Supreme Court of India
NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. on 17 July 2019
[2019] 8 S.C.R. 1107
NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10217-10250 Of 2011 etc.)
JULY 17, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
s. 11 – Acquisition of land – Compensation – Determinationof, after classifying the land into three categories viz. ‘Jirayat’,‘Bhagayat’ and ‘Pot Kharab’ lands – Rate of compensationenhanced by civil court in reference u/s. 18 – In appeal by State,High Court reduced the compensation as regards ‘Jirayat’ and‘Bhagayat’ lands while enhancing the compensation as regards ‘PotKharab’ land – Appeal to Supreme Court by some of the landownerschallenging the order whereby compensation rate was reduced –Held: High Court rightly appreciated the evidence i.e. three saledeeds filed by the State and three sale deeds filed by the landownersfor determining the market value – The marginal reduction of ratesin two types of land cannot be faulted with.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The High Court rightly appreciated the evidenceand especially the 3 sale deeds filed by the State and 3 sale deedsfiled by the landowners for determining the market value of theacquired land. [Para 21] [1111-F]
2. It is not correct to say that since the land in question wasan agricultural land and, therefore, price of small piece of landcan be taken into consideration for determining the large chunkof land. [Para 28] [1113-B]
3. The relevant sale deed to determine the market valueof the suit land is (EX- 141). It is very near to the date of acquisition(03.03.1994); and it is for a larger chunk of land. If relince isplaced only upon Ex-141, then perhaps the determination madeby the High Court in relation to two kinds of land can still bereduced. Since the State has not filed any appeal against the order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aof the High Court and on the other hand has accepted thedetermination made by the High Court, the question of reducingthe rate determined by the High Court need not be examined. Itis not legally permissible. Exclusive reliance cannot be placedon Ex-P-42 as was urged by the appellants neither for restoringthe rates determined by the Civil Court and nor for making anyBfurther enhancement in the rates determined by the High Court.Ex-P-42 is of the year 1989 and that too of a very small piece ofland. [Paras 24, 25, 26 and 27] [1112-D-H]
4. The High Court, therefore, rightly took intoconsideration all the six sale deeds and then on appreciation ofCentire evidence rightly came to a conclusion that the ratesdetermined by the Civil Court in relation to ‘Jirayat’ and ‘Bagayat’lands appeared to be on higher side and hence need to be reduced.The marginal reduction of the rates in two types of land, which isbased on cogent reasoning of the High Court, cannot, therefore,Dbe faulted with. [Para 29] [1113-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 10217-10250 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2007 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal Nos. 2673, 2678-2695, 2697-E2708 and 2710-2712 of 2006.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 10305-10308, 10309 of 2011.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Ms. Gwen Kartika, Ms. Abha R.Sharma,FShivaji M. Jadhav, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Yogesh S.Kolte, Ms. Surabhi Guleria,Mahesh P. Shinde, Ms. Deepa M.Kulkarni, Nishant RamakantraoKatneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orderspassed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 11.10.2007 inFirst Appeal Nos.2673, 2678-2695, 2697-2708, 2710-2712 and 2674-2677Hof 2006 and order dated 23.08.2007 in First Appeal No.1241 of 2007.
NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. v. STATEOF MAHARASHTRA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of theseappeals, which involve a short question.
3. The appellants are the landowners (claimants) whereas therespondents are the State of Maharashtra and its authorities in theproceedings before the Trial Court out of which these appeals arise.
4. In exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the State of Maharashtraissued a notification on 03.03.1994 for acquiring land measuring 26,554.39hectares situated in village Sanjegaon, Taluka Igatpuri District Nasik(MH). The purpose of acquisition of the land in question was constructionof Mukane Dam. This was followed by issuance of declaration underSection 6 of the Act on 17.06.1994. The appellants’ land in question wasalso acquired in the acquisition proceedings.
5. This led to initiation of proceedings by the Land AcquisitionOfficer (LAO) under Section 11 of the Act for determination ofcompensation payable to the appellants along with other landownerswhose lands were also acquired in the acquisition proceedings.
6. By award dated 14.07.1995, the LAO offered compensation tothe landowners by classifying the land in three categories, namely, Jirayatland, Bagayat Land and Pot Kharab land at the rates mentioned below:
Jirayat landRs.40,000/- to Rs.1,11,000/- per hectareBagayat land1.5 times the rate of Jirayat landPot Kharab landRs.200/- per hectare
7. The landowners (appellants herein) felt aggrieved by the awardmade by the LAO and accordingly sought reference under Section 18of the Act to the Civil Court. By award dated 24.03.2006, the Civil Courtpartly enhanced the rate of compensation in appellants’ favour as under:
Jirayat landRs.1,69,231/- per hectareBagayat landRs. 2,11,539/- per hectarePot Kharab landRs. 84,616/- per hectare
8. The State felt aggrieved by the award of the Civil Court andfiled appeals under Section 54 of the Act before the Bombay High Court.So far as the landowners are concerned, they did not file any crossobjection to claim further enhancement in the rate of compensation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Adetermined by the Civil Court except complaining of wrongly makingthe classification of their land by the Civil Court.
9. So, the question before the High Court was whether the CivilCourt was justified in partly enhancing the rate of compensation mentionedabove. The case of the State in their appeals was that the Civil CourtBwas not justified in enhancing the rate of compensation and whateverthe Reference Court had determined, the same should be upheld asbeing just and reasonable compensation awarded to the landowners(appellants herein).
