Arvindgir Bhsweshwargir Gosavi v. Maharashtra State Road Transporat Corpoation

JUDGMENT:

¶1This is a group of Appeals filed by the acquiring body challenging common judgment & award passed by the the Learned Reference Court i.e. The Learned District Judge, Pandharpur in LAR Nos.4 of 2004, 5 of 2004 & 6 of 2004. The Appeal No.986 of 2010 is arising out of judgment & order in LAR No.7 of 2004 has given in the chart below:- Sr. No. Mr. Arvindgir Gosavi Mr. Munnagir Gosavi+ Subhasgir Mr. Subhasgir Gosavi & Munnagir Mr. Arun Parathe

¶1First Appeal No (by MSRTC) 1981 of 2007 1982 of 2007 1983 of 2007 896 of 2009

¶2Land Acquisition Reference Number LAR No. 4 of 2004 LAR No. 5 of 2004 LAR No. 6 of 2004 LAR No. 7 of 2004 The Claimants have also filed cross-objections.

¶2The Reference Court by impugned judgment & order has enhanced the amount of compensation towards the land acquired by

13 of 23 14 2-FA-1981-2007.doc Appellant/Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The facts are similar which are that the notification came to be issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 2nd July, 1994. The award was passed by learned SLAO on 9th December, 1996 in LAR Nos.4 of 2004, 5 of 2004 & 6 of 2004. The parties are referred to as acquiring body and the Claimants for the purpose of convenience. The chart below is to gives an idea about the land area compensation awarded by the SLAO and by the Reference Court. Sr. No. Mr. Arvindgir Gosavi Mr. Munnagir Gosavi Mr. Subhasgir Gosavi Mr. Arun Parathe

¶1First Appeal No (by MSRTC) 1981 of 2007 1982 of 2007 1983 of 2007 896 of 2009

¶2Land Acquisition Reference Number LAR No. 4 of 2004 LAR No. 5 of 2004 LAR No. 6 of 2004 LAR No. 7 of 2004

¶3Description of property/Land Survey No. 109/1A/1B/2-2 Admeasuring 5445 Sq. meter i.e. OH= 50 R Survey No. 109/A/1A-1-B/A-2,1B Admeasuring 13178 Sq. meter i.e. 1H = 21R Survey No. 109/A/2B/1-A/3Admeasurin g 18583.3 Sq. meter i.e. 0H = 97R Survey No. 109-A/1A/1 Admeasuring At 1H=62 R And Surver No.109-A/1A-2 Admeasuring at 3H=96 R Equal to 6076.32 Sq. meter

¶4Date of Notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition 2nd July 1994 Published in GR dt. 7.7.1994 2nd July 1994 Published in GR dt. 7.7.1994 2nd July 1994 Published in G R dt. 7.7.1994 16th April 1994

¶5Amount Rs.478900/- per Rs. 3,83,000/- Rs.3,83,000 per Rs.5000 per

14 of 23 15 2-FA-1981-2007.doc determined by SLO hector i.e. Rs.4789 per Guntha per hector i.e. Rs.3830 per Guntha hector Guntha i.e. 4 LK per hector

¶6Enhance compensation claimed by the Applicant in Land Acquisition Reference More than Rs.500/-per Sq. meter i.e. 1 sq. meter == 1076.4 sq. feet One Guntha= 1089 sq. feet Claimed-Rs.24,83,050 More than Rs.500/-per Sq. meter Claimed-Rs.61,25,020/-More than Rs.500/-per Sq. meter Claimed-Rs.89,10,140/-More than Rs.500/-per Sq. meter Claimed-Rs.2,70,000,00/-

¶7Award passed by Reference Court Dated :-

17.1.2007 at@ of Rs.350 per Sq. meter Dated:-

17.1.2007 At@ of Rs.400 per Sq. meter Dated:-

17.1.2007 At@ of Rs.400 per Sq. meter Dated:-

24.4.2008 At@ of s.20,000 per guntha i.e. 200 per sq. meter

¶8Granted by D/c Rs.19,57,050/- As per above calculation Rs.52,71,200/- As per above calculation Rs.74,33,200/- As per above calculation Rs.1,11,60,000/- As per above calculation

¶3The Learned Court after considering the evidence laid before it along the land references held that the just and fair compensation for the land as given in the chart.

