Digamber & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

10. Feeling aggrieved by the said award the appellants herein sought for reference to the reference court by filing claim petition under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 for enhancement of compensation by re-determining the market value. The Collector made reference to the reference court by acceding to the request of the land owners for re-determination of the market value of the acquired land. The appellants produced documentary evidence of sale instances of the plots which are situated in the near proximity of the acquired land and the reference court has examined their claim for enhancement of compensation and rightly re-determined the market value of their land by placing reliance upon the sale instances. The said claim was opposed by the respondents by filing their written statement, inter alia, contending that compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer is as per the sale consideration of the land covered in the sale instances which are situated nearby the acquired land. The claimants have rightly placed strong reliance upon the sale instances of small plots which are formed in the New Venkateshnagar layout. The sale deed Exh. 21 dated 17.3.1989 shows that the 120 sq. feet was sold for Rs. 3500/- and Exhs. 20 and 22 dated 03.11.1989 which plots measuring 1200 sq. feet sold for Rs.9000/- i.e. Rs. 7.50/- per sq. feet. The aforesaid sale deeds are no doubt prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The other sale instance produced by the claimants, Exh. 23 from GRC 136 shows that plot No.22 about 1500 sq. feet has been sold for 18,000/- at the rate of Rs. 12 per sq. feet. The sale deed is dated 31.05.1993 i.e. three years later from the date of issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. Another sale deed Exh. 14 is in respect of G.No.605 wherein plot No. 8 measuring 45 x 14 sq. feet was sold for Rs. 35,000/- on 21.12.1994. The appellants also produced the sale deed dated 16.02.1990 at Exh. 33 showing that plot No. 34 and 35 admeasuring 60 x 30 feet situated at Venkateshnagar Layout was sold for Rs. 11,000/-. Another sale deed Exh. 34 shows that one plot No. 13 measuring 40 x 30 feet was sold for Rs. 9,000/- on 02.11.1991 which are all after the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The learned reference Judge has rightly placed reliance upon the said sale instances for comparison and held that the acquired land is comparable to the plots covered in the sale deeds referred to supra, as it has acquired non-agricultural potentiality and the acquired land is situated in the near proximity to the plots covered in the sale deeds.

12. The learned reference Judge has recorded a finding of fact stating that the acquired land is having non agricultural potentiality as it has been acquired for MIDC for the purpose of industrial development and further, it is an admitted fact that no crops were raised by the appellants upon the land. The claim of the appellants was partly allowed by the reference Judge holding that they are entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. feet as per the calculations made in the judgment of the reference court.

24. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the findings of fact and reasons recorded by the learned Judge of the reference court in determining the market value of the acquired land are well founded and the same are based on facts, cogent and legal evidence adduced on record by the appellants. The same has been rightly accepted by the learned reference Judge after having noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer in a casual manner rejected the claim of the appellants and determined the meager sum of Rs. 50,000/- per hectare as the market value of the land which is unrealistic and contrary to the legal evidence on record and the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The findings of fact recorded by the reference Judge on the relevant issue has been erroneously set aside by the High Court without assigning valid reasons. The findings and reasons recorded by the High Court in its judgment are contrary to the facts and legal evidence and various legal principles laid down by this court in the cases referred to supra. Therefore, we have to record our finding that reversing the judgment and award of the reference court is not only erroneous on facts but is also erroneous in law. Accordingly, we answer the first point in favour of the appellants.

25. Since, we have answered the first point in favour of the appellants, the second point is also answered in favour of the appellants and it would be just and proper for this Court to restore the judgment and award passed by the reference court. Since we have affirmed the award of the reference court, having regard to the undisputed fact that this acquisition is of more than 23 years, it would be just and proper for this Court to direct the respondent No.3 – M.I.D.C. to issue the Demand Draft in favour of the landowners/appellants or their legal representatives or deposit the same in their bank accounts within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and submit the compliance report before the reference court.

26. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to cost.