NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

                           [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1107                             1107


NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.                              A
                 ETC. ETC.
                                   v.
               STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal Nos. 10217-10250 Of 2011 etc.)
                                                                            B
                            JULY 17, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
      Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
       s. 11 – Acquisition of land – Compensation – Determination
of, after classifying the land into three categories viz. ‘Jirayat’,        C
‘Bhagayat’ and ‘Pot Kharab’ lands – Rate of compensation
enhanced by civil court in reference u/s. 18 – In appeal by State,
High Court reduced the compensation as regards ‘Jirayat’ and
‘Bhagayat’ lands while enhancing the compensation as regards ‘Pot
Kharab’ land – Appeal to Supreme Court by some of the landowners            D
challenging the order whereby compensation rate was reduced –
Held: High Court rightly appreciated the evidence i.e. three sale
deeds filed by the State and three sale deeds filed by the landowners
for determining the market value – The marginal reduction of rates
in two types of land cannot be faulted with.
                                                                            E
      Dismissing the appeals, the Court
       HELD : 1. The High Court rightly appreciated the evidence
and especially the 3 sale deeds filed by the State and 3 sale deeds
filed by the landowners for determining the market value of the
acquired land. [Para 21] [1111-F]                                           F
      2. It is not correct to say that since the land in question was
an agricultural land and, therefore, price of small piece of land
can be taken into consideration for determining the large chunk
of land. [Para 28] [1113-B]
       3. The relevant sale deed to determine the market value              G
of the suit land is (EX- 141). It is very near to the date of acquisition
(03.03.1994); and it is for a larger chunk of land. If relince is
placed only upon Ex-141, then perhaps the determination made
by the High Court in relation to two kinds of land can still be
reduced. Since the State has not filed any appeal against the order
                                                                            H
                                   1107
1108            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A     of the High Court and on the other hand has accepted the
       determination made by the High Court, the question of reducing
       the rate determined by the High Court need not be examined. It
       is not legally permissible. Exclusive reliance cannot be placed
       on Ex-P-42 as was urged by the appellants neither for restoring
       the rates determined by the Civil Court and nor for making any
 B
       further enhancement in the rates determined by the High Court.
       Ex-P-42 is of the year 1989 and that too of a very small piece of
       land. [Paras 24, 25, 26 and 27] [1112-D-H]
             4. The High Court, therefore, rightly took into
       consideration all the six sale deeds and then on appreciation of
 C     entire evidence rightly came to a conclusion that the rates
       determined by the Civil Court in relation to ‘Jirayat’ and ‘Bagayat’
       lands appeared to be on higher side and hence need to be reduced.
       The marginal reduction of the rates in two types of land, which is
       based on cogent reasoning of the High Court, cannot, therefore,
 D     be faulted with. [Para 29] [1113-C-D]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 10217-
       10250 of 2011.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2007 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal Nos. 2673, 2678-2695, 2697-
 E     2708 and 2710-2712 of 2006.
             With
             Civil Appeal Nos. 10305-10308, 10309 of 2011.
             Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Ms. Gwen Kartika, Ms. Abha R.Sharma,
 F     Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advs. for the Appellants.
            Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Yogesh S.Kolte, Ms. Surabhi Guleria,
       Mahesh P. Shinde, Ms. Deepa M.Kulkarni, Nishant Ramakantrao
       Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 G
             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
              1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orders
       passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 11.10.2007 in
       First Appeal Nos.2673, 2678-2695, 2697-2708, 2710-2712 and 2674-2677
 H     of 2006 and order dated 23.08.2007 in First Appeal No.1241 of 2007.
NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. v. STATE 1109
   OF MAHARASHTRA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these       A
appeals, which involve a short question.
      3. The appellants are the landowners (claimants) whereas the
respondents are the State of Maharashtra and its authorities in the
