CHINDHA VITHAL SONAWANE Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of the land acquisition proceedings that were initiated under two different Notifications issued almost simultaneously, one being for the project of Market Yard of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Malegaon and the other for a Technical High School at Malegaon.

(2.) PART of Survey No. 6 admeasuring 3 acres 18 gunthas and odd annas of Malegaon Camp belonging to claimant No. 1 (Chindha Vithal Sonawane), Survey No. 322 admeasuring 6 acres 19 gunthas belonging to claimant No. 2 (Pandit Dongar Mali), Survey No. 323/1 admeasuring 1 acre 2 gunthas and odd annas belonging to claimant No. 3 (Madhusudan Pandit Mali), Survey No. 323/2 admeasuring 19 gunthas belonging to claimant No. 4 (Dongar Sadashiv Mali), Survey No. 324/1 admeasuring 5 acres 16 gunthas belonging to claimant No. 5 (Nadarbai widow of Pandit Mali), Survey No. 324/2 admeasuring 4 acres 27 gunthas and Survey No. 325 admeasuring 2 acres 35 gunthas and odd annas belonging to claimant No. 6 (Parvatibai widow of Dongar Mali) -the last 6 parcels being situate at Sangameshwar -were notified for acquisition for the project of Market Yard for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Malegaon. Section 4 Notification was published on September 12, 1957. Claimants Nos. 2 to 6 formed a group of themselves being the members of the same Family though several parcels of land stood in their names separately. Pursuant to notice served on the claimants under section 9 of the Act the claimants lodged their claims for the value of the lands acquired, for trees standing thereon and for the crops which were also standing thereon at the material time. Claimant No. 1 who was the owner of Survey No. 6 of Malegaon Camp claimed land value at the rate of Rs. 21,000 per acre while claimants Nos. 2 to 6 who were the owners of the other lands claimed land value at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre. By his award dated November 21, 1962 the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value to the claimants at rates ranging from Rs. 1,800 to Rs. 2,500 per acre in respect of these lands. Claimant No. 1 was not given any compensation for trees standing thereon while the other claimants were granted the price of trees at the rate of Rs. 5 per tree for such trees as were standing in each one's respective lands. For the standing crops claimant No. 1 was awarded compensation of Rs. 340, claimant No. 2 was awarded compensation of Rs. 730, claimant No. 3 was awarded compensation of Rs. 80, claimant No. 4 was awarded compensation of Rs. 400, claimant No. 5 was awarded compensation of Rs. 350 and claimant No. 6 was awarded compensation of Rs. 225. Feeling aggrieved by the Award the claimants asked for a reference being made to the civil Court and the reference came to be numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 16 of 1963 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division Nasik. In the civil Court the claimants contended that the land value awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at rates ranging from Rs. 1,800 to Rs. 2,500 per acre in respect of their lands was grossly inadequate, that having regard to the situation where their lands were situate and the building potentiality which each of their lands possessed it was an error to value the lands on the basis that they were agricultural lands and to make a small allowance for building potentiality and that the lands should have been valued on the basis that they were non -agricultural building sites and claimant No. 1 claimed the land value at Rs. 25,000 per acre while claimants Nos. 2 to 6 claimed the land value at Rs. 30,000 per acre. They also disputed compensation awarded in respect of the trees standing in the acquired lands and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50 per tree on the basis that the trees ought to have been valued having regard to the timber value. They also disputed the compensation that was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the standing crops and claimed higher amounts. In support of their claim the sale instances of the adjoining building sites were proved and relied upon by them. In all five sale instances were sought to be relied upon by the claimants. On behalf of the State the claim for higher compensation was resisted and it was urged that though the acquired lands could be said to have some building potentiality, it was a remote potential and not an immediate one and that therefore it would be proper to value the land on the basis that they were agricultural lands and give some added compensation for their building potentiality. Two sale instances pertaining to agricultural parcels of lands were proved and relied upon by the State. The learned Judge on an appreciation of evidence took the view that the sale instances that were relied upon by the claimants could not afford a comparable guide for fixing the valuation of the acquired lands and he, therefore, discarded those sale instances and he accepted the contention raised on behalf of the State that the acquired lands should be valued on the basis that they were agricultural lands and some allowance could be made for the building potentiality which was possessed by those lands. Relying upon the two sale instances which were produced on behalf of the State he felt that they afforded a reasonable guide for fixing the proper market value of the acquired lands. He, however, took the view that though the acquired lands had building potential, that factor had two aspects, namely that out of the acquired lands those parcels of lands from Survey No. 6 of Malegaon Camp and Survey No. 322 of Sangameshwar, which were abutting the main road leading from Sangameshwar to Malegaon Camp had greater building potentiality rather than other parcels of lands which were in the interior. He, therefore, concluded that part of area -out of Survey No. 6 and the land covered by Survey No. 322 -could be valued after taking into account its building potentiality at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per acre while the remaining land could be valued at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per acre and he awarded compensation at the said rates. As regards the trees, he took the view that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had omitted to consider the evidence pertaining to the trees which were standing on the land belonging to claimant No. I and he accepted claimant No. 1's evidence that there were ten Babul trees in the acquired land for which compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 per tree was regarded by him as reasonable. For the trees which were standing on the other parcels of land also he granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 per tree. As regards compensation for the standing crops he took the view that there was no material brought on record by the claimants which could call for interference in the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer so far as standing crops in the acquired lands were concerned. He accordingly passed a decree on December 31, 1963. It is this decree which is the subject -matter of a challenge in First Appeal No. 332 of 1964 which has been preferred by claimants Nos. 1 to 6, who are the owners of Survey No. 6 of Malegaon Camp and Survey Nos. 322, 323/1, 323/2, 324/1, 324/2 and 325 of Sangameshwar.

(3.) SINCE the two acquisitions, which have given rise to these two Land References, were initiated almost simultaneously, the first one being by issuance of Notification under section 4 on September 12, 1957 and the second one being by issuance of Notification under section 4 on September 5, 1957 and since the sale instances, which have been produced by the claimants in both the References as well as two instances which have been produced on behalf of the State in both the References are common instances, it would be advisable to deal with these three appeals together and dispose them of by a common judgment.