ash 1 fa-348-grp68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 348 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Bhausaheb Dhondu Awari and anr. ... Respondents -- WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 50 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Misrilal Chandmal Chordiya. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 90 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Land Acquisition Officer. ... Appellant Vs. Kisan Tulsiram Shinde. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 122 OF 1996 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2116 OF 1997 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Deoram Tulsiram Shinde. ... Respondent ash 2 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 176 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Gopala Bhaguji Shinde. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 349 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Keru Ganpat Rao and anr. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 350 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Bhika Aba Rao. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 351 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Sakharam Punja Rao and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 352 OF 1994 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3551 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Appellant Vs. Keru Naohaji Borade. ... Respondent ash 3 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 353 OF 1994 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3531 OF 2005 he State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Santu Sakharam Borade and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 354 OF 1994 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3552 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Gangubai Govind Rao and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 355 OF 1994 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3527 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. 1A. Chandrabhagabai Valu Rao and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 356 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Bhaga Sitaram More and others. ... Respondents ash 4 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 357 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra, Through Land Acquisition Officer. ... Appellant Vs. Punja Dagadu Rao. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 358 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Kisan Ananda Rao and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 359 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Kantilal Hiralal Choradiay. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 360 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Kacharu Yashwant Raod and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 361 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Appellant Vs. Valu S. Rao and others. ... Respondents ash 5 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 362 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Bhoru Nabhaji Borade and anr. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 363 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Keru Ganpat Rao. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 364 OF 1994 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3530 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Mamatabai w/o Ganpat Rao and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 365 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Yashwant Bhagu Borade and anr. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 366 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Kacharu Gahina Shinde. ... Respondent ash 6 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 367 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Misrimal Chandmal Chordiya. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 368 OF 1994 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3538 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Kisantulshiram Shinde and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 369 OF 1994 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3524 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Appellant Vs. Nagu B. Rao and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 370 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Bahiru Trimbak Datir. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 371 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. ash 7 fa-348-grp68 Frakiram Valu Yabale. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 372 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Khandubapu Borade and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 373 OF 1994 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3522 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Ananda D. Rao and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 374 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. 1A. Madhukar Shankar Awari and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 375 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Appellant Vs. Hari Rama Rao (D.H.), 1. Pandhari Hari Rao and others. ... Respondents ash 8 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 376 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Ragho Bana Ubale. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 377 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Vishnu Tukaram Borade. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 378 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Khandu B. Borade and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 379 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Yashwant Narayan Ubale. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 380 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. S.N.Rao and others. ... Respondents ash 9 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 381 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Appellant Vs. Nagu B. Rao and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 382 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. 