The Compensation Must Be Increased With The Dynamic Land Policies: In Bombay High Court

1 J FA 90 2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.90 OF 2018 Jagram Balu Jadhaoand enhanced the compensation from Rs.10 500 per hectare to Rs.50 000 per hectare in respect of the land under Survey No.19 2 admeasuring 6H 7R of village Mokh Tq Digras Distt. Yavatmal 3 J FA 90 2018.odt The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under The appellants were the owners of the land under Survey No.19 2 of village Mokh Tq. Digras District Yavatmal. The said land admeasuring 6H 7R was acquired by the Acquiring Body wherein the compensation in respect of an irrigated land in the same vicinity acquired by the same notification was enhanced to Rs.1 00 000 per hectare. The Reference Court held that there was no evidence to prove that the acquired land was irrigated land and hence upon 4 J FA 90 2018.odt deducting 50% towards this dissimilarity awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.50 000 per hectare. Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants have filed this appeal under Section 54 of the said Act Shri. A. R. Chavhan learned Advocate for the appellants has relied upon judgment dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 wherein this Court Coram : Arun D. Upadhye J.) had enhanced the compensation in respect of the land under Survey No.93 4 of village Mokh from Rs.90 000 per hectare to Rs.6 50 000 per hectare The enhancement was based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5146 5147 of 2011 Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the land under Survey No.93 4 is of similar nature and is in close vicinity of the subject land. He further submits that the said land under Survey No.93 4 was acquired for the same purpose by the same Notification. He therefore contends that in view of the said judgment dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.4296 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 5 J FA 90 2018.odt Nos.5146 5147 of 2011 the appellants are also entitled for compensation at Rs.6 50 000 per hectare Shri. M. A. Kadu learned Advocate for respondent no.4 has brought to my notice that by judgment dated 17.09.2010 in First Appeal No.87 of 1996 this Court had determined the compensation in respect of Survey No.93 4 at Rs.70 000 per hectare. He submits that the appellants in First Appeal No.4296 got the compensation enhanced by suppressing the fact that the compensation in respect of the very same land was determined at Rs.70 000 per hectare vide judgment dated 17.09.2010 passed in First Appeal No.896. He therefore contends that no reliance can be placed on the judgment dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 in determining the market rate of the subject land Shri Kadu learned counsel for the Acquiring Body further submits that the land which was subject matter of the appeal in Civil Appeal Nos.5146 51411 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was acquired for establishment of new gaothan of Mokh Village. He submits that the said land under Survey 6 J FA 90 2018.odt No.126 1 B was close to the road and had NA potential. He further submits that the nature of the subject land is not similar to the land which was the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.51411 and hence the valuation of subject land cannot be based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said Appeal No.51411. He submits that an irrigated land under Survey No.93 4 which was acquired by the same Notification has been valued at Rs.70 000 per hectare. The said valuation is based on the judgment dated 05.08.2009 in First Appeal No.4293 He therefore contends that the appellants are not entitled for enhanced compensation at Rs.6 50 000 I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for the respective The claim for enhanced compensation is based mainly on judgment dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.4296 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5146 51411. The judgment dated 20.02.2009 7 J FA 90 2018.odt in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 relates to an agricultural land under Survey No.93 4 of village Mokh which was also acquired by the same Notification. In a Reference under Section 18 being LAC 193 1992 filed by Dattaram Tatyaji Paul the owner of the said land the Reference Court by judgment dated 15.09.1995 enhanced the compensation to Rs.90 000 per hectare. The said judgment was challenged by the State in First Appeal No.896 and by the owner of the land Dattaram in First Appeal No.426 of 1996. The records indicate that the First Appeal No.426 of 1996 was dismissed for non prosecution on 04.02.2009. The First Appeal No.896 filed by the State was decided by judgment dated 17.09.2010 wherein this Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation from Rs.90 000 to Rs.70 000 per hectare. It is not in dispute that subsequent to this judgment i.e. on 10.08.2018 this Court restored the First Appeal No.4296 and relying upon the judgment dated 17.10.2018 in First Appeal No.3403 and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5146 51411 enhanced the compensation of the said land under Survey No.93 4 to Rs.6 50 000 per hectare. 8 J FA 90 2018.odt It is pertinent to note that the decision in First Appeal No.87 of 1996 wherein this Court had determined the compensation of the acquired land under Survey No.93 4 of village Mokh at the rate of Rs.70 000 per sq. Hectare had attained finality. The appellants in First Appeal No.4296 obtained the order of enhancement in respect of the very same land by suppressing the fact that by judgment dated 17.09.2010 in First Appeal No.87 of 1996 the compensation was already determined at the rate of Rs.70 000 per hectare. It is well settled that if some relief is granted inadvertently or by mistake such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case it cannot be perpetuated. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and anr. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in14 SCC 81. This being the case the petitioner is not entitled to claim enhanced compensation based on the decision in First Appeal No.4296 which was obtained by suppressing the previous decision in First Appeal No.896. 9 J FA 90 2018.odt Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation independently on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5146 51411. The judgment of the Apex Court relates to the land under Survey No.126 1 B of village Mokh which was acquired by separate notification for establishment of new gaothan of Mokh village. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation in respect of the said land at the rate of Rs.9 000 per hectare. In a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the Reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.6 50 000 per hectare. The said judgment was challenged by the State in First Appeal No.3795 and by the owner in First Appeal No.120 of 1996. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 22.08.2007 allowed the appeal filed by the State and set aside the order of the Reference Court and accordingly held that the claimant owner was entitled for compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In an appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the compensation in respect of the similar land in another village was determined at Rs.6 50 000 per hectare. The Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore set aside the order of this Court 10 J FA 90 2018.odt and restored the order of the Reference Court and accordingly confirmed the rate of compensation at Rs.6 50 000 per hectare. The appellants have placed on record a copy of the Village Map of village Mokh Taluka Digras. A perusal of the said Map shows that there are several properties in between Survey No. 19 2 and the property under Survey No.126. Furthermore the land under Survey No.126 is abutting a road and it was acquired for establishment of new gaothan. There is no evidence on record to prove that the nature of the said land was similar to that of the acquired land. In the absence of any evidence to prove the similarity as regards locality potentiality or the nature of the said land vis a vis the subject land the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be relied upon to determine the market rate of the acquired land. As noted above by judgment dated 17.09.2010 in First Appeal No.87 of 1996 an irrigated land under Survey No.93 4 of village Mokh acquired by the same notification has been valued at Rs.70 000 per hectare. A perusal of the Village Map shows that the said land is situated in close vicinity of the 11 J FA 90 2018.odt acquired land. Considering these factors the market rate of the acquired land can be determined on the basis of previous judgment in First Appeal No.87 of 1996. Accordingly the appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.70 000 per hectare. The record reveals that the appellants had assailed the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2012 in an appeal filed in the year 2016 along with a delay condonation application. By order dated 20.11.2017 the delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted. Considering the fact that the appellants had preferred the appeal after considerable delay in my considered view it would not be just and proper to saddle the State with interest for the delayed period. Hence the appellants shall be entitled for interest from the date of admission of the appeal till final realization. Under the circumstance the appeal is partly allowed The compensation in respect of the land admeasuring 6H 7R from Survey No.19 2 of village Mokh is enhanced from Rs.50 000 per hectare to Rs.70 000 per hectare with interest from the date of admission of appeal till final realization. The respondent Acquiring Body to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest as stated 12 J FA 90 2018.odt above within a period of four months

Summary: With the Changing Land Policies, Compensation Must Be Increased per Hectare. The land compensation was increased from Rs.10,500 per hectare to Rs.50,000 per hectare by the Reference Court, which the High Court Of Bombay upheld.  The honorable judge ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J pronounced this judgment on 25.01.2022 in JAGRAM BALU JADHAO V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ( First Appeal No.90 Of 2018 ). Facts of this case – The appellants were the proprietors of land under Survey No.19/2 in village Mokh, Tq. Digras, Yavatmal District. The Acquiring Body (Respondent No.4) purchased the land mentioned above, which measures 6H 7R, to submerge the Arunavati Project. On the 23rd of January, 1986, the Notification under Section 4 was issued, and the Award was announced on the 3rd of August, 1988. The compensation was set at Rs.10,500 per hectare by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO). The appellants filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Act mentioned above after they were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation established by the LAO. Shri. A. R. Chavhan, learned Advocate for the appellants, has relied on the judgment of this Court (Coram: Arun D. Upadhye, J.) dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 (Dattaram S/o Tatyaji Paul V. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.), wherein this Court (Coram: Arun D. Upadhye, J.) increased the compensation in respect of the land under The increase was based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal Nos.5146-5147 of 2011. The appellants’ learned Advocate contends that the land under Survey No.93/4 is similar and near the relevant area. He further claims that the same Notification was used to purchase the land under Survey No.93/4 for the same reason. This Court decided the compensation in respect of Survey No.93/4 at Rs.70,000/- per acre in a decision dated 17.09.2010 in First Appeal No.87 of 1996, according to Shri. M. A. Kadu learned Advocate for respondent no.4. He claims that the appellants in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 had their compensation increased by concealing that compensation for the same land had been set at Rs.70,000/- per hectare in First Appeal No.87 of 1996, a judgment dated 17.09.2010. As a result, he claims that the judgment dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 cannot be used to determine the market rate of the relevant land. The Learned Judge ruled that the petition for increased compensation is primarily based on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No.5146-5147 of 2011 and the ruling dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996. The verdict in First Appeal No.426 of 1996, issued the 20th of February, 2009, concerns agricultural property in village Mokh under Survey No.93/4, which was also acquired by the same Notification. Dattaram Tatyaji Paul, the landowner, filed a Section 18 reference, LAC 193/1992, and the Reference Court, by order dated 15.09.1995, increased the compensation to Rs.90,000/- per hectare. It is widely established that an order granting relief mistakenly or by mistake does not confer any legal right on others to get the same ease. A wrong that has been committed in the past cannot be repeated. “Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and anr. V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81.” As a result, the petitioner is not entitled to further compensation based on the judgment in First Appeal No.426 of1996, which was acquired by overturning the prior decision in First Appeal No.87 of 1996. The appeal is somewhat admissible in this situation. Compensation for land measuring 6H 7R from Survey No.19/2 of village Mokh has been increased from Rs.50,000/- per hectare to Rs.70,000/- per hectare, including interest from the date of admission of the appeal till ultimate realization. The respondent/Acquiring Body must deposit the increased compensation with interest as described above within four months.