As per case facts, lands in Village Parhar (Khurd) were acquired for the Neera Deoghar Project. Claimants sought higher compensation, arguing comparability with nearby villages where land was acquired earlier, ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Sayali/Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.194 OF 2021
Raghu Bhagu Sane & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.90 OF 2023
Dagdu Janu Sane, deceased through LRs
Shakuntala Dagdu Sane & Ors. ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.170 OF 2021
Narayan Raghu Sane (Deceased) through
his LRs Anusaya Narayan Sane (deceased_
through her LRs ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.172 OF 2021
Laxman Baburao Pilane, deceased through
his LRs Anusaya Laxman Pilane & Ors. ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
1
SHABNOOR
AYUB
PATHAN
Digitally signed
by SHABNOOR
AYUB PATHAN
Date: 2026.07.10
14:10:52 +0530
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.173 OF 2021
Dhondiba Ganpat Sane, deceased through
his LRs Ganesh Dhondiba Sane & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.175 OF 2021
Raghu Bhagu Sane & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.176 OF 2021
Dhondiba Yashwant Parthe & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.177 OF 2021
Dhondiba Sakharam Sane, deceased through
his LRs Raghuji Dhondi Sane & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.192 OF 2021
Baban Bhairu Sane & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
2
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.200 OF 2021
Dinkar Krishna Gadekar ... Appellant
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.309 OF 2022
Bapu Krishna Mahasavade ... Appellant
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.310 OF 2022
Dhondiba Yeshwant Parte ... Appellant
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.312 OF 2022
Mahadu Bapu Shedge, deceased through
his LRs Kalabai Mahadu @ Mahadeo Shedge
& Others ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
3
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
FIRST APPEAL NO.331 OF 2022
Baban Bhairu Sane ... Appellant
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.403 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7524 OF 2025
Shivram Sakharam Parthe ... Appellant
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.408 OF 2022
Baban Dhondiba Sane & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.424 OF 2022
Dinkar Krishna Godekar ... Appellant
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.593 OF 2021
Dhondiba Dagdu Sane, deceased through
his LRs Baban Dhondiba Sane & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
4
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.627 OF 2022
Shivram Sakharam Parte & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.650 OF 2022
Sudhir Shankar @ Dinkar Sane & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.651 OF 2022
Sakharam Tukaram Sane, deceased through
his LRs Raghu Sakharam Sane & Others ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.660 OF 2022
Raghu Bhagu Sane ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.681 OF 2022
5
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Sakharam Tukaram Sane, deceased through
his LRs Raghu Sakharam Sane & Ors. ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.685 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7534 OF 2025
Rakhamaji Yeshu Chikane & Anr. ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.850 OF 2022
Rakhamaji Yeshu Chikane & Anr. ... Appellants
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer
No.17, Pune & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.714 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18491 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Sudhir Shankar alias Dinkar Sane & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.715 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18448 OF 2022
6
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Narayan Raghu Sane, deceased through his
LRs Anusaya Narayan Sane, deceased
through her LRs & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.716 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18484 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Dhondiba Yashwant Parthe & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.717 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18474 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Baban Bhairu Sane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.718 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18435 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Rakhmaji Yeshu Chikane & Others … Respondents
WITH
7
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
FIRST APPEAL NO.719 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18459 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Sakharam Tukaram Sane, deceased through
his LRs Raghu Sakharam Sane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.720 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18481 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Laxman Baburao Pilane, deceased through
his LRs Pradeep Laxman Pilane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.721 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18469 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Sakharam Tukaram Sane, deceased through
his LRs Raghu Sakharam Sane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.722 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18452 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
8
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Vs.
Baban Dhondiba Sane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.723 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18450 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Raghu Bhagu Sane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.724 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18461 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Dhondiba Dagdu Sane, deceased through
LRs Baban Dhondiba Sane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.725 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18486 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Dhondiba Yashwant Parte & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.726 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18488 OF 2022
9
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Bapu Krishna Mahasavade & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.727 OF 2024
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Raghu Bhagu Sane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.728 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18478 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Mahadu Bapu Shedge, deceased through
his LRs Smt. Kalabai Mahadu @ Mahadeo
Shedge & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.729 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18437 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Raghu Bhagu Sane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.730 OF 2024
WITH
10
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18454 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Dinkar Krishna Godekar & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.731 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18493 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Rakhamaji Yeshu Chikane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.732 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18439 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Dhondiba Ganpat Sane, deceased through
his LRs Ganesh Dhondiba Sane & Others … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.733 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18446 OF 2022
The Acquiring Body, M.K.V.D.C.,
Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, ... Appellant
Vs.