1A. Balu Narasu Rao others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 383 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Nanubai Bahiru Datir and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 384 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Murlidhar Shivram Rao. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 385 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Kacharu Lamanu Borade and others. ... Respondents ash 10 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 386 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Sakharam Raod and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 387 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Appellant Vs. Mogal S. Ubale and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 388 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Valu Mukunda Velhar. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 389 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Yeshwant Bhagu Borade, Through Arjun Y. Borade. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 390 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Ramchandra Bhaguji Shinde. ... Respondent ash 11 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 391 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Appellant Vs. Bhagubai M. Shinde. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 392 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nasik. ... Appellant Vs. Kacharu P. Borade and anr. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 393 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Bhoru Nabhaji Borade and anr. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 394 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Bhika Ranu Rao and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 395 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Madhu Shankar Borade and others. ... Respondents ash 12 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 396 OF 1994 with CIVIL APPLICATION (stamp) NO. 39000 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Madahu Shankar Borade and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 397 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Gitabai Dagadu Charaskar. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 398 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Appellant Vs. Santu Sakharam Borade and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 399 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Bhoru Nabhaji Borade. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 400 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Narayan Dhoondu Rao. ... Respondent ash 13 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 401 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. 1A. Bhausaheb Dhondu Awari and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 402 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Laxman Tukaram Shinde and others. ... Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 403 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Bhoru Nabhaji Borade. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 404 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Manjulabai Kisan Awari. ... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 405 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Chander Govind Rao and others. ... Respondents ash 14 fa-348-grp68 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 406 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Govind Ghamaji Borade and others. ... Respondents AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 407 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Govind Ghamaji Borade and another. ... Respondents -- ShriA.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant in all the above Appeals. Shri P.N.Joshi for the Respondents in First Appeal Nos.348/94, 349/94, 350/94, 351/94, 355/94, 359/94, 365/94, 366/94, 367/94, 368/94, 371/94, 373/94, 375/94, 376/94, 378/94, 379/94, 380/94, 381/94, 382/94, 384/94, 385/94, 386/94, 389/94, 390/94, 391/94, 392/94, 393/94, 394/94, 397/94, 399/94, 403/94 and 405/94. Shri S.M. Gorwadkar for the Respondents in First Appeal Nos.352/94, 353/94, 354/94, 356/94, 357/94, 358/94, 360/94, 361/94, 362/94, 363/94, 364/94, 369/94, 372/94, 374/94, 377/94, 383/94, 388/94, 395/94, 396/94, 398/94, 400/94, 401/94, 404/94 and 406/94. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : . These Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. The Appeals arise out of the Awards made in the References under ash 15 fa-348-grp68 Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The acquisition was in respect of various lands at village Mukane, Taluka – Igatpuri, District – Nashik. The acquisition was for the purposes of construction of a reservoir of Nandur-Madhmeshwar Project. A Notification dated 26th December, 1982 under Section 4 of the said Act was published in Gazette on 20th January, 1983. An Award was made on 19th May, 1987 under Section 11 of the said Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer divided the acquired lands into 7 groups depending upon the revenue assessment. The Land Acquisition Officer offered the market value of Jirayat lands falling in various groups as under:- (i) Group - I Rs.8,500/- per Hectare (ii) Group - II Rs.9,000/- per Hectare (iii) Group - III Rs.10,000/- per Hectare (iv) Group - IV & above Rs.11,000/- per Hectare The Land Acquisition Officer offered market value for Bagayat Tari lands at the rate of one and half times for Jirayat lands. For Pot Kharaba lands, he awarded the market value of Rs.200/- per Hectare. The references were made at the instance of the Respondents who are the original claimants. The claims in the references were made at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per Hectare for Bagayat lands, Rs.50,000/- per Hectare for Tari-Paddy Lands, Rs.40,000/- per Hectare for Jirayat lands and for Rs.30,000/- per Hectare for Jirayat Mal ash 16 fa-348-grp68 