1 227 FA.1057.99 OTHERS - Dahiwad ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1057 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Dattu Rama Bhutnar. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1058 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Vishnu Soma Bhutnar. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1059 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Sakharam Santu Waghmode (since deceased) Through his legal heirs: 1a. Smt. Anusayabai Sakharam Waghmode and ors. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Deoram Parvat Thakare and anr. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1061 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Charudatta Deoram Shinde. ... Respondent 2 227 FA.1057.99 OTHERS - Dahiwad WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Balkrishna Nana Nimbalkar. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1063 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Shankar Rakhma Nimbalkar, (deceased through heirs:- 1A Ramesh Shankar Nimbalkar and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1064 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Rajendra Motiram Nimbalkar and another. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1065 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Gangadhar Bala Thoke. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1066 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Sambhaji Punjaji Kadare. ... Respondent 3 227 FA.1057.99 OTHERS - Dahiwad WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1067 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Dattu Bhika Khande and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1068 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Sudhakar Sakharam Nimbalkar. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1069 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Shankar Rakhma Nimbalkar (deceased through heirs)-- 1-a Ramesh Shankar Nimbalkar and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1070 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Dattu Karbhari Waghmode. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1071 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Rangnath Laxman Aratnur. ... Respondent AND 4 227 FA.1057.99 OTHERS - Dahiwad FIRST APPEAL NO. 1072 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Arjun Dhondiram Kedare and another. ... Respondents ----- Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the Appellant / State. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 08 th August, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 These appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as the said appeals arise out of a common judgment and order. 2 The lands at village Dahiwad, Taluka Chandwad, District Nashik were notified for acquisition for the public purpose of Ozarkhed High Level Canal. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) was issued on 21 st November, 1984. As the award under Section 11 of the said Act dated 31 st March, 1990 was not accepted, at the instance of the Respondents, references under Section 18 of the said Act were made. 5 227 FA.1057.99 OTHERS - Dahiwad 3 The Special Land Acquisition Officer has fixed market value of Rs.4500/-, Rs.5000/-, Rs.5500/- and Rs.6000/- per Hectare for the lands falling in groups II, III, IV and V respectively on the basis of the revenue assessment of the lands. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award came to the conclusion that the market value of the land in groups II, III, IV and IV shall be Rs.22,500/-, Rs. 23,500/-, Rs.24,500/- and Rs.25,500/- per Hectare respectively. That is how the enhancement in the market value was granted by the Reference Court. 4 The learned AGP appearing for the Appellant – State of Maharashtra submitted that the sale instance at Exhibit -15 of sale deed dated 6 th March, 1980 is in respect of the land admeasuring 40 Ares. He submitted that on the basis of the land admeasuring 40 Ares, the market value of a smaller piece of land could not have been fixed. He submitted that the Respondents – claimants have not discharged the burden on them to prove that the market value offered 6 227 FA.1057.99 OTHERS - Dahiwad by the Award under Section 11 of the said Act was inadequate. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. The document at Exhibit – 15, which is placed on record has been executed by the father of one of the claimants Mr.Madhukar Rakhamaji Nimbalkar. In paragraph Nos.2 to 4 of his deposition, the claimant Madhukar Rakhamaji Nimbalkar states thus: “2. The compensation awarded by the SLAO and not as per the then market rate. The market rate per acre for Jirayat land was Rs.15000/- and Rs.25000/- for bagayat. We may be awarded compensation as I have stated with statutory benefits. 3. ...... Motiram Nimbalkar purchased 40 Ares land for Rs.7000/- out of Gat No.11 of our village on 6/3/1980. I have attested the sale deed. The certified copy of the sale deed now shown to me. Contents are correct. It is at Exh. 15. The original bears the signatures of vendor and vendee both. The land which was purchased by Motiram Nimbalkar was also acquired to some extent for Canal. Motiram Nimbalkar is admitted in hospital. Deoram Waghmode is not in the village and he left village for the work. His where abouts are not known. The land was purchased as per the then market rate. 4. The possession of the land was taken on 12/3/83.” 6 In the cross-examination there is hardly any challenge to the statements made in the examination-in-chief. Thus, the sale-deed 7 227 FA.1057.99 OTHERS - Dahiwad relied upon was executed by the father of one of the claimants. The Reference Court in paragraph No.6 of the judgment observed thus: “6. ..... So, from the evidence of Madhukar that sale- deed exhibit 15 it is certain that market-price for jirayat land as on 6th August 1980 was Rs. 17,500 per hectare. By considering the assessment of the purchased land of Motiram or even from 'A' statement which is annexed to the copy of Award exhibit 3, it can be easily said that gat No.11 falls in Group-IV. So the land which has been purchased by Motiram can be compared for determination of the market-rate of other lands which are adjacent to each other. So, the market-rate as on 29th November 1984 i.e. the date of notification under section 4 would come to Rs.24,500 per hectare. By giving rise of 40 per cent as there is lag of four years between the transaction and the notification under section 4, even though the lag is more, but I am of the view that 40 per cent increase by considering rise there on at 10 per cent per year, would suffice the purpose and would meet the ends of justice. The rate which is on record, which I have worked out is for Group No. IV. The Government has acquired the lands from Group Nos. II, III, IV and V. So, by increasing and reducing the rate by Rs.1,000 on either side, the rate for other groups can be determined. So, for Group-II the rate would be Rs, 22,500 for Group-III the rate would come to Rs.23,500; for Group-IV the rate would be Rs.24,500 and for Group-V Rs. 25,000. By the evidence of Madhukar on the point of market-rate as then prevailing is accepted as the land of Motiram has been acquired out of his purchased land gat No. 11. I have determined the market- rate which is fair and reasonable market value arises question of fact depending on the nature of evidence, circumstances and probability in each cost. It is the bounden duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence treated by the parties on proper consideration there of in 8 227 FA.1057.99 OTHERS - Dahiwad perpect perceptive to arrive at reasonable market-rate attending the facts and circumstances in each case which would furnish guidence to arrive at market value of the acquired land that is because the Claimants have legal and legitimate right to claims fair and reasonable compensation of the land. They are deprived of by legal process.” 7 The market value was fixed in these cases on the basis of the aforesaid formula. The land subject matter of the sale-deed is situated in the same village. In absence of other evidence, the pre- notification sale can be taken as the basis for determination of the market value. It is pertinent to note that escalation at 10% per year is not taken on cumulative basis. The escalation at the rate of 10% per year cannot be unreasonable. The market value fixed by the Reference Court is consistent with the document at Exhibit – 15, which can be said to be in respect of the comparable sale instance. 8 Hence, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]