STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. WAMAN LALJI PIMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two cross appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of 4 acres 13 gunthas of land out of survey No. 8 of Umarkhed. A notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4-8-1961 and finally a notification under S. 6 was issued on 8-9-1961 acquiring 4 acres 13 gunthas of land out of survey No. 8 of mouza Umarkhed by the Government for the purposes of a milk scheme. In proceedings for determination of compensation the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs. 1,400/- per acre and coupled with compensation for compulsory acquisition of land, the total compensation awarded to the owner of the land was Rs. 6,963. 25 P. The claimant-owner made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed compensation at Rs. 5,000/- per acre. This reference was dealt with by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola , It appears that before the trial court 8 documents were filed on behalf of the claimant and tow documents were filed on behalf of the Collector for proving their respective cases. Out of the 8 documents filed by the claimant two were agreements of sale with regard to plots of land out of survey Nos. 38/1 and 38/2. These were left out of consideration by the trial Court on the ground that they were only agreements of sale. Out of the remaining documents filed, it is not disputed that except Exhibits 25 and 36 which were sale deeds, the other sale which were sale deeds. the other sale deeds were not formally proved at all. The trial Court, however, considered Exs. 30 and 31 which were the sale deeds filed on behalf of the Collector as a good guide for determination of the compensation payable to the claimant. These sale deeds evidenced tow separate transactions, one in respect of 10 acres 38 gunthas out of survey Nos. 10 and 11 for Rupees 30,000/- and the other also a transition for the same extent of the land from the same two fields for Rs. 28,000/ -. These sale deeds were dated 1-2-1956 and 19-6-1956 respectively. The Court took the view that these transactions showed that the value of the land in the vicinity was more than Rs. 2,500/- per acre: but taking into account the fact that the land in dispute was not adjacent to the Highway and that some improvements will be necessary for the purposes of converting it into residential area, the court found that the proper value of the land would Rs. 2,500/- per acre. The trial Court, therefore, increased the total amount of compensation for compulsory acquisition. Interest at 6 per cent, per annum was awarded from the date of taking possession till payment.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this enhancement of compensation, the State of Maharashtra has filed First Appeal No. 89 of 1963. The claimant has also filed First Appeal No. 129 of 1963, as, according to him, the compensation determined was inadequate. Both these appeals have been heard together and will be disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the State that the Court had erred in enhancing the amount of compensation while it is contended on behalf of the claimant that the trial Court had under-estimated the market value of the land in dispute. Since both these contentions turn on the consideration of the same evidence it will be necessary to refer to the evidence. Now, it is not open to the State Government to say that not much reliable evidence having been adduced by the claimant, the documents Exs. 30 and 31 filed on behalf of the Collector should be ignored and the amount as determined by the Land Acquisition officer should be maintained. It is no doubt true that so far as the documents filed by the claimant are concerned, except Exhibits 25 and 36, none of the other documents have been formally proved. None of the parties to the agreements of sale (Exhibits 26 and 44) have been examined, nor have any of the vendors or purchasers in respect of the transactions of sale in Exhibits 24, 27, 18 and 29 been examined. These documents or transactions cannot be said, therefore, to have been proved according to law, and these transactions will, therefore, have to be left out of consideration. The only transactions will, therefore, have to be left out of consideration. The only transactions which are proved are those evidenced by Exhibit 25 and Exhibit 36. Exhibit 25 evidences a transaction of Exhibit 25 evidences a transaction of sale of 5 acres of land from survey No. 17 for Rs. 50,000/- on 21-5-1960. The land covered by this transaction is many times superior to the land which is the times superior to the land which is the subject -matter if acquisition. The land revenue of survey No. 8 is about Rs. 2 an acre, while the land revenue of survey No. 17 is about Rs. 8 an acre. That shows that the quality of land of survey No. 17 is much superior No. 8. But apart from that, there is evidence to show that away from survey No. 17 is about a mile away from survey No. 8 and, therefore, the transaction in Ex. 25 cannot be of any assistance to the claimant. The other transaction is evidenced by Ex. 36 which is the sale of 3 acres of land for Rs. 12,000/- out of survey No. 8. It may be noted that this land has been purchased not by one person but by 14 different persons taken together for the purposes of construction of houses. These persons claimed to have formed a society, though it is not registered. It appears that this transaction took place about a year and a half after, the notification under Section 4 was already issued. Keshay who is one of the persons who had purchased 3 acres from survey No. 8 has admitted that the purchasers knew of the land acquired, for the milk scheme. It is obvious that after the acquisition of a part of survey No. 8 the value of the remaining land from that survey number has appreciated. Acquisition by the Government is bound to result in several facilities such as approach roads and municipal services being made available to that area and there is every likelihood, therefore, of these acquisition proceedings enhancing the value of the land, Rupees 4,000/- per acre cannot, therefore, be taken to be the correct indication of the level of prices at the time of the notification. On this material which is the only admissible material placed before the Court by the claimant, it is impossible to hold that the claimant had succeeded in proving that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquitting Officer was inadequate. However, as his good fortune would have it, the documents filed, on behalf of the State seem to help him to some extent. The two transactions in Exs. 30 and 31 show that about 22 acres of land were purchased for Rs. 58,000/- Thousand the two transactions are separate, they are out of the same land survey Nos. 10 and 11. A look at those sale deeds show that those lands are purchased by the wife of the owner of survey Nos. 37. That owner had obviously some special value for the land in survey Nos. 10 and 11 because that land is situated exactly opposite to survey No. 37 with Akola Murtizapur road passing in between. An additional reason which explains the higher price of about Rs. 2,700/- per acre is that survey No. 10 is abutting on the main national highway from Nagpur to Akola. The situation of survey No. 8 is that it is a little away from the national highway with survey Nos. 37 and 38 horizontally intervening between survey No. 8 and the national highway, Survey No. 8 cannot, therefore, be said to exactly similarly situated as survey Nos. 10 and 11.