STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HITESH DEORAJ GOSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals take exception to the judgment of the Reference Court dtd. 17/04/2012 in L.A.C. No.263/2008. Land admeasuring 1H 61R bearing Gat No.157/4 situated at Kohla, District Yavatmal was proposed to be acquired for rehabilitation of residents of Kohla village. Notification J-FA-1026-14,1094,1095-13 4/22 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) was published on 15/06/2006. Thereafter Notification under Sec. 6 of the said Act was issued on 20/04/2007. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dtd. 09/04/2008 awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.2,22,900.00 per hectare for the acquired land. The owners of the land not being satisfied with the amount of compensation as awarded filed reference proceedings under Sec. 18 of the said Act. After considering the evidence brought on record by the claimants the Reference Court was pleased to enhance the amount of compensation to Rs.60,00,000.00 per hectare for the acquired land. The claimants not being satisfied with the amount of compensation as granted have preferred First Appeal No.1094/2013 for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. The acquiring body Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation has filed First Appeal No.1095/2013 since it is aggrieved by the enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court. Similarly the Collector as well as the Special Land Acquisition Officer have filed First Appeal No.1026/2014 since they are also aggrieved by the enhancement in the amount of compensation.

(2.) Shri R. J. Mirza, learned counsel for the claimants in support of the prayer for further enhancement in the amount of compensation submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in granting enhancement only to J-FA-1026-14,1094,1095-13 5/22 the extent of Rs.60,00,000.00 per hectare. He submitted that the claimants themselves had purchased the aforesaid land bearing Gat No.157/4 on 07/09/2004 for a consideration of Rs.12,54,658.00 per hectare. The land was abutting Ner-Karanja Road. It had great non-agricultural potentiality and further sale by conversion of the agricultural land into various plots was possible. The claimants had initiated proceedings for conversion of the aforesaid land for its use for non-agricultural purpose. Infact they had purchased the aforesaid land with a view to develop the same and earn profit. In that regard he submitted that the claimants had entered into various agreements dtd. 23/11/2004, 11/01/2005 and 14/01/2005 at Exhibits-43 to 46. Small plots were intended to be sold to the prospective purchasers at rates ranging from Rs.160.00 per square ft. to Rs.210.00 per square ft. Execution of these agreements itself indicated the potentiality of the said land and the rates which it could fetch. The Reference Court was not justified in giving much importance to the fact that the agreements were not registered. There was no requirement in law to have an agreement of sale registered. The said agreements were bonafide transactions and there was no reason to doubt the same. In that regard the learned counsel sought to place reliance on the decision in S. Kaladevi vs. V. R. Somasundaram and ors. (2010) 5 SCC 401 as well as order dtd. 09/09/2019 passed by Supreme Court in Prakash Sahu vs. Saulal and ors. . It was thus J-FA-1026-14,1094,1095-13 6/22 submitted that infact on the basis of these agreements the claimants were entitled for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. It was then submitted that considering the location of the acquired land which was abutting the road and the fact that various adjoining lands were already developed and used for non-agricultural purposes it was clear that the acquired land had great potentiality for non-agricultural use. Placing reliance on the decisions in Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and ors. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 168, Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. vs. M. K. Rafiq Saheb 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 9, Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi AIR 1988 SC 943 and Digambar and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. AIR 2013 SC 3532 it was submitted that on the aforesaid basis the claimants would be entitled to further compensation. He then referred to the evidence on record to urge that the material brought on record by the claimants was sufficient to justify enhancement in the amount of compensation from that as awarded by the Reference Court. He also referred to the decisions in State of U.P. vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and ors. AIR 1982 SC 876, Assam Railways and Trading Co. Ltd. vs. The Collector of Lakhimpur and anr. AIR 1976 SC 1182 and Ambya Kalya Mhatre (dead) Through LRs. And ors. vs. State of Maharashtra 2012 (1) Mh.L.J. 9 as well as judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Misc. First Appeal No.347/1982 decided on 31/05/1989 (Purushotham Pandit Kher vs. Special Deputy Commissioner (Spl. L.A.O.) and the judgment of the Allahabad High J-FA-1026-14,1094,1095-13 7/22 Court dtd. 08/04/2015 in First Appeal No.865/2002 (National Thermal Power Corporation Thr. its G.M. vs. State of U.P. and ors.) with connected matters. It was thus submitted that the claimants be awarded further compensation by allowing the appeal.

(3.) Opposing the aforesaid submissions Shri S. B. Bissa, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted that the Reference Court committed a gross error in enhancing the amount of compensation by about five times without any legal basis. According to him the claimants themselves having purchased the land on 07/09/2004 they could not have been granted compensation by enhancing the same to about five times as such appreciation was not possible within a short period of less than two years. The Notification under Sec. 4 of the said Act having been published on 15/06/2006 there could not have been enhancement to such a huge extent by any stretch of imagination. It was his submission that the entire land was agricultural land when it was acquired and the agreements entered into were only for the purposes of relying upon them in the reference proceedings. None of the agreements had any date written on them and the stamp papers were purchased by the claimants themselves. The rate mentioned in the said agreements was exorbitant and the same did not indicate the actual market value of the land. Merely because the proposed purchasers were examined the same would not mean J-FA-1026-14,1094,1095-13 8/22 that the rates mentioned in those agreements were liable to be granted. He submitted that though the claimants were entitled for reasonable enhancement in the amount of compensation they were not entitled to the compensation as enhanced by the reference Court. It was thus prayed that the amount enhanced by the Reference Court be suitably reduced.