¶4Learned Advocate for the Appellant vehemently argued the Appeals. First ground is that the references were not filed within six weeks from the date of award and thus they are beyond limitation. Those ought not to have been entertained by Reference Court. Section 4 notification was issued on 2nd July, 1994 in LAR Nos.4 of 2004, 5 of 2004 & 6 of 2004 & 16th April, 1996 in LAR No.7 of 2004. The references are filed under

15 of 23 16 2-FA-1981-2007.doc Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, on 4th April, 1997 beyond limitation. Notice for taking compensation was issued on 27th February, 1997 and the references are filed on 4th April, 1997. 27th February, 1997 was the returnable date of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Claimants have not shown when they received notice. Learned Court had considered the land having non-agricultural potential when in fact those were not converted in to non-agricultural land. The instances of the same i.e. 1992, 6th September, 1993 relied upon by the Court. The forth instance was after Section 4 notification and therefore could not have been considered by the Court. The instances are in respect of small plots whereas the lands of the claimants are larger lands and therefore this rate in the sale instances could not have been considered as larger the area lesser the rate. The evidence of the expert witness of the acquiring body was discarded by the Court. The claimants could not prove their case.

¶5In rejoinder the learned Advocate for the Appellant again submitted that the notice of the award under the Act is constructive notice. The panchnama of taking possession is on 27th February, 1997 the said date cannot be taken to be the date of notice. She submits that as per Section 18 the limitation is six weeks from the date of Collector's Award. It was specifically for the claimants to show that they had no notice in view of

16 of 23 17 2-FA-1981-2007.doc Section 106 of the Evidence Act. She submits that the rate of the land should have been at the most Rs.320/- per sq. meter.

¶6Learned Advocate for the Appellant relied upon the Judgments as below.

(1) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan Setty 1

(2) Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat2

(3) Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand3

(4) Premlata And Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra And Ors.4

¶7As to whether the Court has rightly considered the references. Learned Advocate for the Respondents relied upon the Judgments as below.

(1) Subh Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana And Another5.

(2) Mohammad Yusuf And Vs. State of Haryana And Others6.

(3) Bhanushankar Oghadbhai Mehta (dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Limited And Another7. AIR 1959 SC 429

(2005) 4 SCC 789 2023 (7) Supreme 13 Civil Appeal Nos.176-177 of 2022

(2010) SCC 444

(2018) 16 SCC 105

(2018) 13 SCC 722

17 of 23 18 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

(4) Madhukar s/o. Govindrao Kamble & Ors. Vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors.8.

(5) Rauji Naik (since deceased) represented by his Legal Heirs Smt. Sushila Rauji Naik And Others Vs. Deputy Collector (L.A) Collectorate South, Margao And Ors.9.

(6) Ebrahim Akbaralli And Ors. Vs. The District Deputy Collector Pandharpur Division, District Sholapur10

(7) P. Ram Reddy And Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad And Ors.11.

¶8In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, it was held that the High Court had adopted a wrong method in ascertaining the market value of the land at the relevant time. The Court has to consider the compensation by ascertaining the market value of the land as on the date of notification under Section 4(1). The methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages, and (3) a year of purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. In that case the Court held that the High Court adopted the second method that is considering the price within the reasonable time in

(2022)(2) ALL MR 463 (S.C.) 2023 (1) Mh.L.J. 191 10 1969 (3) SCC 735 11 (1995) 2 SCC 305

18 of 23 19 2-FA-1981-2007.doc bona fide transactions. In that case the sale instances High Court had considered only four instances out of six instances & taken the average of all the said instances without giving sufficient reason as to way two instances are excluded. In that case it was observed that there was arbitrary selection of four transactions and therefore the same was vitiated as the consideration of all the transactions would have changed the average rate.