Baban Bhairu Sane & Others … Respondents
11
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Mr. Gaurav Potnis with Radhika Chittewar, & Hrucha Joshi
i/by P.H. Potnis for the appellant in First Appeal Nos.
90/2023, 171/2021, 309/2022, 194/2021, 685/2022,
850/2022, 173/2021, 170/2021, 192/2021, 177/2021,
200/2021, 331/2022, 660/2022, 176/2021, 310/2022,
424/2022, 627/2022, 403/2022, 175/2021, 312/2022,
650/2022, 651/2022, 408/2022, 593/2021, 681/2022 &
for the respondent in 733/2024, 715/2024, 722/2024,
723/2024, 719/2024, 727/2024, 730/2024, 732/2024,
729/2024, 724/2024, 718/2024, 725/2024, 717/2024,
728/2024, 716/2024, 720/2024, 721/2024, 714/2024,
731/2024, 726/2024.
Mr. Ashish Gabhale with Ramesh Dubepatil, Iraa Dubepatil,
Arnav Urankar for the appellant in 733/2024, 715/2024,
722/2024, 723/2024, 719/2024, 727/2024, 730/2024,
732/2024, 729/2024, 724/2024, 718/2024, 725/2024,
717/2024, 728/2024, 716/2024, 720/2024, 721/2024,
714/2024, 731/2024, 726/2024 & for the respondent in
90/2023, 171/2021, 309/2022, 194/2021, 685/2022,
850/2022, 173/2021, 170/2021, 192/2021, 177/2021,
200/2021, 331/2022, 660/2022, 176/2021, 310/2022,
424/2022, 627/2022, 403/2022, 175/2021, 312/2022,
650/2022, 651/2022, 408/2022, 593/2021, 681/2022.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional GP for State.
CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON :JULY 7, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON:JULY 10, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1.These group of references arise out of the common land
acquisition proceedings relating to Village Parhar (Khurd), Taluka
Bhor, District Pune. The lands were acquired for the public purpose
of Neera Deoghar Project. The present group includes Land
12
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Reference No.230 of 2003 along with Land Reference Nos.218 of
2003, 219 of 2003, 220 of 2003, 222 of 2003, 223 of 2003, 224 of
2003, 228 of 2003, 229 of 2003, 234 of 2003, 235 of 2003, 236 of
2003, 241 of 2003, 243 of 2003, 244 of 2003, 268 of 2003, 270 of
2003, 271 of 2003, 273 of 2003, 275 of 2003, 276 of 2003, 277 of
2003, 278 of 2003, 299 of 2003 and 312 of 2003. Out of these
references, First Appeal No.194 of 2021 and First Appeal No.729
of 2024 arise from Land Reference No.230 of 2003. Similarly, First
Appeal No.660 of 2022 and First Appeal No.723 of 2024 arise
from Land Reference No.270 of 2003.
2.The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, for acquisition of the lands was published on 9 October
1997. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.
LAQ/17/SR/1/95 on 17 May 1999. According to the acquiring
body, notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued on 3 June
1999. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded under the
said award, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act. The reference applications were filed on 12
July 1999.
3.Under the award, the Land Acquisition Officer classified the
jirayat lands into four groups and granted compensation at
different rates. Group I lands were awarded compensation at the
rate of Rs.40,000/- per hectare, Group II at Rs.42,000/- per
hectare, Group III at Rs.44,000/- per hectare and Group IV at
Rs.46,000/- per hectare. According to the claimants, the market
value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was much lower than
the actual market value prevailing on the date of acquisition. They
13
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.3,68,000/- per hectare.