lands. The Reference Court while deciding the references by a common judgment divided the lands into five groups based on its revenue assessment. The five groups are as under:- “Land Revenue : Rs. 0.01 to Rs. 1.25 group - I Rs. 1.26 to Rs. 2.50 group – II Rs. 2.51 to Rs.3.75 group - III Rs. 3.76 to Rs.5.00 group – IV Rs. 5.01 to Rs.6.25 group – V” 2. The learned Judge observed that the paddy or tari lands are basically Jirayat lands which are specially used for the crop of paddy. The learned Judge observed that the paddy lands growing paddy once in a year are equated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer with the Bagayat land and has given one and half times the price of Jirayat land. The learned Judge thereafter observed that the classification of the lands on the basis of assessment is to be made initially and further if the lands are shown to be paddy lands or bagayat lands, they are to be given one and half times the value of the jirayat lands of the same group. The learned Reference Court thereafter came to the conclusion that the rate of Rs.24,000/- per Hectare is adequate market price for jirayat lands of group – I. For determining the market value of jirayat lands falling in each successive group , he added Rs. 2,000/- per Hectare to the rate of Rs.24,000/- for each successive group. Viz; Rs.26,000/- for group-II , Rs.28,000/- for group-III etc. He held that market ash 17 fa-348-grp68 value of paddy and bagayat lands was one and half times the market value of jirayat lands. The learned Judge held that the paddy and bagayat lands of group – I to group – V should get the market value of Rs.36,000/- per Hectare, Rs.39,000/- per Hectare, Rs.42,000/- per Hectare, Rs.45,000/- per Hectare and Rs.48,000/- per Hectare, respectively. For pot kharaba lands, the market value was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per Hectare. Apart from granting the enhancement of the market value, the learned Judge granted the statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 23(8) of the said Act. 3. The learned AGP has taken the Court through the judgment and the evidence on record. He pointed out that none of the sale instances relied upon by the claimants are of comparable lands. He pointed out that the evidence of the five witnesses examined by the claimants does not prove that what was reflected from the Sale Deeds was a fair bargain and that the price reflected from the Sale Deeds is the market value. He pointed out that there is an element of compulsion involved in the sales, as reflected from the evidence of the purchasers and the said depositions make it clear that the lands were purchased by the purchasers because of special value thereof. He submitted that the finding arrived at by the Reference Court that the market value of jirayat lands falling in Group – I was Rs.24,000/- per Hectare has no basis and the claimants did not discharge their burden of proving that the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. He submitted that the pot kharaba land which is not useful for any purpose has ash 18 fa-348-grp68 been granted excessive market value at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per Hectare for which there is no justification. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the original claimants submitted that the method of grouping the lands on the basis of the land revenue adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer has been followed by the learned Reference Court. He pointed out that all the sale instances which are produced before the Court are all of comparable lands from the said village and they are in close proximity in time to the relevant date. He submitted that post notification sales cannot be ignored. He submitted that even the sale instance of the year 1981 is relevant for showing the trend of market value of the lands which were comparable to the acquired lands. He urged that the market value fixed for jirayat and bagayat as well as pot kharaba lands is just, fair and reasonable and no interference is called for. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. As pointed out earlier, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has divided the lands subject matter of acquisition into 7 groups depending upon its revenue assessment. The same method has been adopted by the Learned District Judge and the basis on which the groups are made by the learned District Judge is the same as adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of jirayat lands. As the classification was made on the basis of the assessment, the lands in ash 19 fa-348-grp68 Group-I were having less market value as compared to the lands falling in higher groups and accordingly, the rates of Rs.8,500/-, Rs.9,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- per Hectare were fixed for Groups – I, II and III and for Group IV to VII, the market value was arrived at Rs.11,000/-. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of bagayat/tari lands at the rate of one and half times the market value of the jirayat lands. In respect of bagayat/ tari lands used for taking the paddy crop, the same method has been adopted by the learned District Judge. In such circumstances, the main issue required to be considered is the question as to what is the correct market value of the jirayat lands falling in Group – I on the relevant date. 6. For the purposes of determination of the market value, scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence is necessary. The first witness examined by the Claimants is one Bhagwant Ganpat Rao for proving a Sale Deed dated 9th June, 1982 for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- in respect of the land in the same village having total area of 13.6 Ares and assessment of 53 paise. The approximate market value reflected from the said sale instance is of Rs.36,700/- per Hectare. The witness stated in the cross-examination that when he purchased the said land, it was a non-irrigated land. As far as the area is concerned, the learned District Judge has observed that in respect of various lands under acquisition, more than 60% of the lands under acquisition are having area less than 1 Hectare and out of them more than 50% are having an area of 50 Ares. It is observed that out of the lands ash 20 fa-348-grp68 acquired, 21 lands are having the area between 1 Hectare and 2 Hectares and only three lands are having area more than 3 Hectares. It is true that the area in sale instance is approximately 13.5 Ares. But nevertheless the document will indicate the market value of land in the same village which was not irrigated as of 9th June, 1982. 