Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 910 OF 2015
1. Mr. Sitaram Ganu Huddar )
Age 54 years, )
2. Balaram Sudam Huddar )
Age 42 years, )
3. Vetu Maruti Huddar )
Age 80 years, )
4. Swati Bhanudas Patil )
Age 32 years, )
Residing at Otura, Taluka-Pen, )
District-Raigad. )
5. Gangubai alias Laxmibai Sudam Huddar )
Age 70 years, )
6. Ramesh Balkrushna Huddar )
Age 40 years, )
7. Harishchandra Balkrushna Huddar )
Age 34 years, )
8. Vilas Balkrushna Huddar )
Age 35 years, )
Sr.Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 )
Residing at Karanjade, Taluka-Panvel, )
District-Raigad. )
9. Shaila Balkrushna Huddar )
Age 30 years, )
Residing at Chirle, Taluka – Uran, )
District – Raigad. )
10.Sulochana Shankar Mhatre, )
Age 45 years, )
Residing at Vayala, Post – Rasayani, )
Taluka – Khalapur, District – Raigad. ) … Appellants
(Original Claimants)
DHURI
Through the Special Land )
Acquisition Officer, )
Metro Centre No.3, New Panvel, )
Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. )
2. The District Collector, )
Raigad-Alibag. ) … Respondents
(Original Opponents)
………...
Ms. Deepa Punde instructed by Mr. Sachin Punde, Advocate for the
Appellants.
Mr. Yogesh Dabke, AGP for the Respondent-State.
………...
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This First Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the “Act”) challenges Judgment and Award dated 25th August 2009 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, District – Raigad in Land Acquisition Reference No.60 of 2008.
2. When the matter is called out, Ms. Punde, learned Counsel appears for the Appellants and submits that in an almost identical fact situation except to the difference of the survey number and the measurement of the said land that has been acquired, this Court (Coram: Rajesh Patil, J.) in First Appeal No.644 of 2019 has, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 2nd July 2013 in the case of Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi vs. State of Maharashtra[1] allowed the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.mtrs. in respect of Village Wadghar. Ms. Punde submits that as Village Karanjade is undisputedly adjacent to Village Wadghar, this Court may following the very same decision pass similar orders in the facts of this case as well.
3. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hairnder Pal Singh and Others[2], Ms. Punde submits that where the acquisition is arising from the same notification in respect of lands in adjoining villages the market value granted needs to be uniform and following the same view and considering the fact that Villages Wadghar and Karanjade are similarly situated the market value needs to be fixed at Rs.25/- per sq. mtrs.
4. Mr. Dabke, learned AGP appearing for the State has no objection, if this Court passes orders on the basis of the decision in the case of Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi v State of Maharashtra (supra).
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the AGP on behalf of the Respondents.
6. In 1970, the Government of Maharashtra acquired large chunks of land in 96 villages of Raigad and Thane Districts for implementing the ‘New Bombay Project’.
7. The appellants herein are the original claimants, who owned agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 131, Hissa No. 0 admeasuring 02H 01R 01P (20110 square meters) and Survey No. 131, Hissa No. 0 admeasuring 00H 46R 02P (4620 square meters) totaling to 24730 sq mtrs. situated in Village Karanjade, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad (the “said lands”) which were acquired for setting up satellite tower of the ‘New Bombay Project’.
8. Preliminary notification dated 03rd February 1970, for acquisition was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14th May 1971. Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 10th September 1986, whereby the market value was fixed at Rs.1.87/- and the total compensation was calculated at Rs.1,16,136.85/-. The possession of the said lands was handed over to the acquiring body on 16th October
1986.
9. It is submitted that due to insufficiency of funds and illiteracy Appellants did not prefer any reference under Section 18 of the Act, but preferred an application under Section 28-A.
10. On 03rd April 2007, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (the “SLAO”) passed Award under Section 28-A(2) of the Act pursuant to Appellant’s Application under Section 28-A(1) for redetermination of amount of compensation and the SLAO increased the market value to Rs. 2.35/-.
11. As the appellants were dissatisfied with the rate decided by the SLAO, the appellants preferred reference L.A.R. No. 60 of 2008 under Section 28-A(3) before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel District Raigad claiming market value at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. mtrs.
