1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2250 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 605 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2245 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2246 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2247 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2248 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2249 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2251 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2252 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2253 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2254 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2255 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2256 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2257 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2258 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2208 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2207 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2209 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2210 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2211 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2212 OF 2009 WITH 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2213 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2214 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2215 OF 2009 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2216 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mrs.Kalpalata Pati, - Bharaswadkar , Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.P. More, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. A.R.Nikam, Mr. Mohekar, Advocates for respondents. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 26/10/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. All these Appeals are filed against the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court on 14/11/2006 and 16/11/2006. 2. The lands of old Gaothan of village Sone Savangi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur were acquired for the submergence of Masalaga Medium Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for land at Rs. 2/- per Sq. M. and has awarded compensation for constructed houses as per the valuation report received by it. The claimants finding the amount of compensation inadequate, filed Reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. They claimed compensation @ Rs. 20/- per Sq. M. as against Rs. 3 2/- per Sq. M. awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, so also, they claimed enhancement in compensation in respect of the house property as per the valuation report submitted by the claimants. The Reference Court partly allowed the said References and enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 6/- per Sq. M. for the land and enhanced compensation in respect of house properties by about 20 %. 3. The acquiring body has assailed the said Judgment and Award in the present Appeals. 4. Mrs. Kalpalata Patil – Bharaswadkar, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the Reference Court has not given any reasons while enhancing the compensation for the land to Rs. 6/- per Sq. M. The enhancement has to be based on material before it. In absence of any proof that the land was valued at Rs. 6/- per Sq. M., there was no reason for the Reference Court to enhance it at Rs. 6/- per Sq.M. The learned counsel further submitted that when there were no sale instances of the said village, then in such circumstances, the price which was considered by the Land Acquisition Officer should have been considered. Unless the claimants place on record the sale instances or some proof of the value of the land as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court could not have enhanced the compensation amount. The learned court further submitted that the Reference Court has not accepted the valuation report submitted by the claimants. As such, there was no proof regarding the cost of construction. In absence of any such 4 proof, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation amount. The learned counsel by referring to the Judgment and the anomalies therein, tried to contend that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court, is per-se ex- faacie erroneous and as such the Appeals deserve to be allowed. 5. Per contra, Mr. Nikam and Mr. Mohekar, the learned counsels for the claimants submitted that the sale deeds of the village Shivani Kotla were produced on record, which is of nearby village. They further submitted that further potentiality of the land also needs to be considered. The village was rehabilitated. In light of same, further development which is likely to be carried out also needs to be considered. According to them, the Reference Court has taken into consideration all the probable circumstances and thereby has come to the correct conclusion. The Reference Court also rightly relied on the sale deed Exh. 105 which is in respect of the property in same village while awarding compensation. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the Judgment and the record and proceedings. 7. It is not disputed that all the lands involved in the present Appeals have been acquired for submergence of Masalaga Medium Project and the village has been rehabilitated. Sale instance of the said village is available at Exh. 105, so also the sale instances of adjoining village have been considered. Perusal of the Judgment shows that the amount of compensation enhanced is 5 minimal. It ranges from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2,4000/-. In 2 matters, the enhancement is to the tune of Rs. 24,000/-, whereas in all other matters, the enhancement is in the range of Rs. 2,000/-. The amount of enhancement is not much. More over, the respondents also could not prove their valuation report as has been observed by the Reference Court. The Reference Court has also not relied on the valuation report of the claimants as the same were on the higher side. The Reference Court has taken into consideration the sale deeds ( Exh. 105) and taking into consideration the said sale deeds, so also, both the valuation reports and has increased cost of construction by only 20 % as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In fact, the potentiality of the land has to be considered. Many times, the sale instances do not reflect accurate potential of the acquired land. The Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash V/s State of Haryana & Ors. Reported in 2010 AIR SCW – 5655, has observed thus : “ 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The location of the land in order to appreciate its potential for the purpose of compensation has first to be understood. Admittedly, the land is situated within the municipal limits of Sonepat which is a district head quarter adjoining Delhi and within the National Capaital Region. The distance between Bahalgarh, a small township on the Grand Trunk Road, National Highway No. 1, built five centuries ago by She Shah Suri ( and arguably India’s most important and strategic highway and the lifeline between the rest of India and the north and northwest ), and Sonepat is 6 7 Km. , as per the indication on the National Highway itself. The acquired land is situated on both sides of the road leading from Bahalgarh to Sonepat with some portions toughing the road side and some portion slightly away and situated behind the ECE factory. It is, however, the admitted position and ( we have seen the location on the maps that have been produced before us ) that the land behind the ECE factory adjoins the area of village Jamalpur Kalan which had been acquired in the year 1992 and which the appellants claim should be made the basis for determining compensation in the present matter as well. It must also be noticed that the enormous development from the Delhi border alongside the Grand Trunk Road and well beyond the Bahalgarh – Sonepat bifurcation is now a matter for all to see and we have seen this on the maps produced in Court as well as huge residential and commercial areas have been developed with a mind boggling increase in the price of agricultural land in the last 15 or 20 years. While dealing with the question of the potential value of the land acquired this Court in P. Rama Reddy’s case ( 1995 AIR SCW 871 ) (supra) observed that several matters had to keep in mind; they being (and we quote), (i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population ; 7 (ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; (iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land ; (iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes ; (v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land ; (vi) benefits or advantages or educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land ; (vii) and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few. 15. The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of the said matters and the like, can not have the needed evidentary value for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When 8 once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality ”. 8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, it does not appear that the Reference Court has committed any error while granting compensation amount. More over, the amount of enhancement is also very meagre. 9. In light of the same, the First Appeals are dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 10. In view of dismissal of the present Appeals, the Civil Applications does not survives and as such disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/FA 2250.......09