Land Acquistion cases - Small chunk Land/Large Chunk Land for granting compensation - appreciation of evidence.
23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent (State) placed reliance on the sale deed
9
dated 14.02.1994 (EX141) and contended that if the
price mentioned in this sale deed is relied on then it is
amply clear that the High Court has awarded the
compensation on higher side and, therefore, it
deserves to be rather reduced.
24. In our opinion, the relevant sale deed to
determine the market value of the suit land is (EX141), which is dated 14.02.1994. This we say for two
reasons. First, it is very near to the date of acquisition
(03.03.1994); and Second, it is for a larger chunk of
land. As a matter of fact, if we only rely upon Ex141
then perhaps the determination made by the High
Court in relation to two kinds of land can still be
reduced.
25. Since the State has not filed any appeal against
the order of the High Court and on the other hand has
accepted the determination made by the High Court,
we need not examine the question of reducing the rate
1
determined by the High Court in these appeals. It is
not legally permissible.
26. Having examined the issue, we cannot place
exclusive reliance on ExP42 as was urged by the
learned counsel for the appellants neither for restoring
the rates determined by the Civil Court and nor for
making any further enhancement in the rates
determined by the High Court.
27. As a matter of fact, we find that ExP42 is of the
year 1989 and that too of a very small piece of land. It
would not, therefore, be safe to place exclusive reliance
on this sale deed. It is more so when we find that Ex141 relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondent (State) was executed just one month prior
to the date of acquisition and is also of a large chunk
of land situated in the same village.
28. We are also not impressed by the submission of
learned counsel when he contended that since the
1
land in question is an agricultural land and, therefore,
price of small piece of land can be taken into
consideration for determining the large chunk of land.
We cannot accept this submission in the light of what
we have held above on facts.
29. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, rightly
took into consideration all the six sale deeds and then
on appreciation of entire evidence rightly came to a
conclusion that the rates determined by the Civil
Court in relation to Jirayat and Bagayat lands
appeared to be on higher side and hence need to be
reduced. Accordingly, the rate of Jirayat land was
reduced from Rs.1,69,231/ per hectare to Rs.
1,26,924/ per hectare and the rate of Bagayat land
was reduced from Rs.2,11,539/ per hectare to
Rs.1,58,655/ per hectare by the High Court. The
marginal reduction of the rates in two types of land,
1
which is based on cogent reasoning of the High Court,
cannot, therefore, be faulted with.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1021710250 OF 2011 Namdeo Shankar Govardhane(D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. etc.etc. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondent(s)
23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent (State) placed reliance on the sale deed
9
dated 14.02.1994 (EX141) and contended that if the
price mentioned in this sale deed is relied on then it is
amply clear that the High Court has awarded the
compensation on higher side and, therefore, it
deserves to be rather reduced.
24. In our opinion, the relevant sale deed to
determine the market value of the suit land is (EX141), which is dated 14.02.1994. This we say for two
reasons. First, it is very near to the date of acquisition
(03.03.1994); and Second, it is for a larger chunk of
land. As a matter of fact, if we only rely upon Ex141
then perhaps the determination made by the High
Court in relation to two kinds of land can still be
reduced.
25. Since the State has not filed any appeal against
the order of the High Court and on the other hand has
accepted the determination made by the High Court,
we need not examine the question of reducing the rate
1
determined by the High Court in these appeals. It is
not legally permissible.
26. Having examined the issue, we cannot place
exclusive reliance on ExP42 as was urged by the
learned counsel for the appellants neither for restoring
the rates determined by the Civil Court and nor for
making any further enhancement in the rates
determined by the High Court.
27. As a matter of fact, we find that ExP42 is of the
year 1989 and that too of a very small piece of land. It
would not, therefore, be safe to place exclusive reliance
on this sale deed. It is more so when we find that Ex141 relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondent (State) was executed just one month prior
to the date of acquisition and is also of a large chunk
of land situated in the same village.
28. We are also not impressed by the submission of
learned counsel when he contended that since the
1
land in question is an agricultural land and, therefore,
price of small piece of land can be taken into
consideration for determining the large chunk of land.
We cannot accept this submission in the light of what
we have held above on facts.
29. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, rightly
took into consideration all the six sale deeds and then
on appreciation of entire evidence rightly came to a
conclusion that the rates determined by the Civil
Court in relation to Jirayat and Bagayat lands
appeared to be on higher side and hence need to be
reduced. Accordingly, the rate of Jirayat land was
reduced from Rs.1,69,231/ per hectare to Rs.
1,26,924/ per hectare and the rate of Bagayat land
was reduced from Rs.2,11,539/ per hectare to
Rs.1,58,655/ per hectare by the High Court. The
marginal reduction of the rates in two types of land,
1
which is based on cogent reasoning of the High Court,
cannot, therefore, be faulted with.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1021710250 OF 2011 Namdeo Shankar Govardhane(D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. etc.etc. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondent(s)