12. Before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, District Raigad, written statement was filed by the Respondent SLAO opposing the enhancement. Issues were framed and the reference proceeded for leading evidence.
13. On behalf of the original claimants, the Appellant No.2 stepped into the witness box and led his evidence. He produced certified copies of the decisions passed in LAR No. 59 of 2005, LAR No 57 of 2005 and LAR No. 135 of 2004 pertaining to lands acquired in Village Karanjade. The said witness was cross examined by the State’s advocate. Thereafter, the claimants examined one more witness, who was a land valuer named Mr. Vikrant Vaidya. The said valuer produced on record his valuation report. He also produced a map of a plan showing the acquired land, which was exhibited. The said valuer was cross examined by the State’s advocate. Thereafter, pursis was filed by the appellants closing their evidence. The State did not examine any witness and closed their evidence.
14. By judgment and order dated 25th August 2009, the Civil Judge Senior Division partly allowed the reference with respect to the said lands and enhanced the market value to Rs. 18/- per sq. mtr alongwith 12% additional component in the form of 12% interest as per Section 25 (1) of the Act from the date of notification i.e. 3rd February 1970 till 10th September 1986 i.e. 16 years 7 months and 7 days which came to around Rs.8,86,867.26/- and further 30% solatium as per Section 23(2) amounting to Rs.1,33,542/- less the amount of Rs.1,53,771 already paid. The total amount of Rs.13,11,778.26/- plus interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of possession for a period of one year and thereafter, further interest at the rate of 15% p.a. till payment, as per Section 28 of the Act became payable.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) in an appeal arising out of the reference under Section 18 of the Act in respect of an acquisition of land in village Wadghar, Taluka- Panvel, District- Raigad under the same Section 4(1) notification dated 03rd February 1970 and for the same public purpose where the market value was reduced by this Court from Rs. 15 to Rs. 10 per sq. mtr, after considering the fact that large tracts of land falling in 96 villages in Thane and Raigad Districts were notified on the same date for the same public purpose increased the compensation to Rs.25/- per sq. mtr to be the rate to be uniformly applied to the acquired lands in the village Wadghar.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its decision in the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v Special Land with respect to the land in Village Roadpali, in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad where the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtrs. was applied and relying upon paragraphs 16,17 and 22 to 25 of the said decision. Paragraphs 16,17 and 22 to 25 of the said decision are usefully quoted as under: “16. We have considered the respective arguments and carefully perused the record. It is settled law that while fixing market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors:
(i) Existing geographical situation of the land
(ii) Existing use of the land.
(iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or
(iv) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.
17. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 577, 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 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-à-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 area
(iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality
(vi) level vis-à-vis land under acquisition
(vi) some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser
(vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may 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.”
22. In Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma (supra), this Court held as under: When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Many adiscerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay a reasonably higher price for that site. One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the land as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and therefore classification of the same into different categories does not stand to reason.”
23. In these appeals, we find that while determining the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per square meter, the Reference Court had taken notice of the fact that the acquired land was in the proximity of National Highway No.4, Panvel-Sion Highway and the construction of Thane Creek Bridge which brought various villages including village Roadpali (Kolhekhar) close to Bombay. The Reference Court also noted that civic amenities were available to Panvel town prior to 1970 and industrial estates had been developed at Taloja and Panvel and concluded that the acquired land was available for nonagricultural use and the only obstruction was the absence of conversion. The High Court did not advert to the factors noted by the Reference Court and reduced the amount of compensation by mechanically applying the distance criteria, i.e., distance of the acquired land from Bombay-Pune Highway adopted in the earlier judgments. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained.
24. Although, the appeals filed by the State Government and the landowner against the judgment of District Judge, Raigad in LAR No.172/86 were decided after six months of the impugned judgment, we find that compensation for the land situated at Village Ambetarkhar had been awarded at the rate of Rs.60/per square meter primarily on the ground that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had issued a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to determine market value as on 1.1.1977.
25. In the light of the subsequent judgment, we may have remitted the case to the High Court for fresh adjudication of the appeals, but keeping in view the fact that a period of 42 years has elapsed, we do not consider it proper to adopt that course and feel that ends of justice will be adequately met by restoring the determination of compensation made by the Reference Court.”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted that, it was conscious of the fact that in the claim filed before the Reference Court, the appellants had claimed compensation at Rs.20/- per sq.mtr only but having regard to the fact that this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had awarded compensation @ Rs.25/- per sq. mtr in respect of identically situated parcels of land in the same village, the Hon’ble Supreme Court feeling convinced that higher compensation be awarded to the appellants with a view to do justice even to other land owners of Village Wadghar, whose lands were acquired along with that of the appellants, but who might not have been able to approach the Reference Court, the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other similar handicaps and directed that they shall also be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. with all statutory benefits and interest, keeping in view the philosophy underlying Section 28A of the Act.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and Others (supra) has held that if it is evident that acquired lands can be consolidated into a single unit then the Court is justified in fixing a uniform rate. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering appeals preferred against Order of the Punjab and Harayana High Court in appeals relating to acquisition of five villages for extension of the cantonment at Amritsar where it was held that the land comprised in the five villages were more or less of similar nature and character and well connected by roads and that there was a good deal of potentiality for development of the locality and determined the market value keeping in view the potentiality for industrialization and urbanization and fixed a uniform rate of market value irrespective of their nature or quality and whether the same was situated nearer to the road or at some distance therefrom. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not interfere with this finding and held that this was a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value.
19. I have perused the notes of evidence and other documents on record, the valuation report at Exhibit 15 and the map at Exhibit 16. From a perusal of the map it indicates that the acquired land in Panvel, Raigad with respect of the LAR No.60 of 2008, with respect to the Village Karanjade is adjacent to Village Wadghar. Karanjade village is at a distance of 800 meters from Panvel Uran Road. The Diva Panvel Uran Railway Line is at a short distance from the village Karanjade. That the Mumbai Pune National Highway is at a distance of 800 mtrs from the acquired land. The valuation report also states that village Karanjade is 400 mtrs away from the Municipal limits of Panvel City. The Jawahar Industrial Area and Taloja Industrial Area are about 4.[4] kms of the acquired land. It has been stated in the valuation report that the surrounding developed plots and the topographical area fetch good market value. At the time of notification there were roads, school, electricity, water facilities available in the village. The valuation report as well as the Judgment dated 25th August 2009 passed by the Civil Jugde, Senior Division Panvel note that the acquired land was available for non-agricultural use.
20. This Court in First Appeal No.644 of 2019 in respect to the agricultural land bearing Survey No.130, Hissa No.1, admeasuring 01H 06R 00P (10,600 sq.mtrs.) situated in the same Village – Karanjade, Taluka – Panvel, District – Raigad, which was also acquired for setting up satellite tower of ‘New Bombay Project’ under the same Section 4 notification dated 3rd February 1970 and declaration under Section 6 dated 14th May 1971, pursuant to which an award under Section 11 was passed on 17th September 1986, this Court has by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) awarded the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. mtr to the land in Village Karanjade in question in LAR No. 237 of 2007.
21. The said lands being adjacent to Village Wadghar where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded the rate of Rs.25/- per square meter and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) following the principles in the case of Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Others (supra) and the view taken by my learned Brother in First Appeal No.644 of 2019 in respect of acquisition of another parcel of agricultural land in the very same village under the very same Section 4 Notification and declaration, for the very same purpose of setting up satellite tower of New Bombay Project awarding the rate of Rs.25/- per square meter, I do not propose to take any other view as no contrary material has been brought before me.
22. Ergo, the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the said lands viz. Survey No.131, Hissa No.0 admeasuring 02H 01R 01P (20110 square meter) and Survey No.131, Hissa No.0 admeasuring 005 46R 02P (4620 square meter) in L.A.R. No.60 of 2008 be enhanced to Rs.25/- per square meter.
23. In view of above, the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court dated 25th August 2009 is hereby modified and the Respondents are directed to pay the compensation to the Appellants at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. for the said land, in addition to interest and statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The exercise of determining the enhanced amount of compensation payable as per the modified award shall be carried out by the Reference Court within a period of three months from the date, on which the writ of this judgment is received by the Reference Court. The compensation amount shall be deposited by the State Government within a period of three months from the date on which the enhanced compensation amount is determined by the Reference Court, less the amount already received, subject to verification.
24. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. No costs. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)