10. By impugned order, the Division Bench of the High CourtCpartly allowed the State’s appeals and accordingly reduced the rate ofcompensation. The rate of compensation awarded by all the Courts areas under:
For Jirayat LandFor Bagayat LandFor Pot Kharab LandLand From Rs.40,000/- 1.5 times the rate Rs.200/- per Acquisition to Rs.1,11,000/- of Jirayat land per hectareOfficerper hectarehectareReference @ Rs.1,69,231/- @ Rs,2,11,539/- @ Rs.84,616/- Courtper hectareper hectareper hectareHigh Court@ Rs.1,26,924/- @ Rs.1,58,655/- @ Rs.1,07,886/- per hectareper hectareper hectare D
11. Some landowners (appellants herein) felt aggrieved by the order of the High Court and have filed these appeals by way of specialEleave 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’sappeals and thereby was justified in reducing the rate of compensationas against what was determined by the Civil Court.F
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants (landowners) has essentiallyconfined his submission to the rate determined by the High Court inrelation to Jirayat land and Bagayat land. In other words, the appellantsGare aggrieved only by the rates of Jirayat and Bagayat lands.
15. According to the learned counsel, the rates determined by theCivil Court (Reference Court) in relation to Jirayat and Bagayat landswere just and proper, therefore, it should not have been interfered withby the High Court. It was his submission that keeping in view theexemplars relied on by the landowners and, particularly (Ex-P-42), theH
NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. v. STATEOF MAHARASHTRA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
rate mentioned therein should have been applied for determining themarket value of the acquired land.
16. It was urged that the principle that price of small piece of landcannot be applied for determining the price of large chunk of acquiredland may be good in relation to those cases where the acquired land isnon-agricultural and is situated in urban areas but where the land is anagricultural land such as the one in the present case, the rate of smallpiece of land can be taken into consideration while determining the largechunk of land.
17. It was pointed out that since the land in question was anagricultural land, the market value of the acquired land could bedetermined keeping in view the price of the land purchased under exemplar(Ex-P-42) even though it was for a small piece of land.
18. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent (State) supportedthe well reasoned order of the High Court and prayed for dismissal ofthese appeals.
19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals.
20. In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by theHigh Court, which resulted in partly allowing the State’s appeals andthereby reducing the rate of compensation to some extent is just andproper and hence does not call for any interference. This we say for thefollowing reasons.
21. We find that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidenceand especially the 3 sale deeds filed by the State and 3 sale deeds filedby the landowners for determining the market value of the acquiredland. 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.VillageAreaRate per deedhectare28.02.1992140Sanjegaon0.45 AresRs.40,000/-Gat No.777Paddy/grass land14.02.1994141Sanjegaon1.50 HectareRs.32,666/-Gat No.94117.07.1991142Sanjegaon85 AresRs.15,882/-Gat No.971/1Jirayat land A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
Three sale deeds produced by the landowners Date of Sale Exh.VillageAreaRate per deedhectare04.07.198942Sanjegaon13 AresRs.1,15,385/-Gat No.810Jirayat land30.05.1990124Sanjegaon4.8 AresRs.1,35,417/-Gat No.516Jirayat Land31.01.1995129Mukane60 AresRs.2,12,500/-Gat No.447 A
B
22. Learned counsel for the appellants, in his submissions, placedheavy reliance on the sale deed (EX- 42) dated 04.07.1989 and contendedthat the market value of the suit land should have been determined keepingCin 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 dated 14.02.1994 (EX-141) andcontended that if the price mentioned in this sale deed is relied on then itis amply clear that the High Court has awarded the compensation onDhigher side and, therefore, it deserves to be rather reduced.
24. In our opinion, the relevant sale deed to determine the marketvalue of the suit land is (EX- 141), which is dated 14.02.1994. This wesay 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 ofEfact, if we only rely upon Ex-141 then perhaps the determination madeby 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 ofthe High Court and on the other hand has accepted the determinationmade by the High Court, we need not examine the question of reducingFthe rate determined by the High Court in these appeals. It is not legallypermissible.
26. Having examined the issue, we cannot place exclusive relianceon Ex-P-42 as was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants neitherfor restoring the rates determined by the Civil Court and nor for makingGany further enhancement in the rates determined by the High Court.
27. As a matter of fact, we find that Ex-P-42 is of the year 1989and that too of a very small piece of land. It would not, therefore, besafe to place exclusive reliance on this sale deed. It is more so when wefind that Ex-141 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent H
(State) was executed just one month prior to the date of acquisition andis also of a large chunk of land situated in the same village.
28. We are also not impressed by the submission of learned counselwhen he contended that since the land in question is an agricultural landand, therefore, price of small piece of land can be taken into considerationfor determining the large chunk of land. We cannot accept this submissionin the light of what we have held above on facts.
29. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, rightly took intoconsideration all the six sale deeds and then on appreciation of entireevidence rightly came to a conclusion that the rates determined by theCivil Court in relation to Jirayat and Bagayat lands appeared to be onhigher side and hence need to be reduced. Accordingly, the rate of Jirayatland was reduced from Rs.1,69,231/- per hectare to Rs. 1,26,924/- perhectare 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 marginalreduction of the rates in two types of land, which is based on cogentreasoning of the High Court, cannot, therefore, be faulted with.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in theseappeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeals dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H