7. The second witness is Tukaram Ravji Rao who was examined to prove the Sale Deed dated 19th October, 1983. The said sale instance is in respect of a land from the said village having total area of 30.3 Ares which was sold at the price of Rs.9,000/-. It is true that as a matter of rule, the post notification sales cannot be ignored ,but in the cross-examination of the said witness, he has stated that before purchasing the land, he has not inquired about the prevailing market price . He also admitted that in the village, there was a competition in purchasing the lands. It is suggestive of impact of acquisition on the prices of the land in the village and therefore, the said sale instance will have to be kept out of consideration. 8. The third witness is Walu Mukunda Velhal who was examined to prove the Sale Deed dated 2nd September, 1983 which relates to a paddy land admeasuring 44 Ares in the same village which was sold for the price of Rs.10,000/-. The learned Judge has taken into consideration this sale instance which shows the market value of Rs.26,455/- per Hectare. The claimants also examined Sakharam Punja Rao to prove the Sale Deed dated ash 21 fa-348-grp68 28th June, 1979 at the price of Rs.5,000/-. The said Sale Deed has been rightly discarded by the learned District Judge as the same is of June, 1979. The last document relied upon by the claimants is a Sale Deed dated 9th June, 1981 in respect of land admeasuring 30.3 Ares from the same village which was sold at the price of Rs.10,000/-. One Gangaram Dhondiram Rao who was the purchaser under the Sale Deed was examined to prove the said Sale Deed. In the cross examination, he stated that the said land covered by the said Sale Deed was non-irrigated land. He denied the correctness of the suggestion that as the land was conveniently located, he had paid higher price for the land. The said Sale Deed disclosed the market value of Rs. 33,000/- per Hectare. 9. As pointed out earlier, the Sale Deed dated 9th June, 1982 at Exhibit – 17 relates to a small area of 13.5 Ares which discloses the market value of Rs.36,700/- per Hectare. The second document which is the Sale Deed at Exhibit – 21 dated 9th February, 1981 discloses the rate of Rs. 26,455/- per Hectare and as pointed out earlier, the last Sale Deed at Exhibit – 26 reflects the market value of Rs.33,000/- per Hectare. It is already noted that as far as the document at Exhibit – 26 is concerned, it is brought on record in the cross-examination of the purchaser that the land was a non- irrigated land. The documents at Exhibits – 17, 21 and 26 are certainly relevant for determination of the market value of the lands. At this stage, it must be noted that the learned District Judge has taken the base value of Rs. ash 22 fa-348-grp68 24,000/- per Hectare for jirayat land in Group – I. The minimum price which is reflected from the Sale Deeds at Exhibits – 17 and 26 is Rs.26,455/- per Hectare. As pointed out earlier, as regards the Sale Deed at Exhibit – 26, the market value of a land which was not irrigated as of 9th June, 1981 was Rs. 33,000/- per Hectare. 10. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that determination of market value in accordance with Section 23 of the said Act inherently involves some kind of a guess work. The said view has been taken by the Apex Court even in the recent decision in the case of Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, [ (2009) 11 SCC 171]. As far as the present case is concerned, the fixation of basic rate of Rs.24,000/- per Hectare for Group – I Jirayat lands is infact lower than the market value reflected from the three Sale Deeds which are found to be relevant. The learned Judge added Rs. 2,000/- per Hectare for arriving at the market value of lands in immediately higher group. For example, the market value of jirayat land falling in Group – II was assessed at Rs.26,000/- per Hectare. Thereafter, the learned District Judge adopted the same formula which is accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer by holding that the market value of the paddy and tari lands was equivalent to one and half times the market value of jirayat land. In the circumstances, it is not possible to find fault with the method adopted by the learned District Judge and the base price of Rs.24,000/- per Hectare determined by the learned District Judge. ash 23 fa-348-grp68 11. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered the market value at the rate of Rs.2,00/- per Hectare for pot kharaba (fallow) land while fixing the rate for jirayat land falling in Group – I at Rs.8,500/- per Hectare. Apart from the fact that the market value of jirayat land falling in Group – I was found by the District Court to be Rs.24,000/- per Hectare, the learned District Judge has held that the pot kharaba land is always useful for other activities such as use as thrashing floor, for tethering cattle, for raising of farm hut and storage of agricultural implements. Thus, he has fixed the market value of pot kharaba lands at Rs.2,000/- per Hectare which is only 8.33 % of the base price of Rs.24,000/- per hectare determined in respect of jirayat lands falling in Group – I . 12. Thus, sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that the market value fixed by the learned District Judge is just, fair and reasonable which calls no interference in these Appeals. There cannot be any dispute regarding grant of statutory benefits. 13. Hence, there is no merit in the aforesaid Appeals and the Appeals are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )