IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.411 of 1991. FIRST APPEAL NO.411 of 1991. FIRST APPEAL NO.411 of 1991. Sangeeta Rajendra Patil ..Appellant (Original Claimant) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, by the Collector of Sangli 2. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Vahatuk Bhavan, Bombay Central, Mumbai 400 009 ..Respondents (Original Opponents) Mr.V.S.Gokhale for the appellant. Mrs. Mulekar for the respondent No.1 None for the respondent No.2 WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.414 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.414 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.414 OF 1991 Kanchan Shamrao Pawar, res. of Islampur, District Sangli ..Appellant (Original Claimant) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra by the Collector of Sangli, 2. Maharashtra State Transport Corporation, a body Corporate having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Bombay Central, Bombay ..Respondents Mr.V.S.Gokhale for theappellant Mrs. Mulekar for the respondent No.1 Mr.P.L.Naik for the respondent No.2 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 4th May, 2009. DATED : 4th May, 2009. DATED : 4th May, 2009. -2- ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. These two first appeals can be disposed of by common judgment as the point involved therein is common. 2. The land bearing Survey No.70-A/1 of Islampur admeasuring 82 Ares came to be acquired in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. (hereinafter referred to as "Said Act"), pursuant to the award passed on 13.11.1981. The possession of the suit property was taken on 9.3.1982. The appellant was aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted under the award and hence the appellant filed reference under Section 18 of the said Act and it was numbered as Reference No.18 of 1982. The said Reference was decided by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli by his Judgment and Order dated 28.2.1989, against which the appellant/original claimant has filed this First Appeal No.411 of 1991. 3. The land bearing Survey No.70-A/2-A of Islampur admeasuring 74 Ares came to be acquired in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Said Act"), -3- pursuant to the award dated 13.11.1981 and possession was taken on 9.3.1982. The land owner/appellant being aggrieved by the quantum of grant of the award filed reference under Section 18 of the said Act which was numbered as 12 of 1982 and the said reference was decided by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, by Judgment and Order dated 28.2.1989. This judgment is challenged by way of First Appeal No.414 of 1991. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Divison, Sangli, shall hereafter be referred to as the learned trial Judge. 4. In First Appeal No.411 of 1991 the appellant has claimed compensation at Rs.3000/- per guntha and the appellant in First Appeal No.414 of 1991 had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.5000/- per guntha. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Gokhale, appearing on behalf of both the appellants and learned Advocate Mrs. Mulekar on behalf of the State and learned Advocate Mr. Naik on behalf of the respondent No.2 i.e. Maharashtra State Road Corporation, in First Appeal No.414 of 1991, for whose benefit both these lands were acquired. -4- 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Gokhale, appearing on behalf of the appellant pointed out that apart from the loss of land the appellant in First Appeal No.411 of 1991 had claimed compensation for pipeline, water chamber, loss of trees, bunds, Barbed wire fencing and idle well water. He also pointed out that the appellant in First Appeal No.414 of 1991 had claimed compensation for standing crops, house property and cattle shed, standing trees and well, apart from the land concerned. 6. It is to be noted that the husband of the appellant in First Appeal No.411 of 1991, by name Rajendra, gave evidence whereas Mr. Shamrao, husband of appellant in Appeal No.414 of 1991 gave evidence. On behalf of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation one witness by name Mr. Pralhad was examined and this witness had submitted his reports along with certain sale instances. 7. It is required to be noted that neither the State of Maharashtra, nor the Maharahstra State Road Transport Corporation have challenged the Order passed by the learned trial Judge. -5- 8. I have with the assistance of the learned Advocates on both the sides perused the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Judge. It is required to be noted that the lands in question were admeasuring 82 Ares and 74 Ares respectively i.e. the pieces of lands are to be termed as large pieces of land. The sale instances in regard to certain small portions have been relied upon in the course of evidence and the learned trial Judge has observed that the sale instances in regard to the small portion of land cannot be used for the purposes of deciding the value of a large land. I see no difficulty in accepting the said proposition. 9. The learned trial Judge has also considered the chance of the land being converted into Non Agricultural one i.e. N.A. potential of the land has been duly considered by the learned trial Judge while arriving at the impugned Order. The learned trial Judge has by going in for a detail exercise arrived at calculation as to how much amount of land would be available to be a particular person if the land is to be dealt and then the learned trial Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the plots of the acquired land would fetch Rs.1.2 per -6- sq.ft on the date of notification. 10. I have also considered the entire judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge and I am inclined to accept the calculation arrived at by the learned trial Judge for the purpose of fixing the land cost at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare. It is to be noted that the Land Acquisition Officer had granted Rs.29,500/- per Hectare, and as against that the learned trial Judge has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare which will mean that the learned trial Judge has practically granted double the amount of rate while fixing the amount of compensation. 11. Learned Advocate Mr. Gokhale appearing on behalf of the appellants had contended that the appellant in First Appeal No.414 of 1991 had requested the Government of Maharashtra to allot a piece of land, as on account of acquisition of the land in question she was to become landless. He further pointed out that on account of the said application, the appellant was granted 2 Ares of land at the rate of Rs.5050/- per guntha. Learned Advocate Mr. Gokhale submitted that if the -7- appellant in appeal No.414 of 1991 was required to pay Rs.5050/- per guntha for the purpose of purchasing land then surely that rate ought to have been considered by the learned trial Judge while granting compensation. I have considered the said aspect and I am not inclined to accept the submission advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Gokhale in that behalf. In my view, merely because the Government of Maharashtra sold the two Ares of land to the said appellant at Rs.5050/- per guntha, that by itself is not sufficient to treat the cost of the land acquired at the said rate. The various points considered by the learned trial Judge have been gone into and the appellant can not claim the cost of the land at Rs.5050/- merely because she was required to pay that amount while purchasing the land from the Government. The consideration fixed at Rs.5050/- per guntha was undoubtedly on different footing. 12. Apart from the aforesaid aspects, the witness on behalf of both the appellants have not brought on record adequate evidence to justify their demand before the learned trial Judge. In my view, the learned trial Judge by considering the entire matter in its proper perspective has rightly -8- fixed the rate of Rs.65000/- per hectare. If this be so, no interference is required in so far as fixation of the rate at which the lands can be acquired. 13. In so far as First Appeal No.411 of 1991, the appellant has been granted and Rs.7000/- for fencing in respect of the land which is not acquired. The learned trial Judge has considered the evidence placed before this Court so far as the various items such as cost of the pipe line, water chamber, loss of trees, bunds, barbed wire fencing, idle well water. The learned trial Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.7000/- to the appellant in First Appeal No.411 of 1991. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant would be required to put up the fencing to the property not acquired. In my view, the rejection of the other claims and grant of Rs.7000/- for the fencing is required to be accepted and that grant is required to be retained. If this be so, the appellant in First Appeal No.411 of 1991 would be entitled to receive Rs.53330/- towards the cost of 82 Ares at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per Hectare. In addition to that the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.7000/- towards the fencing making it together Rs.60,300/-. -9- The appellant would be entitled to receive 30% by way of solatium on Rs.60,300/-, making it together Rs.78,390/-. From this amount, the sum of Rs.27,479.25 will have to be deducted being the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence the sum of Rs.50,910.75 would be payable. The appellant would be entitled to receive interest on Rs.50910.75 at the rate of 9% for the period of one year from the date of delivery of possession i.e. 9.3.1982 and the appellant would be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 15% from 9.3.1983 till the payment on the said amount of Rs.50910.25. Appropriate order in that behalf shall be passed hereinafter. 14. In so far as First Appeal No.414 of 1991, the appellant would be entitled to receive cost of 74 Ares at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare. The appellant had claimed certain amounts in regard to various items namely standing crops, house and cattle shed, standing trees and well. The learned trial Judge has granted the sum of Rs.5000/-towards cost of the structure. In so far as cost of trees are concerned, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant had taken me through paragraph 17 of the judgment delivered by the -10- learned trial Judge and had pointed out that the learned trial Judge has granted the amount of Rs.5675.50 towards the loss of trees though Shamrao, husband of Kanchan-appellant had positively stated in the evidence that the appellant has suffered Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- towards loss of trees. He pointed out that the learned trial Judge did not grant full amount of Rs.7000/- by observing that there is not much difference in the amount awarded and the amount claimed. In my view, this observation of the learned trial Judge is required to be corrected because if Shamrao, P.W.1 has given evidence to show that the appellant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.7000/- to 8000/-, there was no difficulty for the learned trial Judge to allow atleast Rs.7000/- by way of lumpsum amount and there was no reason for him to grant the limited amount of Rs.5675.50. In my view, the appellant having made out case for grant of Rs.7000/-, the appellant is entitled to receive Rs.7000/- for the loss of trees in place of Rs.5675.50. 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, for the 74 Ares of land at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per Hectare, the appellant would be entitled to -11- Rs.48,100/- towards the value of the land, Rs.5000/- towards costs of the structure, and Rs.7000/- towards loss of trees, making it together Rs.60,100/-. The appellant would be entitled to Rs.18030/- towards solatium at the rate of 30% making it together Rs.78130.00. The sum of Rs.37,957.47 will have to be deducted being the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as such the amount of Rs.40,172.53 would now be payable. In addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.40,172.53 the appellant would be entitled to receive interest on Rs.40,172.53 at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from 9.3.1982 being the date on which the possession was delivered and the interest on Rs.40,172.53 at the rate of 15% from 9.3.1983 till payment, and ofcourse for the proportionate cost. 16. Appropriate Order shall be passed hereunder. 17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the two first appeals are being disposed of by passing following Order. ORDER -12- i. First Appeal No.411 of 1991 is partly allowed. The respondents shall pay to the appellant Mr. Sangita Rajendra Patil Rs.50910.75. In addition to that the respondents will pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.50910.75 from 9.3.1982 upto 9.3.1983. The respondents shall pay to the appellant interest at the rate of 15% per annum on Rs.50910.75 from 9.3.1983 till payment. The respondents shall pay to the appellant costs of this appeal. ii. First Appeal 414 of 1991 is partly allowed. The respondents shall pay to the appellant Mrs. Kanchan Rs.40,172.53. The respondents will pay to the appellant interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs,40,172.53 from 9.3.1982 till 9.3.1993. The respondents shall pay to the appellant interest at the rate of 15% per annum on Rs.40172.53 from 9.3.1983 till payment. Respondent shall pay to the appellant costs of this appeal. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)