STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BALKRISHNA GAJANAN PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal by the State of Maharashtra is against the award of the Joint Judge, Thane, in Land Acquisition Reference no. 38 of 1981, whereby he awarded compensation to the Respondent at the rate of Rs. 6 per square metre.

(2.) THE facts out of which this Appeal arises are briefly these The notification under Section 32 (2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development act under which the land has been acquired was published on 30th september, 1965 which is the date relevant for the purpose of determining the market price of the land. The possession was eventually taken on 8th october, 1965. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made his award on 31st December, 1980. Meanwhile, the Land Acquisition (Amendment)Bill, 1984, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 30th April, 1982 The Land acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, came into force on 24th September, 1984. Section 30 of this amending Act which makes certain transitional provisions provides for enhanced solatium at the rate of 30 per cent in respect of award by Collector or Court under Section 18 or any order of the High Court or the Supreme Court retrospectively. Meanwhile, the court made the award under Section 18 on 29th April, 1983. In Union of India v. Razhubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754, the Supreme Court held that the benefit of Section 30 (2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, was available to Collector's award or the award by the District Court on reference under Section 18, if made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th september, 1984. The award impugned in this Appeal was made between these two dates. Therefore, it falls within the dates stipulated in the supreme Court judgment entitling the Respondent to the enhanced solatium at the rate of 30 per cent. The Respondent has filed cross-objections and an application for extension of time to file them. We have by a separate order extended the time for filing the cross-objections. In view of the legal position, we hereby allow the cross-objections.

(3.) HOWEVER, the Appellant claimed that the market value of the acquired land on the relevant date was not Rs. 6 per square metre but was much less. For this purpose, we have been taken through five instances of sale. They are Exhibit 33 dated 6-1-1965, Exhibit 34 dated 22-10-1963, exhibit 18 dated 12-10-1967. Exhibst 19 dated 18-7-1966 and Exhibit 32 dated 6-10-1965. The prices of the lands evidenced by these instances vary between Rs. 5 per square metre and Rs. 5 50 per square metre. The learned Judge has awarded Rs. 6 per square metre. Having regard to the instances of sale Exhibits 18 and 19 which are about a year after the relevant date, it appears that the prices of lands at the relevant date could not exceed Rs, 5. 50 per square metre. The learned Joint judge was, therefore, in error in allowing compensation at the rate of Rs 6 per square metre. We accordingly reduce the market price to Rs. 5. 50 per square metre. To this extent the Appeal by the State is allowed. We, therefore, make the following award:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_582_MHLR2_1990Html1.htm</FRM>