area, having nonagricultural potentiality and therefore, the
market value of the land would not be as the market value of
the dry crop land. The Reference Court holds that the market
value of the nonagricultural land is aways more than that of
the agricultural land and therefore, it would be proper and
reasonable to fix the market value at Rs.50,000/ per acre.
The findings are not supported by any sale instances
produced by the claimants. The Reference Court has also
rejected the claim based upon the rates mentioned in the
readyrecknor published after the Government Resolution
was issued on 31.10.1994, to determine the market value of
the land on the basis of value recorded in such readyrecknor.
There is absolutely no evidence on record to grant
enhancement of compensation. If the land is to be treated as
nonagricultural land, then appropriate deductions are also
required to be considered on account of development. That
has also not been done.
In terms of Section
24 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court is prohibited from
taking into consideration any increase to the value of the land
acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put
when acquired. Hence, the future development and potential
prospective use of the acquisition are not the relevant
circumstances to be taken into consideration by the Court to
determine the market value of the land as has been held by
the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Tarlochan Singh
and another vrs. State of Punjab and others reported in
(1995) 2 SCC 424.
In view of above, the Reference Court has
committed an error in holding that the claimant is entitled to
enhancement of compensation from Rs.26,500/ per hectare
to Rs.1,25,000/ per hectare (Rs.50,000/ per acre). The
enhancement granted is without any basis and cannot,
therefore, be sustained.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2004
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation,
...VERSUS...
Sau. Bhagatdasi w/o Rajendrakumar Verma
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 4thFEBRUARY, 2016 .
Citation;2016(3) MHLJ252,2016(2) ALLMR 397
1] By notification issued under Section 32(2) of the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, which is equivalent
to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 04.01.1992, the
land admeasuring 2.75 HR from Survey No. 185 situated at
Mouza Tadali, Tq. And District : Chandrapur, was acquired
for industrial purpose by the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (in short "the M.I.D.C.). The award
was passed on 04.05.1995 and the Land Acquisition Officer
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.26,500/ per
hectare, working out the total compensation payable as
Rs.4,18,028/.
2] In the reference preferred under Section 34 of
the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act read with
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, registered as Land
Acquisition Reference Case No. 3 of 1996, the learned
Judge of the Reference Court by its judgment and award
dated 20.12.2003 enhanced the compensation at the rate of
Rs.50,000/ per acre, which is equivalent to Rs.1,25,000/ per
hectare, along with all statutory benefits. The acquiring
body i.e. the M.I.D.C., is before this Court in this first appeal
challenging the enhancement of the compensation, whereas
the cross objection has been filed by the claimant to claim
further enhancement of compensation at the rate of
Rs.3,00,000/ per hectare.
3] The point for determination is as under;
Whether the the enhancement granted by
the Reference Court is based upon
evidence available on record?
4] The only consideration by the Reference Court is
in paragraph 17 which is reproduced below;
"[17] …............ As such, we have to determine the
market value of the applicant's field by applying
pragmatic test. We have, therefore, to apply the test as
to at what price the willing vendor will prepare to
purchase the applicant's land and at what price, the
willing vendor would prepare to sell such land in the
open market. I have already observed about that, since
the field of applicant comes under industrial area, it has
got Nonagricultural potentiality. Therefore, the market
value of the land would not be as the market value of
the dry crop land. The market value of the Nonagricultural
land is always more than that of the
agricultural land. In absence of any other evidence on
record, I find that, if a prudent man wants to purchase
the land of the applicant, then he would purchase it at
the rate of Rs.50,000/ per acre, considering in mind
that the field is within the industrial area and has got
nonagricultural potentiality. Therefore, in my humble
opinion, Rs.50,000/ per acre would be the proper and
reasonable market value of the applicant's land. I,
therefore, hold that the applicant is entitled for the
market value of the field at the rate of Rs.50,000/. As
such, deducting the amount of per acre market value
already awarded from Rs.50,000/, the applicant is
entitled for the balance market value per acre. I,
therefore, answer issue No. 2 accordingly."
The enhancement is only on the ground that it is an industrial
area, having nonagricultural potentiality and therefore, the
market value of the land would not be as the market value of
the dry crop land. The Reference Court holds that the market
value of the nonagricultural land is aways more than that of
the agricultural land and therefore, it would be proper and
reasonable to fix the market value at Rs.50,000/ per acre.
The findings are not supported by any sale instances
produced by the claimants. The Reference Court has also
rejected the claim based upon the rates mentioned in the
readyrecknor published after the Government Resolution
was issued on 31.10.1994, to determine the market value of
the land on the basis of value recorded in such readyrecknor.
There is absolutely no evidence on record to grant
enhancement of compensation. If the land is to be treated as
nonagricultural land, then appropriate deductions are also
required to be considered on account of development. That
has also not been done.
5] The learned counsel for the respondent no.1
submits that the State Government had directed the Collector
to redetermine the price of the field on the basis of the rates
given in the readyrecknor and accordingly the report was
prepared and sent to the Town Planning Officer for
verification. The Collector has thereafter submitted the
proposal to the Government and the action of the
Government is awaited on such report.
6] There is absolutely no evidence laid by the
respondentsclaimants to establish all these facts. The
persons from the concerned department have not been
called as witnesses. The rates mentioned in the readyrecknor
have not been placed on record. In terms of Section
24 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court is prohibited from
taking into consideration any increase to the value of the land
acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put
when acquired. Hence, the future development and potential
prospective use of the acquisition are not the relevant
circumstances to be taken into consideration by the Court to
determine the market value of the land as has been held by
the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Tarlochan Singh
and another vrs. State of Punjab and others reported in
(1995) 2 SCC 424.
7] In view of above, the Reference Court has
committed an error in holding that the claimant is entitled to
enhancement of compensation from Rs.26,500/ per hectare
to Rs.1,25,000/ per hectare (Rs.50,000/ per acre). The
enhancement granted is without any basis and cannot,
therefore, be sustained.
8] In the result, first appeal is allowed. The
judgment and award dated 20.12.2003 passed by the
learned 3rd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Chandrapur, in
Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 3 of 1996 is hereby
quashed and set aside. The Cross Objection filed by the
Respondent No.1/claimant is dismissed. The reference under
Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act,
registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 3 of 1996
is also dismissed. No order as to costs.
9] On 20.07.2004, this Court had directed the
appellant to deposit 50% of the amount of enhanced
compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Accordingly,
the Respondent No.1/claimant has withdrawn the amount of
Rs.1,62,208/, and as per the order passed by this Court on
6.12.2004, the claimant is required to refund the amount so
withdrawn with interest from the date of withdrawal till its
payment. The respondent No.1/claimant is, therefore,
directed to redeposit the amount so withdrawn along with 6%
interest per annum as per order passed by this Court within a
period of eight weeks from today and the appellant shall be
permitted to withdraw the said amount upon such deposit. If
the respondent no.1/claimants fails to redeposit the amount
along with interest then the appellant shall be at liberty to
execute this order as a decree of the Court.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment