1 fa1929.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1929 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1930 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr.T.S. Lodhe, AGP for appellant. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 20H DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard learned A.G.P. for the appellant. 2. Present First Appeals are preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award dated 14-12-2006 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1 Amalner District Jalgaon. A few facts of the matter are as under : 3. The S.L.A.O. issued notification dated 15-03-1984 under Section 4 of the 2 fa1929.10 Land Acquisition Act for acquiring respondents -original claimants' land for public purpose. After following due process of law, S.L.A.O. passed award dated 10-08-1987 and awarded compensation in respect of the acquired land. The S.L.A.O. awarded compensation @Rs.22,000/- per hector. 4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the S.L.A.O., the respondents - original claimants preferred Reference u/s.18 of the L.A. Act. Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation @ Rs. 83,300/- per hector. 5. As per the calculation given by the appellant in foot note of F.A. No. 1929/2010, the Reference Court awarded additional enhanced compensation of Rs.9808/- towards land value and in F.A. No.1930/- additional compensation towards land value is Rs.3704/-. 6. In both the references, the Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation for acquired land is less than Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand). 3 fa1929.10 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) S.C.C. 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 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 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 4 fa1929.10 similar 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 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 except 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 both the appeals, the lands were acquired in the year 1984. The excess amount alleged to have been awarded by the Reference Court, for the reduction of which those appeals have been filed does not exceed Rs.5000/-, in any of the cases. Since it is compulsory acquisition, it is the solemn duty of the 5 fa1929.10 Court to asses 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 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 glaringly large, the land owners whose lands have been 6 fa1929.10 compulsorily acquired will to be unnecessarily 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. Hence, both the appeals are liable to be rejected at the stage of admission, but this shall not be used as precedent, in other connected matters. [ K. K. TATED, J.] sut/DEC10/fa1929.10