¶9In the case of Viluben Jhalejar (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the market value is ordinarily the price of the property that may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the Special needs of a particular purchase. It was also held that the 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, etc. Such development charges are also required to be paid between 20% & 50% of the total price.

¶10In the case of Balvir Singh (supra) this is in respect of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it is for the person who has to prove the guilt exclusively within his personal knowledge. This is with respect to her submission that it was for the Claimants to show exact date of knowledge.

19 of 23 20 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶11In the case of Premlata (supra) the Hon'ble Court has held that all sale instances were in respect of small plots of land are not comparable to a large extent of land for the purpose of determining the compensation. It is also further held that two kinds of deductions are required to be made in respect of large tract i.e. (i) for development, and

(ii) in case of small area, the transactions are exemplar. In that case the sale instance was in respect of 135 sq. metes. Whereas the land acquired is a large area, i.e. 45 Hectares 89 R. and this was held that the sale instances could not have been considered while determining the rate of such bigger land. Considering huge difference in size in this case this Court does not find that the same is applicable in case in hand.

¶12Learned Advocate fo the Respondents cross-objector relied judgment in the case of Subh Ram (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered that when all the lands are acquired for the same purpose irrespective of quality of the land or the situation of the land uniform rate needs to be given to all the lands.

¶13In the case of Mohammad Yusuf (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is well settled that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar land, usually the highest of the exemplars which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered.

20 of 23 21 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶14In the case of Bhanushankar Mehta (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded interest on the solatium amount based on the Constitution Bench in the case of Sunder Vs. union of India (2001)7 SCC 211.

¶15In the case of Madhukar Kamble (supra) the Hon'ble Apex considered the evidence in that case produced by the land owners showing that the acquired land was close to Educational Institutions, Banks, Tahsil Office etc. It is further held that it is not the nature of the land which alone is determinative of the market value of the land. The market value must be determined keeping in view various factors including proximity to the developed area and the road etc.,

¶16In the case of Rauji Naik (supra) this Court there was evidence to show that the land acquired was following within the commercial zone. The Appeals of the claimant were allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation of Rs.450/- per sq. mtr.

¶17In the case of Ebrahim Akbaralli (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered that though the large portion of the acquired land was technically agricultural land, it was held that the nomenclature is not material when the land has potentiality of non-agricultural land. It is the case from the same Pandharpur Municipality from which present appeals are arisen.

21 of 23 22 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶18In the case of P. Ram Reddy (supra) the Court considered the use to which the land can be put and also the purpose of the acquisition which need to be considered while determining the market value.

¶19Learned Advocate for the Respondents strenuously argued that the Court ought to have allowed the reference in toto. This aspect will be considered while discussing the Appeal.

¶20Keeping in view ratio of all the above Judgments this Court needs consider as to whether in the present case the Reference Court has properly considered and appreciated the evidence before him and the law while determining the amount of compensation.

¶21Looking to the judgment, this Court finds that the learned Reference Court has rightly considered the judgments in the LAR Nos.5 of 2004 & 6 of 2004 passed by the District Court. Further it is considered that the lands are situated within the zone-1 of Pandharpur Municipality. Some part of land is already converted into non-agricultural land and buildings have already been constructed adjacent to the Respondent's land. The Court has rightly considered that the land would fetch price of non-agricultural land. On the issue of limitation also the Court has rightly held in favour of the Claimants. This Court does not find in force in the arguments of the Appellants as well as Respondents/cross-objectionist.

