STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHAUSAHEB DADASAHEB MISAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THE State Government has preferred this appeal to challenge legality of judgment dated October 30, 1986, recorded by the Additional District Judge, Raigad in Land Acquisition Reference No.39 of 1986. THE facts which gave rise to passing of this judgment are as follows :- THE Respondents were the owners of land bearing Survey No.16, Hissa No.2, admeasuring 60.8 Ares, situated at village Bhisegaon in Karjat Taluka of Raigad District. On June 8, 1978, the State Government published Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to the effect that the land in dispute along with certain other lands were likely to be needed for a public purpose of proposed III Railway Line between Karjat and Lonawala for South-East Ghat Line and for construction of Railway Staff Quarters. THE Land Acquisition Officer commenced proceedings after publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act. THE Respondents lodged claim for compensation alleging that the land acquired was though used for the purpose of agriculture, the land has non-agricultural potentiality taking into consideration the location and the situation of the land. THE Land Acquisition Officer declared the Award on October 26, 1981, holding that taking into consideration the fact that the land was an agricultural land and has also non-agricultural potentiality in distant future and the vicinity of the Railway Station, the proper compensation payable would be Rs.30,000/- per hectare. On the strength of this finding, the Land Acquisition Officer declared compensation of Rs.18,240/- towards the value of the land, Rs.800/- as value of the crop standing on the land at the time of taking possession and Rs.2,736/- as solatium at the rate of 15%. THE interest is awarded from February 28, 1978 to the date of the award and the interest amount came to Rs.2,830.90. thus, the total compensation payable under the award was Rs.24,806.90.

(3.) EXHS. 17 to 21 are sale deeds dated January 21, 1976, March 25, 1976, October 15, 1977, January 4, 1979 and August 16, 1979 respectively. The area sold under these sale deeds admeasures 423, 566, 484, 505 and 566 sq. mtrs. respectively. The rates paid under these sale deeds are Rs.14.18, Rs.17.66, Rs.25.77, Rs.19.76 and Rs.17.66 respectively. The perusal of the sale deeds indicates that the lands sold are small pieces of land and which are developed plots for construction of residential buildings. Avinash Wagale relied upon these sale deeds in his report to claim that the compensation should be paid at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. Avinash Wagale admitted in the witness box that he visited the site of the acquired land for the first time in year 1986 and the report of Wagale proceeds on the condition noticed in year 1986. This obviously is an erroneous method of submitting report. The Valuer must indicate the prices available of the lands in the vicinity on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, and not with reference to the date on which the Valuer visited the site. It hardly requires to be stated that Section 4 notification was published in June 1978 and it was futile to refer to the condition prevailing in year 1986 for determination of market price of the acquired land. The same error was committed by the trial Judge who visited the site at the time of hearing of Reference in year 1986 and felt that the land was valuable. Mr. Surana submitted that there is no evidence on record to indicate as to where these lands covered by EXHS. 17 to 21 are situated and what is the rate of development. The submission is correct because the claimants did not lead any evidence to indicate where these developed plots were situated. The claimants also did not lead evidence as to what is the rate of development in the locality. The trial Court overlooked that the area under acquisition is 60.8 Ares and the land was used for the purpose of agriculture. The trial Judge was clearly in error in holding that the maximum price of Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. paid for small plot of 484 sq. mtrs. should be considered as the prevailing market price for determining the compensation of the acquired land. The trial Judge overlooked that the sale deed providing for the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. is of October 1977 while the latter two sale deeds of January 1979 and August 1979 indicate the price of Rs.19.76 and Rs.17.66 respectively, and, therefore, it was erroneous to assume that even the price of the developed plots was in the vicinity of Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It also cannot be overlooked that the prices of the agricultural lands with a building potentiality cannot be determined without taking into consideration the area which is required to be excluded for internal roads etc. at the time of developing the property. The normal rule of excluding 1/3rd area has to be applied in case there is no evidence as to what area would be required to be excluded from consideration while developing the land. The trial Judge curiously instead of excluding 13rd land proceeded to deduct 1/3 of the price of Rs.25/-. The error committed by the trial Judge is obvious from the contents of para 12 of the judgment. The Judge also overlooked that apart from spending considerable amount for developing the land and for advertising the plots for sale, the plots will not be sold over night and some deduction is required to be made by taking into consideration the time required for the disposal of the plots. The trial Judge without applying this well settled principle, arbitrarily felt that Rs.13/- per sq. metr. should be adequate compensation. The claimants did not lead any evidence as to what is the demand for developed plots in this area and what time would be required for the disposal of the plots after developing the land. In these circumstances, the trial Judge was clearly in error in determining the compensation payable at the rate of Rs.13/- per sq. mtr. Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the land under acquisition is situated adjacent the Railway track and the part of the land is used as Railway Quarters. The learned Counsel did not dispute that it required 10 minutes from the Railway Station to reach the acquired land. Mr. Hegde did not dispute that the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish as to where the lands covered by EXHS. 17 to 21, and which are developed lands, are situated. Mr. Hegde also did not dispute that there is no evidence on record to indicate how much amount will be required to develop an agricultural land after conversion into a non-agricultural land. The Valuer also did not depose as to demand for the developed plot in year 1978. Taking all these factors into consideration, we have no hesitation in concluding that the trial Judge applied an erroneous principle to arrive at the conclusion that the compensation payable is at the rate of Rs.13/- per sq. mtr.