SHAKUNTALABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), acquiring an extent of 20 acres of land in Survey No. 24/2 situated in Akola town for construction of the house for weaker sections and middle income group people, was published in the State Gazette on 11-8-1965. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated 26-3-1971 determined the market value of the front portion of land admeasuring 4 acres, 18 gunthas at Rs. 5,500 per acre and for the rest of 15 acres and 32 gunthas at 4,500 per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant sought reference under section 18 of the Act and the Senior Civil Judge in his award and decree dated 26-9-1972 enhanced the compensation in respect of the lands in the front portion at Rs. 1.25 per sq. ft. and to the rest of the land at Re. 1 per sq. ft. He also deducted Rs. 3,000 per acre towards development charges and 30% land was left over for roads etc. On appeal by the State and also on cross appeal by the appellant, by judgement and decree dated 28-7-1980 the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside the award and decree of the Reference Court and confirmed that of the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(2.) It is true, as noted by the Reference Court and also accepted by the High Court, that the lands are situated in a developing area surrounded by roads on three sides and the lands had potential value for development for building purposes. Shri Mohta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contended that the High Court totally omitted to consider Ex. 38, a sale deed dated 14-5-1964, in respect of lands of an extent of 5392 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs. 4,000 as spoken by P.W. 6, the son of the vendee and Ex. 44 dated 8-2-1964 of an extent of 6950 sq. ft. for consideration of Rs. 5,000 as spoken by P.W. 8, the clerk of the vendee who was formerly an Advocate and also was an Ex.-M.P. These two documents having been executed 18 months preceding the date of the acquisition and the Reference Court having accepted them to be reflective of having had the same potentialities, since the lands are situated adjacent to the land, they would establish comparable value. The High Court committed obvious illegality in not considering this material evidence. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the High Court is vitiated by error of law.

(3.) Though, initially, we were inclined to accept the contention of Shri Mohta, on perusal of evidence on record, we find it difficult to give acceptance to the contention. It is an admitted fact that the claimant as P.W. 9 admitted in the cross-examination that in the year 1957 he purchased the very same entire 20 acres of land for Rs. 10,000. He claimed to be a protected tenant but the High Court did not accept the status as protected tenant since no documentary evidence in proof thereof was filed. Be it as it may, the fact remains that he admitted that in 1957, he purchased the selfsame 20 acres of land for Rs. 10,000. In other words, he estimated the value of the same land in 1957 taking all potentiality at Rs. 10,000. He also stated in the cross-examination that the market value of the lands had increased ten times from 1957 to 1965. In order words, according to his estimate the acquired land commands market value in 1965 for a total consideration of around Rs. 1 lakh. The Land Acquisition Officer considered the evidence and ultimately determined the market value at Rs. 5,500 and Rs. 4,500 to the different portions of the land. On belting by average it worked out at a total consideration of Rs. 1 lakh.