22 of 23 23 2-FA-1981-2007.doc

¶22Considering all above, this Court finds that no case is made out calling for interference at the hands of this Court. The Appeals are therefore dismissed. Cross objection also stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶23Pending Applications also stand disposed of. (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)

23 of 23

1 2-FA-1981-2007.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bombay- 400 008. : Appellant Vs. 1. Arvindgir Bishweshargir Gosavi Age 50 years, Occu. Business R/o. 4374, Navi Peth Pandharpur. 1A] Smt. Anupama Arvindgir Gosavi Age-65, Occu- Nil. 1B] Sachingir Arvindgir Gosavi Age-39, Occu- Advocate and Agri 1C] Nikhilgir Arvindgir Gosavi Age-39, Occu- Agri 1D] Bhibishan Arvindgir Gosavi Age-33, Occu- Service All R/o Dale Galli Pandharpur 1E] Sau Nayana Satishgir Gosavi Age-37 years, Occu- Household R/o Gosavi Patil Mala, Icha Mani Ganpati Mandir, At Makrand Colony Up Nagar Nashik 1F] Sou Sarika Satish Bharati Age-35, Occu- Service Main road Murud, Tal- Latur Dist- Latur 1 of 23 WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2024.05.10 +0530 2 2-FA-1981-2007.doc 1G] Sou Nutun Yashwant Giri Age-34, Occu- Housewife Queen's Garden, Camp Pune 01. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3, Collector office Compound, Dist. Solapur. : Respondents WITH REJECTED CASE NO.1670 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bombay- 400 008. : Appellant Vs. 1. Arvindgir Bishweshargir Gosavi Age 50 years, Occu. Business R/o. 4374, Navi Peth Pandharpur. 1A] Smt. Anupama Arvindgir Gosavi Age-65, Occu- Nil. 1B] Sachingir Arvindgir Gosavi Age-39, Occu- Advocate and Agri 1C] Nikhilgir Arvindgir Gosavi Age-39, Occu- Agri 1D] Bhibishan Arvindgir Gosavi Age-33, Occu- Service All R/o Dale Galli Pandharpur 1E] Sau Nayana Satishgir Gosavi Age-37 years, Occu- Household R/o Gosavi Patil Mala, Icha Mani 2 of 23 3 2-FA-1981-2007.doc Ganpati Mandir, At Makrandfa Colony Up Nagar Nashik 1F] Sou Sarika Satish Bharati Age-35, Occu- Service Main road Murud, Tal- Latur Dist- Latur 1G] Sou Nutun Yashwant Giri Age-34, Occu- Housewife Queen's Garden, Camp Pune 01. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3, Collector office Compound, Dist. Solapur. : Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007 Arvindgir Bishweshwargir Gosavi Age-65 years, Occu- Agriculturist R/o. Pandharpur : Applicant Vs. 1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road, Bombay Central Bombay 400 008 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Collector Office Compound Solapur : Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.24954 OF 2023 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1981 OF 2007 3 of 23 4 2-FA-1981-2007.doc Shri. Sachingir Arvindgir Gosavi Age-40 years, Occu- Agri & Advocate R/o Dale Galli, Pandharpur Dist Solapur : Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay, 400 008 : Appellant Vs. 1. Arvindgir Bishweshwargir Gosavi Died during pendency of appeal 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Collector Office Compound Solapur : Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1982 OF 2007 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg Bellassis Road Central Bombay, 400 008 : Appellant Vs. 1. Munnagir Khushalgir Gosavi Age- 40 years, Occu-Business. Navi Peth, Pandharpur 2. Subhashgir Khushalgir Gosavi Age- 49 years, Occu. Business R/o. As above 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.3 Collector Office Compound Dist. Solapur : Respondents 4 of 23 5 2-FA-1981-2007.doc WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.395 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1982 OF 2007 1. Munnagir Khushalgir Gosavi Age-52 years Occu. Business R/o Pandharpur 2. Subashgir Kushalgir Gosavi Age 58 Occu. Business R/o Pandharpur : Applicants Vs. 1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair marg Bellassis Road, Bombay Central Bombay 400 008 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, C