4.It has also come on record that notifications relating to
nearby villages were issued earlier. The notification for Village
Dapkeghar was published on 6 May 1993 and the notification for
Village Deoghar was published on 19 August 1993. The parties
have relied upon these facts during the course of the proceedings.
5.Before the Reference Court, the claimants examined
themselves in support of their claim by filing affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief at Exhibit 13 and they were cross examined.
The claimants also produced certified copies of the judgments in
Land Reference No.70 of 1997 and Land Reference No.276 of
1997. Further, they relied upon certified copies of various sale
deeds bearing Registration Nos.1017, 1748, 917, 221, 958, 1169,
1242, 1243 and 745. The claimants also produced original 7/12
extracts of Gat Nos.8/7/1, 13/4/1 and 17/2/1 along with the list
of documents at Exhibits 24 and 25. They further placed on record
original certificates issued by the Talathi of Villages Nirgudghar,
Nandgaon and Apti.
6.Opponent No.1 filed its written statement resisting the claim
and the same was produced at Exhibit 12.
7.Opponent No.2 also opposed the references by filing its
written statement. It examined Pandurang Ramakant Kanjalkar,
whose affidavit in lieu of examination in chief was marked at
Exhibit 36, and he was cross examined. Opponent No.2 further
produced documents through Exhibits 37 and 38, including letters
dated 17 July 2019 and 19 July 2019 and a map of Taluka Bhor.
14
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
8.After considering the oral and documentary evidence placed
by both sides, the Reference Court decided the references. Being
dissatisfied with the judgment and award of the Reference Court,
both the claimants as well as the acquiring body have filed the
present appeals.
9.Mr. Gaurav Potnis learned counsel appearing for the
claimants submitted that Village Parhar Khurd is situated in the
eastern side of Bhor along with villages Dapkeghar, Deoghar,
Nirgudghar, Nandgaon and Apti. It is submitted that though the
eastern side of Bhor is comparatively less developed than the
western side, all these villages are situated very close to each other
and have similar geographical features. According to the claimants,
Village Parhar Khurd shares a common boundary with Village
Dapkeghar. Both these villages are situated on the southern side of
River Neera, whereas Villages Deoghar, Nirgudghar, Nandgaon and
Apti are situated on the northern side of the river. It is submitted
that the River Neera and the Mahad Pandharpur Road divide these
villages only geographically, but they are otherwise adjoining
villages having similar surroundings and agricultural conditions.
10.It is submitted that the issue regarding the location of these
villages is no longer in dispute in view of the findings recorded by
the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.150 of 2009 arising out of
acquisition of lands from Village Dapkeghar. Reliance is placed
upon paragraphs 83 and 84 of the said judgment, wherein the
Coordinate Bench has held that there was sufficient oral and
documentary evidence showing the location of Villages Dapkeghar,
Deoghar, Nirgudghar, Nandgaon and Apti, the distances between
15
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
them, the quality of lands and other relevant features. It is
submitted that the Coordinate Bench has also observed that these
villages are situated within a radius of about one to two kilometres
and there was no substantial difference in the quality of lands in
these villages.
11.The learned counsel submitted that even the impugned
judgment of the Reference Court accepts the same factual position.
Attention is invited to paragraphs 33, 37, 40, 43 and 45 of the
impugned judgment. It is submitted that the Reference Court has
recorded that Village Parhar Khurd and Village Dapkeghar have a
common boundary and both villages are adjoining each other. The
Reference Court has further noticed that the respondents did not
dispute this factual position. It is also recorded that the quality of
lands in both villages is the same and there is no evidence to show
that the acquired lands of Village Parhar Khurd were either
superior or inferior to the acquired lands of Village Dapkeghar. On
that basis, the Reference Court held that the market value
determined for Village Dapkeghar was applicable to the lands
acquired from Village Parhar Khurd.
12.The learned counsel further submitted that even during the
arguments before the Reference Court, the respondents had
accepted that the compensation granted for Village Dapkeghar
could be made applicable to Village Parhar Khurd, though without
granting yearly escalation. According to the claimants, once the
respondents themselves accepted comparability of both villages,
there was no reason to deny the benefit of appropriate escalation.
The learned counsel submitted that Village Parhar Khurd has
16
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
better connectivity than Village Dapkeghar. It is submitted that
there is a direct bridge connecting Village Parhar Khurd to the
Mahad Pandharpur Road across River Neera and the bridge is
hardly about one hundred metres in length. On the other hand,
Village Dapkeghar did not have such direct bridge connectivity. It
is submitted that before construction of the Neera Deoghar Dam,
there was hardly any water in River Neera except during the rainy
season and, therefore, the bridge across the river was of small
length.
13.The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence
already accepted in the judgment relating to Village Deoghar
shows that the Mahad Pandharpur Road was situated at some
distance from Village Deoghar. According to the claimants, the
position of Village Parhar Khurd is almost similar and the only
distance between the village and the road is the small bridge over
River Neera. It is submitted that the respondents have wrongly
attempted to treat the Ring Road constructed in the year 2001 as
the Mahad Pandharpur Road. However, in cross examination, the
respondents have admitted that the Mahad Pandharpur Road and
the Ring Road are two different roads and, therefore, no adverse
inference can be drawn against the claimants on that basis.
14.The learned counsel also relied upon paragraph 78 of the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.150 of 2009.
It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench has already observed
that there was hardly any water in River Neera during most part of
the year, that the surrounding villages were connected by a small
bridge, that the distances between the villages were very short,
17
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
and that the terrain, crops and agricultural conditions were
substantially similar. It is submitted that though deductions may be
permissible wherever a State Highway gives some additional
advantage, the sale instances from the neighbouring villages
cannot be rejected as incomparable.
15.The learned counsel submitted that there was no material
placed by either the State or the Maharashtra Krishna Valley
Development Corporation to show that Villages Nirgudghar,
Nandgaon or Apti had any special development or urban growth
before the acquisition. According to the claimants, no evidence has
been produced to show existence of industries, commercial
activities, residential layouts or any other development in those
villages. It is submitted that the respondents cannot merely assume
that lands adjoining the Mahad Pandharpur Road had higher non
agricultural potential without leading any evidence in that regard.
16.It is further submitted that the evidence led in the earlier
Deoghar references clearly shows that the lands in those villages
were agricultural grass lands and were not being used for any non
agricultural purpose. According to the claimants, merely because a
land is situated near a road, it cannot automatically be treated as
having non agricultural potential. The existence of road by itself is
not sufficient unless there is evidence showing actual development
or likelihood of immediate non agricultural use. The learned
counsel submitted that the award passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer itself supports the claimants. It is pointed out
that the Land Acquisition Officer has specifically recorded that
there were no sale instances available from Village Parhar Khurd
18
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
because after issuance of notifications under the rehabilitation law,
no sale transactions had taken place in the village. Therefore, the
Land Acquisition Officer himself collected sale instances from
adjoining villages for determining the market value.
17.It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer visited the
villages personally and, after examining the nature and quality of
the acquired lands, relied upon sale instances from Villages Apti,
Kari, Nandgaon and Nirgudghar. According to the claimants, the
Land Acquisition Officer himself found that the lands in these
villages were of similar and inferior quality and, therefore,
considered those sale instances as proper comparable instances.
The learned counsel submitted that once the acquiring authority
itself selected these villages as comparable villages, the
respondents cannot now contend that those sale instances are not
comparable. The learned counsel further submitted that though
the Land Acquisition Officer discussed different methods like
Ready Reckoner, ICM Method and Assessment Method, he
ultimately fixed the market value by adopting the sale statistics
method after considering the average of comparable sale
transactions and granting notional yearly increase upto the date of
Section 4 notification. It is submitted that this fact has also been
recorded by the Reference Court in paragraph 22 of the impugned
judgment.
18.The learned counsel argued that assessment entries, Ready
Reckoner rates and similar methods cannot legally determine
market value under the Land Acquisition Act. Reliance is placed
upon the decisions in
State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Baliram
19
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Girdhar Patil, MANU/MH/0803/2006 : (2006) (6) MhLJ 82, State
of West Bengal Vs. Shyampada and Ors
., MANU/SC/0430/1975 :
(1976) 3 SCC 66,
P. Ram Reddy and Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition
Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and
Ors
., MANU/SC/0597/1995 : (1995) 2 SCC 305, Land Acquisition
Officer, Eluru and Ors. Vs. Jasti Rohini and Ors
., MANU/SC/
0583/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 717. It is submitted that these
decisions lay down that market value has to be determined on the
basis of comparable sale transactions and not on revenue
assessment, Ready Reckoner or similar methods.