proceedings before the Trial Court out of which these appeals arise.
       4. In exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition       B
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the State of Maharashtra
issued a notification on 03.03.1994 for acquiring land measuring 26,554.39
hectares situated in village Sanjegaon, Taluka Igatpuri District Nasik
(MH). The purpose of acquisition of the land in question was construction
of Mukane Dam. This was followed by issuance of declaration under             C
Section 6 of the Act on 17.06.1994. The appellants’ land in question was
also acquired in the acquisition proceedings.
      5. This led to initiation of proceedings by the Land Acquisition
Officer (LAO) under Section 11 of the Act for determination of
compensation payable to the appellants along with other landowners            D
whose lands were also acquired in the acquisition proceedings.
       6. By award dated 14.07.1995, the LAO offered compensation to
the landowners by classifying the land in three categories, namely, Jirayat
land, Bagayat Land and Pot Kharab land at the rates mentioned below:
      Jirayat land           Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,11,000/- per hectare         E
      Bagayat land           1.5 times the rate of Jirayat land
      Pot Kharab land        Rs.200/- per hectare
       7. The landowners (appellants herein) felt aggrieved by the award
made by the LAO and accordingly sought reference under Section 18             F
of the Act to the Civil Court. By award dated 24.03.2006, the Civil Court
partly enhanced the rate of compensation in appellants’ favour as under:
      Jirayat land           Rs.1,69,231/- per hectare
      Bagayat land           Rs. 2,11,539/- per hectare
                                                                              G
      Pot Kharab land        Rs. 84,616/- per hectare
       8. The State felt aggrieved by the award of the Civil Court and
filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act before the Bombay High Court.
So far as the landowners are concerned, they did not file any cross
objection to claim further enhancement in the rate of compensation
                                                                              H
1110             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A     determined by the Civil Court except complaining of wrongly making
       the classification of their land by the Civil Court.
             9. So, the question before the High Court was whether the Civil
       Court was justified in partly enhancing the rate of compensation mentioned
       above. The case of the State in their appeals was that the Civil Court
 B     was not justified in enhancing the rate of compensation and whatever
       the Reference Court had determined, the same should be upheld as
       being just and reasonable compensation awarded to the landowners
       (appellants herein).
              10. By impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court
 C     partly allowed the State’s appeals and accordingly reduced the rate of
       compensation. The rate of compensation awarded by all the Courts are
       as under:
                            For Jirayat Land   For Bagayat Land      For Pot    Kharab
                                                                     Land
              Land          From Rs.40,000/-   1.5 times the rate    Rs.200/-      per
              Acquisition   to Rs.1,11,000/-   of Jirayat land per   hectare
 D            Officer       per hectare        hectare
              Reference     @ Rs.1,69,231/-    @ Rs,2,11,539/-       @     Rs.84,616/-
              Court         per hectare        per hectare           per hectare
              High Court    @ Rs.1,26,924/-    @ Rs.1,58,655/-       @ Rs.1,07,886/-
                            per hectare        per hectare           per hectare
              11. Some landowners (appellants herein) felt aggrieved by the
       order of the High Court and have filed these appeals by way of special
 E     leave in this Court.
             12. So, the question, which arises for consideration in these appeals,
       is whether the High Court was justified in partly allowing the State’s
       appeals and thereby was justified in reducing the rate of compensation
       as against what was determined by the Civil Court.
 F
             13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
              14. Learned counsel for the appellants (landowners) has essentially
       confined his submission to the rate determined by the High Court in
       relation to Jirayat land and Bagayat land. In other words, the appellants
 G     are aggrieved only by the rates of Jirayat and Bagayat lands.
             15. According to the learned counsel, the rates determined by the
       Civil Court (Reference Court) in relation to Jirayat and Bagayat lands
       were just and proper, therefore, it should not have been interfered with
       by the High Court. It was his submission that keeping in view the
       exemplars relied on by the landowners and, particularly (Ex-P-42), the
 H
NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. v. STATE 1111
   OF MAHARASHTRA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

rate mentioned therein should have been applied for determining the              A
market value of the acquired land.
       16. It was urged that the principle that price of small piece of land
cannot be applied for determining the price of large chunk of acquired
land may be good in relation to those cases where the acquired land is
non-agricultural and is situated in urban areas but where the land is an         B
agricultural land such as the one in the present case, the rate of small
piece of land can be taken into consideration while determining the large
chunk of land.
      17. It was pointed out that since the land in question was an
agricultural land, the market value of the acquired land could be                C
determined keeping in view the price of the land purchased under exemplar
(Ex-P-42) even though it was for a small piece of land.
      18. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent (State) supported
the well reasoned order of the High Court and prayed for dismissal of
these appeals.                                                                   D
       19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals.
      20. In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the
High Court, which resulted in partly allowing the State’s appeals and
thereby reducing the rate of compensation to some extent is just and             E
proper and hence does not call for any interference. This we say for the
following reasons.
       21. We find that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence
and especially the 3 sale deeds filed by the State and 3 sale deeds filed
by the landowners for determining the market value of the acquired               F
land. It is apposite to set out the details of the six sale deeds hereinbelow:
       Three sale deeds produced by the State
        Date of Sale   Exh.        Village        Area           Rate      per
        deed                                                     hectare
        28.02.1992     140         Sanjegaon      0.45 Ares      Rs.40,000/-     G
                                   Gat No.777
                                   Paddy/grass
                                   land
        14.02.1994     141         Sanjegaon      1.50 Hectare   Rs.32,666/-
                                   Gat No.941
        17.07.1991     142         Sanjegaon      85 Ares        Rs.15,882/-
                                   Gat No.971/1
                                   Jirayat land                                  H
1112             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A           Three sale deeds produced by the landowners
              Date of Sale   Exh.         Village        Area         Rate       per
              deed                                                    hectare
              04.07.1989     42           Sanjegaon      13 Ares      Rs.1,15,385/-
                                          Gat No.810
                                          Jirayat land
              30.05.1990     124          Sanjegaon      4.8 Ares     Rs.1,35,417/-
 B                                        Gat No.516
                                          Jirayat Land
              31.01.1995     129          Mukane         60 Ares      Rs.2,12,500/-
                                          Gat No.447 A
              22. Learned counsel for the appellants, in his submissions, placed
       heavy reliance on the sale deed (EX- 42) dated 04.07.1989 and contended
       that the market value of the suit land should have been determined keeping
 C
       in view the price of the land mentioned in this sale deed.
             23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent (State)
       placed reliance on the sale deed dated 14.02.1994 (EX-141) and
       contended that if the price mentioned in this sale deed is relied on then it
       is amply clear that the High Court has awarded the compensation on
 D
       higher side and, therefore, it deserves to be rather reduced.
                24. In our opinion, the relevant sale deed to determine the market
       value of the suit land is (EX- 141), which is dated 14.02.1994. This we
       say for two reasons. First, it is very near to the date of acquisition
       (03.03.1994); and Second, it is for a larger chunk of land. As a matter of
 E     fact, if we only rely upon Ex-141 then perhaps the determination made
       by the High Court in relation to two kinds of land can still be reduced.
              25. Since the State has not filed any appeal against the order of
       the High Court and on the other hand has accepted the determination
       made by the High Court, we need not examine the question of reducing
 F     the rate determined by the High Court in these appeals. It is not legally
       permissible.
              26. Having examined the issue, we cannot place exclusive reliance
       on Ex-P-42 as was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants neither
       for restoring the rates determined by the Civil Court and nor for making
 G     any further enhancement in the rates determined by the High Court.
              27. As a matter of fact, we find that Ex-P-42 is of the year 1989
       and that too of a very small piece of land. It would not, therefore, be
       safe to place exclusive reliance on this sale deed. It is more so when we
       find that Ex-141 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent
 H
NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. v. STATE 1113
   OF MAHARASHTRA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

(State) was executed just one month prior to the date of acquisition and         A
is also of a large chunk of land situated in the same village.
       28. We are also not impressed by the submission of learned counsel
when he contended that since the land in question is an agricultural land
and, therefore, price of small piece of land can be taken into consideration
for determining the large chunk of land. We cannot accept this submission        B
in the light of what we have held above on facts.
      29. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, rightly took into
consideration all the six sale deeds and then on appreciation of entire
evidence rightly came to a conclusion that the rates determined by the
Civil Court in relation to Jirayat and Bagayat lands appeared to be on           C
higher side and hence need to be reduced. Accordingly, the rate of Jirayat
land was reduced from Rs.1,69,231/- per hectare to Rs. 1,26,924/- per
hectare and the rate of Bagayat land was reduced from Rs.2,11,539/-
per hectare to Rs.1,58,655/- per hectare by the High Court. The marginal
reduction of the rates in two types of land, which is based on cogent
reasoning of the High Court, cannot, therefore, be faulted with.                 D

      30. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in these
appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                         Appeals dismissed.   E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H