1 First Appeal No.1198.10+4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra (Through The Collector,Beed) ...APPELLANT. VERSUS 1. Kondiram S/o Tukaram Shinde, 2. Chandrakant S/o Suryabhan Shinde, Both Major, Occup. Agril. R/oWadwani, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1199 OF 2010 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1200 OF 2010 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1201 OF 2010 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1202 OF 2010 ... Shri.K.M.Kshirsagar,A.G.P. for Appellants ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 09th DECEMBER,2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant-State. 2 First Appeal No.1198.10+4 2. These Appeals are preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the common Judgment and Award dated 21st June, 2000, passed by the Additional District Judge, Beed, in land Acquisition References. FEW FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE AS UNDER: 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Hereinafter referred to as “SLAO” for the sake of brevity) issued Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) on 18th June, 1987 for acquiring respondents/original claimants’ agricultural land situated at village Wadwani, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed, for Wadwani Percolation Tank Project. After following due procedure of law, the SLAO passed Award on 16th April, 1990 and awarded compnesation in respect of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- Per Hector. 4. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 16th 3 First Appeal No.1198.10+4 April, 1990, passed by the SLAO, respondents- Original Claimants preferred land References under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court relied on three sale instances i.e. Sale deed at Exh.23 dated 08th September, 1983, Sale deed at Exh.25 dated 27th July, 1983 and another sale deed at Exh. 32, dated 20th January, 1989 and held that respondents-Original claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 32,500/-per Hector. 5. In First Appeal No.1202 of 2010 the Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation towards acquired land Rs.8700/-, in First Appeal No.1201 of 2010 Rs. 9135/-, in First Appeal No. 1200 of 2010 Rs. 10,730/-, in First Appeal No.1199 of 2010 Rs. 8700/- and in First Appeal No. 1198 of 2010 Rs.3190/-. 6. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of appellant-State submits that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion 4 First Appeal No.1198.10+4 that respondents-Original claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.32,500/- Per Hector. He submits that the Reference Court has not properly examined the sale deeds at Exhs. 23, 25 and 32. He further submits that respondents- Original claimants failed to produce any cogent evidence on record to show that they are entitled to claim enhanced compensation of the acquired lands. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Land Acquisition Officer Eluru and others Vs. Jasti Rohini (Smt.) and another reported in 1995 (1)SCC, Page No. 717 held that: “ The question of fixation of market value is a paradox which lies at the heart of the law of compulsory purchase of land. The paradox lies in the facts that the market value concept is purely a phenomenon evolved by the Courts to fix the price of land arrived between the hypothetical willing 5 First Appeal No.1198.10+4 buyer and willing seller bargaining as prudent persons without a medium(sic Modicum) of constraints or without any extraordinary circumstances. But the condition of free market is the very opposite of the condition of the compulsory purchase which is ex hypothesi, a situation of constraints. Therefore to say, that for compulsory purchase, compensation is to be assessed and market value is to be determined in that state of affairs has to be visualised in terms by its direct opposite. To solve the riddle, courts have consistently evolved the principle that the present value as on the date of compulsory acquisition comprised of all utility reached in a competitive field as on the date of the notification and the price on which a prudent and willing vendor and a similiar purchaser would agree. The value of the land shall be taken to be the amount that the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected 6 First Appeal No.1198.10+4 to realise from a willing purchaser. A willing seller is a person who is a free agent to offer his land for sale with all its existing advantages and potentialities as on the date of the sale and willing purchaser taking all factors into consideration would offer to purchase the land as on the date of the sale. Future suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account. The compensation must, therefore, be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser as on the date of notification published under section 4(1). The disinclination of the sellor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the vendee to purchase the land must, alike, be disregarded and neither of them must be considered as acting under compulsion.” 8. In this group of appeals the lands were 7 First Appeal No.1198.10+4 acquired in the year 1987. The excess amount alleged to have been awarded by the Reference Court, for the reduction of which those apeals have been filed does not exceed Rs. 11,000/-, in any of the cases. Since it is compulsory acquisition, it is the solemn duty of the Court to assess reasonable compensation, so as to allow the same to the owner of the land whose land has been acquired by compulsory acquisition and also to avoid needless burden on the public exchequer. Even after applying the principles enunciated by the Apex Court and reproduced above no two forums can arrive at the same valuation, because for determining the market value many hypothetical and imponderable factors are to be taken into consideration. The market value is to be determined between the hypothetical willing purchaser and the hypothetical willing seller bargaining as prudent persons without modicum of constraints or without any extraordinary circumstances. Hence, there cannot be any mathematical precision in determining the market 8 First Appeal No.1198.10+4 value of the land. Taking into consideration these factors no useful public purpose is served by admitting the appeals, if the difference in the market value fixed by the land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court is not markedly considerable. In the event the appeals are admitted, in the cases where the difference is not glaringinly large, the land owners whose lands have been compulsorily acquired will to be unencesarily vexed, as they have no appoint counsel and pay them large amounts towards fees and also have to incur expenses for reaching the Court and for stay at the town where the appeal Court is located and for returning to their villages many times till the appeals are finally heard. On considering the pros and cons no useful public purpose will be served by admitting the appeals in which the alleged excess valuation is negligible or minimal. In this view of the matter no useful public purpose will be served by admitting those appeals. 9 First Appeal No.1198.10+4 9. Hence, the appeals are liable to be rejected at the stage of admission, but this shall not be used as precedent. Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] MTK