DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. NASHIK PANCHWATI PANJRAPOL TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, an exception has been taken to the Judgment and Award dated 30th May, 2001 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The acquisition relates to land bearing Gat No. 287/A2 totally admeasuring 2 Hectares (for short "the acquired land") situated at Nashik, Taluka and District Nashik. A notification under Section 4 of the said Act in respect of the acquired land was published in the Government Gazette on 17th October, 1990. The notification under Section 4 was lastly published on village Chawdi on 22nd November, 1990. Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 22nd January, 1993. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square meter. Other statutory benefits were granted under the said award. A reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made at the instance of the first respondent-claimant. In the reference, the market value of the acquired land was claimed at Rs. 1000/- per square meter. Additional compensation was sought in respect of the trees as well as iron angles and wires. Compensation was also claimed in respect of the structures. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the market value of the acquired land has been fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 575/- per square meter. The present appeal is preferred by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation at whose instance, the acquisition was made for construction of a bus stand and allied establishments. There is a cross objection filed by the first respondent-claimant claiming enhancement of compensation by Rs. 425/- per square meter. Thus, by the cross objection, total market value is claimed at Rs. 1000/- per square meter. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the impugned Judgment and Award is based only on two sale instances at Exhibits 49 and 51. He pointed out that the area of the plots of land subject matter of sale instances at Exhs. 49 and 51 is only 505.78 square meters and 148.75 square meters respectively. As against this, the area of the acquired land is 20,000 square meters. Hence, the said two sale instances of very small plots will have to be kept out of consideration. He pointed out that the acquired land had a direct access to a State Highway and the sale instance lands are away from the Highway. He urged that the acquired land was undeveloped land whereas the land subject-matter of sale deed at Exh. 51 was a developed plot and in fact, there was a construction up to the plinth level on the land subject-matter of the sale deed. He urged that the market value reflected from the said sale deed includes the market value of the plinth constructed on the land subject-matter of the sale-deed. He invited our attention to the recitals in both the sale deeds. He pointed out that as far as sale deed at Exh. 51 is concerned, there is a specific recital that the Municipal Corporation had approved the lay out and the District Collector had granted permission for non agricultural use in accordance with Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. He pointed out that the first recital in the sale-deed refers to the construction carried out up to plinth level of four rooms and a toilet block. He urged that both the sale deeds cannot be said to be the sale deeds of the lands comparable with the acquired land. He invited our attention to the evidence of Shri Ramji Zaveri, the Managing Trustee of the first respondent. He urged that there is no evidence adduced by him to prove the comparability of the acquired land with the sale instance lands. The burden was on the first respondent to prove that the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Officer by the Award under Section 11 was inadequate. He urged that once the only two sale instances relied upon by the first respondent are kept out of consideration, it becomes a case of no evidence. He invited our attention to the findings recorded by the Reference Court. He pointed out that in paragraph 16, a finding has been recorded by the Reference Court that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 288/- per square meter. However, he urged that the Reference Court has illegally doubled the said rate on the ground that the acquired land had a better potential considering its proximity to the Bombay Agra National Highway. He submitted that assuming that the sale instances relied upon by the first respondent are of comparable lands, the market value of the acquired land could not have exceeded Rs. 288/- per square meter.

(2.) The learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out from the evidence that not only did the acquired land have a frontage on a Highway but another 60 feet wide road provided in the development plan was close to it. He invited our attention to the certain statements in the Award under Section 11 of the said Act and submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer accepted that on the relevant date, the acquired land had a potential for commercial use. He urged that the acquired land had a frontage of 550 meters on the Highway and was far superior to the sale instance lands subject matter of sale deeds at Exhs. 49 and 51. He urged that considering the several positive factors in respect of the acquired land, in fact, the market value thereof on the relevant date was much more than Rs. 575/- per square meter. He, therefore, urged that by dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant, the market value be suitably enhanced by allowing the cross-objection. The learned AGP supported the impugned Judgment and Award.

(3.) We have carefully considered the submissions. The relevant date for determination of market value in the present case is 22nd November, 1990. With a view to understand the location of the acquired land it will be necessary to advert to the oral evidence of Shri Ramji Pragji Zaveri who was the Managing Trustee of the first respondent-trust at the time of filing the reference. It is not in dispute that the purpose of acquisition is construction of State Transport bus stand and allied establishments. As regards the location of the acquired land, in paragraphs 2 and 3, he has deposed thus: