made by the LAO and accordingly sought

reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil

Court. By award dated 24.03.2006, the Civil Court

3 partly enhanced the rate of compensation in

appellants’ favour as under:

Jirayat land Rs.1,69,231/­ per hectare Bagayat land Rs.2,11,539/­ per hectare Pot Kharab land Rs. 84,616 per hectare

8. The State felt aggrieved by the award of the Civil

Court and filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act

before the Bombay High Court. So far as the

landowners are concerned, they did not file any cross

objection to claim further enhancement in the rate of

compensation determined by the Civil Court except

complaining of wrongly making the classification of

their land by the Civil Court.

9. So, the question before the High Court was

whether the Civil Court was justified in partly

enhancing the rate of compensation mentioned above.

The case of the State in their appeals was that the

Civil Court was not justified in enhancing the rate of

compensation and whatever the Reference Court had

4 determined, the same should be upheld as being just

and reasonable compensation awarded to the

landowners (appellants herein).

10. By impugned order, the Division Bench of the

High Court partly allowed the State's appeals and

accordingly reduced the rate of compensation . The rate

of compensation awarded by all the Courts are as under:

For Jirayat Land For Bagayat Land For Pot Kharab Land Land From 1.5 times the Rs.200/­ per Acquisition Rs.40,000/­ to rate of Jirayat hectare Officer Rs.1,11,000/­ land per hectare per hectare Reference @ Rs.1,69,231/­ @ Rs,2,11,539/­ @ Rs.84,616/­ Court per hectare per hectare per hectare High Court @ Rs.1,26,924/­ @ Rs.1,58,655/­ @ Rs.1,07,886/­ per hectare per hectare per hectare

11. Some landowners (appellants herein) felt

aggrieved by the order of the High Court and have filed

these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.

12. So, the question, which arises for consideration

in these appeals, is whether the High Court was

justified in partly allowing the State’s appeals and

thereby was justified in reducing the rate of

5 compensation as against what was determined by the

Civil Court.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants (landowners)

has essentially confined his submission to the rate

determined by the High Court in relation to Jirayat

land and Bagayat land. In other words, the appellants

are aggrieved only by the rates of Jirayat and Bagayat

lands.

15. According to the learned counsel, the rates

determined by the Civil Court (Reference Court) in

relation to Jirayat and Bagayat lands were just and

proper, therefore, it should not have been interfered

with by the High Court. It was his submission that

keeping in view the exemplars relied on by the

landowners and, particularly (Ex­P­42), the rate

mentioned therein should have been applied for

determining the market value of the acquired land.

6

16. It was urged that the principle that price of small

piece of land cannot be applied for determining the

price of large chunk of acquired land may be good in

relation to those cases where the acquired land is non­

agricultural and is situated in urban areas but where

the land is an agricultural land such as the one in the

present case, the rate of small piece of land can be

taken into consideration while determining the large

chunk of land.

17. It was pointed out that since the land in

question was an agricultural land, the market value of

the acquired land could be determined keeping in view

the price of the land purchased under exemplar (Ex­P­

42) even though it was for a small piece of land.

18. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent

(State) supported the well reasoned order of the High

Court and prayed for dismissal of these appeals.

7

19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no

merit in these appeals.

20. In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion

arrived at by the High Court, which resulted in partly

allowing the State’s appeals and thereby reducing the

rate of compensation to some extent is just and proper

and hence does not call for any interference. This we

say for the following reasons.

21. We find that the High Court rightly appreciated

the evidence and especially the 3 sale deeds filed by

the State and 3 sale deeds filed by the landowners for

determining the market value of the acquired land. It

is apposite to set out the details of the six sale deeds

hereinbelow:

Three sale deeds produced by the State

Date of Sale Exh. Village Area Rate per deed hectare 28.02.1992 140 Sanjegaon 0.45 Ares Rs.40,000/­ Gat No.777 Paddy/grass

8 land 14.02.1994 141 Sanjegaon 1.50 Rs.32,666/­ Gat No.941 Hectare 17.07.1991 142 Sanjegaon 85 Ares Rs.15,882/­ Gat No.971/1 Jirayat land

Three sale deeds produced by the landowners

Date of Sale Exh. Village Area Rate per deed hectare 04.07.1989 42 Sanjegaon 13 Ares Rs.1,15,385/­ Gat No.810 Jirayat land 30.05.1990 124 Sanjegaon 4.8 Ares Rs.1,35,417/­ Gat No.516 Jirayat Land 31.01.1995 129 Mukane 60 Ares Rs.2,12,500/­ Gat No.447 A

22. Learned counsel for the appellants, in his

submissions, placed heavy reliance on the sale deed

(EX­ 42) dated 04.07.1989 and contended that the

market value of the suit land should have been

determined keeping in view the price of the land

mentioned in this sale deed.

23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent (State) placed reliance on the sale deed

9 dated 14.02.1994 (EX­141) and contended that if the

price mentioned in this sale deed is relied on then it is

amply clear that the High Court has awarded the

compensation on higher side and, therefore, it

deserves to be rather reduced.

24. In our opinion, the relevant sale deed to

determine the market value of the suit land is (EX­

141), which is dated 14.02.1994. This we say for two

reasons. First, it is very near to the date of acquisition

(03.03.1994); and Second, it is for a larger chunk of

land. As a matter of fact, if we only rely upon Ex­141

then perhaps the determination made by the High

Court in relation to two kinds of land can still be

reduced.

25. Since the State has not filed any appeal against

the order of the High Court and on the other hand has

accepted the determination made by the High Court,

we need not examine the question of reducing the rate

1 determined by the High Court in these appeals. It is

not legally permissible.

26. Having examined the issue, we cannot place

exclusive reliance on Ex­P­42 as was urged by the

learned counsel for the appellants neither for restoring

the rates determined by the Civil Court and nor for

making any further enhancement in the rates

determined by the High Court.

27. As a matter of fact, we find that Ex­P­42 is of the

year 1989 and that too of a very small piece of land. It

would not, therefore, be safe to place exclusive reliance

on this sale deed. It is more so when we find that Ex­

141 relied on by the learned counsel for the

respondent (State) was executed just one month prior

to the date of acquisition and is also of a large chunk

of land situated in the same village.

28. We are also not impressed by the submission of

learned counsel when he contended that since the

1 land in question is an agricultural land and, therefore,

price of small piece of land can be taken into

consideration for determining the large chunk of land.

We cannot accept this submission in the light of what

we have held above on facts.

29. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, rightly

took into consideration all the six sale deeds and then

on appreciation of entire evidence rightly came to a

conclusion that the rates determined by the Civil

Court in relation to Jirayat and Bagayat lands

appeared to be on higher side and hence need to be

reduced. Accordingly, the rate of Jirayat land was

reduced from Rs.1,69,231/­ per hectare to Rs.

1,26,924/­ per hectare and the rate of Bagayat land

was reduced from Rs.2,11,539/­ per hectare to

Rs.1,58,655/­ per hectare by the High Court. The

marginal reduction of the rates in two types of land,

1 which is based on cogent reasoning of the High Court,

cannot, therefore, be faulted with.

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no

merit in these appeals. The appeals are accordingly

dismissed.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

…...……..................................J. [INDU MALHOTRA]

New Delhi;

July 17, 2019

1