19.The learned counsel further submitted that the acquired
lands are flat agricultural lands situated on the southern bank of
River Neera. According to the claimants, lands acquired for
creation of a reservoir or catchment area are naturally situated on
plain lands adjoining the river because water can spread only over
such lands. It is submitted that the dam wall itself was constructed
between Villages Deoghar and Salav, which supports the case that
the acquired lands were flat lands and not hilly lands.
20.Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the legal principles
governing determination of compensation are well settled.
Reliance is placed upon paragraphs 52 and 54 of the judgment in
First Appeal No.150 of 2009 as well as the decisions in
Chimanlal
Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Ors.,
MANU/SC/0071/1988: AIR 1988 SC 1652, Land Acquisition
Officer, Eluru and Ors. Vs. Jasti Rohini and Ors.,
MANU/SC/0583/
1995: (1995) 1 SCC 717.
20
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
21.It is submitted that a reference under Section 18 is an
original proceeding and the Reference Court has to determine the
market value afresh on the basis of evidence produced before it.
According to the claimants, once sufficient material is produced
showing that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer is inadequate, the burden shifts upon the State and the
acquiring body to justify the compensation offered in the award.
The market value has to be assessed as on the date of publication
of the notification under Section 4 by assuming a willing purchaser
and a willing seller in an open market transaction.
22.The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted
that the acquiring body has failed to place any substantial evidence
before the Reference Court in support of the award passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that except filing the
affidavit of its witness and producing a map, no independent
material has been brought on record. According to the claimants,
the acquiring body has neither produced any comparable sale
instances nor led any evidence to show that the market value
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was correct. It is
further submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the
claimants were also not specifically challenged by the acquiring
body.
23.The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of the
witness examined by the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development
Corporation itself shows that he had no personal knowledge about
the acquisition proceedings. It is submitted that during the year
1997, when the acquisition took place, the said witness was
21
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
serving in the Irrigation Department at Nanded and was not
connected with the Neera Deoghar Project. According to the
claimants, the witness admitted in his cross examination that he
did not know whether Villages Dapkeghar, Parhar Khurd, Parhar
Budruk and Deoghar were included in the project. He also
admitted that he was not aware whether these villages were
adjoining each other and that he had no knowledge regarding the
quality of the acquired lands as he was not associated with the
project at the relevant time.
24.The learned counsel further submitted that the said witness
admitted that a portion of the old Mahad Pandharpur Road had
gone under water after construction of the Neera Deoghar Project.
He also admitted that the Ring Road was constructed only after the
year 2001. According to the claimants, the witness further
admitted that the road shown in the map produced by the
respondents was not the old Mahad Pandharpur Road but the Ring
Road constructed subsequently. It is submitted that he also
admitted that the Ring Road was not a straight road and that he
had not produced any map showing the old Mahad Pandharpur
Road. It is further submitted that the witness admitted that the
distances mentioned in the letter produced by the acquiring body
were calculated with reference to the Ring Road and not with
reference to the original villages or the lands which were
submerged because of the project. According to the claimants, he
also admitted that the Ready Reckoner rates are meant only for
stamp duty purposes and that he was not personally present when
the lands were acquired. The learned counsel submitted that these
22
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
admissions clearly show that the witness had no personal
knowledge either about the acquisition proceedings or about the
condition and quality of the acquired lands as they existed on the
date of acquisition. According to the claimants, his evidence is
therefore only based on subsequent information and not on his
own knowledge of the relevant facts.
25.The learned counsel further submitted that the acquiring
body examined Mr. Pandurang Ramakant Kanjalkar only to
support the award, but his evidence also suffers from the same
defects. It is submitted that Mr. Kanjalkar was not working in the
Neera Deoghar Project when the acquisition took place in the year
1997. According to the claimants, he admitted in his cross
examination that he had not even read the award passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer. It is, therefore, argued that a witness who
has no knowledge of the award itself cannot effectively support the
correctness of the award before the Court. It is further submitted
that Mr. Kanjalkar claimed to have inspected the lands in the year
2017. According to the claimants, the acquired lands had already
gone under water after completion of the project many years
earlier. Therefore, it is argued that it was not possible for him to
assess the original nature, quality or condition of the acquired
lands by visiting the site nearly two decades after the acquisition
and after the lands had already remained submerged. The
claimants therefore submitted that such evidence deserves no
evidentiary value. The learned counsel also submitted that Mr.
Kanjalkar admitted in his cross examination that the map
produced by the respondents was not a map relating to the
23
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
original submergence area of the Neera Deoghar Project.
According to the claimants, the map actually relates to the Ring
Road developed under the Road Development Scheme for the
period from the year 2001 onwards. It is submitted that such a
map does not represent the actual position existing on the date of
acquisition and, therefore, cannot be treated as a reliable
document for deciding the market value of the acquired lands. The
learned counsel further submitted that even the admissions given
by Mr. Kanjalkar in his cross examination support the case of the
claimants that the road shown in the map is the Ring Road and not
the Mahad Pandharpur Road. According to the claimants, these
admissions materially weaken the case of the acquiring body and
make the map unreliable for deciding the controversy.
26.The learned counsel lastly submitted that the map and the
letter produced by the acquiring body also contain material
inconsistencies regarding distances. It is pointed out that the letter
produced by the respondents mentions the distance between Bhor
and Village Parhar Khurd as 33 kilometres. However, according to
the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer itself, the
distance between Bhor and Village Parhar Khurd is shown as 20
kilometres. It is submitted that this contradiction itself creates
serious doubt regarding the correctness of the letter relied upon by
the respondents. According to the claimants, since the map also
depicts the Ring Road constructed after the acquisition and not the
original Mahad Pandharpur Road existing at the relevant time,
both these documents deserve little evidentiary value and cannot
be relied upon while determining the market value of the acquired
24
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
lands.
27.The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted
that the claimants have produced several comparable sale deeds
before the Reference Court relating to Villages Apti, Nandgaon and
Nirgudghar. It is submitted that these are the very villages whose
sale instances were also relied upon by the Land Acquisition
Officer while determining the compensation. According to the
claimants, all the sale transactions relate to jirayat or gavatpad
lands and are comparable in nature. It is submitted that neither
the State nor the acquiring body has specifically challenged these
sale deeds. Even the witness examined on behalf of the acquiring
body has not disputed or commented upon the genuineness or
comparability of these sale instances. Therefore, according to the
claimants, the sale deeds have remained unchallenged and deserve
full evidentiary value. Reliance is placed upon the decision in
Land
Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah
,
MANU/SC/0137/2001 : (2001) 3 SCC 530, to contend that
unchallenged bona fide sale instances can safely be relied upon for
determining market value.
28.The learned counsel submitted that while deciding the
acquisition relating to Village Dapkeghar, the Coordinate Bench of
this Court had considered eight sale instances produced in that
case. It is submitted that after examining all the sale transactions,
the Coordinate Bench found that sale instances at Exhibits 13, 17
and 19 were the most appropriate comparable instances.
According to the claimants, the Coordinate Bench had already
granted yearly escalation at the rate of twelve per cent up to the
25
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
date of notification issued for Village Dapkeghar on 6 May 1993
while working out the market value.
29.The learned counsel further submitted that the claimants
have also relied upon the earlier judgments relating to Villages
Dapkeghar and Deoghar. According to the claimants, it is well
settled that judgments relating to earlier acquisitions involving
comparable lands can be relied upon while determining the market
value in subsequent acquisitions, provided the lands are similarly
situated. It is submitted that after giving escalation up to the
notification dated 9 October 1997 involved in the present
acquisition, the compensation determined for Village Dapkeghar
comes to about Rs.3,13,981/- per hectare, whereas the
compensation determined for Village Deoghar comes to about
Rs.3,36,847/- per hectare. According to the claimants, the average
of these two comparable rates works out to about Rs.3,25,414/-
per hectare and, therefore, the compensation in the present case
cannot be less than the said figure.
30.The learned counsel then submitted that the Reference Court
ought to have adopted the highest bona fide comparable sale
instance while determining the market value. According to the
claimants, the Supreme Court has consistently held that where
several comparable sale instances are available, the highest bona
fide sale should normally be accepted unless the sale transactions
fall within a narrow range of prices. It is submitted that in the
present case there is a substantial difference of about thirty to fifty
per cent between the sale instances and, therefore, they cannot be
said to fall within a narrow bandwidth. According to the claimants,
26
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
in such circumstances the highest comparable sale instance should
have been accepted.
31.The learned counsel submitted that the sale transaction
bearing Registration No.958 of Village Nandgaon, reflecting the
value of about Rs.4,31,217/- per hectare, is the highest
comparable bona fide transaction and should have been taken as
the basis for determining the market value. According to the
claimants, though the judgment relating to Village Dapkeghar
discussed the legal principle that ordinarily the highest bona fide
sale instance should be preferred, the Coordinate Bench ultimately
adopted a different approach by taking comparable sale instances
within a particular range. The claimants submit that in the facts of
the present case, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court
requiring acceptance of the highest bona fide sale instance
deserves to be applied.
32.In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mehrawal Khewaji
Trust, Faridkot and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors
., 2012 SAR
(Civil) 441: MANU/SC/0349/2012
, M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao
Bahadur Vs. The Collector of Madras
, MANU/SC/0309/1963,
State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Hans Raj (Dead) by Lrs. Sohan Singh
and Ors
., MANU/SC/0830/1994, Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of
Goa and Ors
., MANU/SC/1156/2010, Manohar and Ors. Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
, 2025 (5) BCR (SC) 418:
MANU/SC/0989/2025. According to the claimants, these decisions
consistently hold that while determining compensation in
compulsory acquisition cases, the highest genuine comparable sale
27
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
transaction should ordinarily be preferred unless there are special
reasons for adopting any other method.
33.The learned counsel also relied upon paragraphs 64 and 90
of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.150 of
2009 arising from Village Dapkeghar. It is submitted that the
Coordinate Bench has held that the Reference Court should not
merely calculate an average of all sale instances without
examining their individual comparability. According to the
claimants, the Court must first identify those sale transactions
which are comparable with regard to distance, time and quality of
land. Only thereafter, if those comparable sale transactions fall
within a similar range, can the principle of averaging be applied.
Otherwise, the highest bona fide comparable sale instance should
ordinarily govern the determination of market value. The learned
counsel further submitted that paragraph 90 of the said judgment
reiterates the settled principle that in cases of compulsory
acquisition there is no reason to place land owners in a
disadvantageous position and, therefore, the highest bona fide
comparable exemplar deserves preference.
34.The learned counsel also referred to paragraph 92 of the
judgment in First Appeal No.150 of 2009. It is submitted that
though the Coordinate Bench ultimately determined compensation
for Village Dapkeghar at Rs.2,05,000/- per hectare after making
deductions on account of certain minus factors such as absence of
the Mahad Pandharpur State Highway and other amenities, it also
recorded that the lands of Village Dapkeghar were plain jirayat
lands situated on the southern bank of River Neera, were under
28
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
cultivation and did not require any deduction towards
development charges since the acquisition itself was for
submergence under the project. According to the claimants, these
observations equally support the case of Village Parhar Khurd as
the lands possess similar physical characteristics.
35.Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that if the three highest
comparable sale transactions produced by the claimants are taken
into consideration and suitable escalation is granted up to the date
of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the
average market value works out to about Rs.5,33,114/- per
hectare. According to the claimants, since the law governing
compulsory acquisition requires the Court to award just and fair
compensation based on the most beneficial bona fide comparable
evidence available on record, the compensation deserves to be
enhanced on the basis of the said sale transactions.
36.The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted
that the comparable sale instances produced on record relate to
the period from the year 1989 to 1993, whereas the notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present case was
published on 9 October 1997. According to the claimants, after the
rehabilitation notifications came into force, no sale transactions
took place in the acquired area and, therefore, no later sale
instances were available. It is submitted that while determining the
market value as on the date of the Section 4 notification,
appropriate yearly escalation is required to be granted on the
earlier sale instances so as to bring them to the relevant date of
valuation.
29
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
37.The learned counsel submitted that even the Land
Acquisition Officer had adopted yearly escalation at the rate of
twelve per cent while determining the market value of the
acquired lands. According to the claimants, this itself shows that
the acquiring authority accepted the principle that the prices of
agricultural lands normally increase with the passage of time and
suitable escalation is required where comparable sale transactions
are of an earlier period.
38.The learned counsel further submitted that the concept of
granting twelve per cent yearly escalation is consistent with the
scheme of the Land Acquisition Act after introduction of Section
23(1A). It is submitted that the legislative intention behind
providing such increase is to compensate for the rise in land prices
occurring over a period of time. According to the claimants, when
earlier sale transactions are relied upon as comparable instances,
similar escalation has to be granted so that the market value
reflects the prevailing price on the date of publication of the
notification under Section 4.
39.The learned counsel submitted that the Reference Court
committed an error in refusing to grant escalation at the rate of
twelve per cent per annum. It is argued that while the Reference
Court accepted the compensation determined in the judgment
relating to Village Dapkeghar as the basis for deciding the present
references, it did not adopt the same method followed by the High
Court for calculating the market value. According to the claimants,
once the Reference Court relied upon the judgment relating to
Village Dapkeghar, it ought to have granted the same yearly
30
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
escalation which had already been applied by the High Court while
determining the compensation in that case. It is further submitted
that the Reference Court selectively accepted only the final rate
awarded in the Dapkeghar judgment but ignored the reasoning
adopted for arriving at that rate. According to the claimants, such
selective reliance is not permissible because the entire method of
valuation adopted by the High Court should have been followed if
the judgment itself was treated as the guiding precedent.
40.The learned counsel also submitted that the evidence on
record itself indicates substantial increase in land prices during the
relevant period. According to the claimants, the difference
between the lowest and highest comparable sale transactions
reflects considerable yearly appreciation in market value. It is
submitted that the available material itself supports grant of at
least twelve per cent yearly escalation and, according to the
claimants, even a higher increase could have been justified on the
facts of the case. In support of these submissions, reliance is placed
upon the decision reported in
Balwant singh vs. State of Haryana,
2019 (4) SCC 472 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civil) 571, wherein yearly
escalation at the rate of twelve per cent was accepted, as also upon
the decision in
Gajanan Pandurang Kamat and others Vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer,
2001 (Supp.) LACC 282.
41.The learned counsel further relied upon paragraph 35 of the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.150 of 2009
arising out of Village Dapkeghar. It is submitted that the
Coordinate Bench specifically observed that except one sale
instance, all the comparable sale deeds were prior to the Section 4
31
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
notification and that the Reference Court had granted escalation at
the rate of twelve per cent per annum. According to the claimants,
the Coordinate Bench also recorded that such rate of escalation
had not been challenged by any party and was supported by the
material available on record.
42.The learned counsel then referred to paragraphs 45 and 46
of the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the Reference
Court itself has recorded that the respondents were willing to
accept the compensation awarded for Village Dapkeghar but
without granting any escalation, whereas the claimants specifically
claimed yearly escalation at the rate of twelve per cent. According
to the claimants, the Reference Court accepted that the notification
in the present case was issued about four years after the
notification relating to Village Dapkeghar and also accepted that
there would naturally be an increase in market value during this
intervening period. However, the learned counsel submitted that
despite recording these findings, the Reference Court restricted the
escalation to only six per cent per annum on the ground that there
was no evidence showing commercial development in the area.
According to the claimants, this approach is legally incorrect
because grant of yearly escalation is not dependent upon proving
that the acquired lands had commercial potential. It is submitted
that escalation is granted to account for the normal increase in
market value over a period of time, particularly where earlier
comparable sale transactions are relied upon. Therefore, according
to the claimants, the Reference Court ought to have granted
escalation at the rate of twelve per cent per annum instead of
32
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
restricting it to six per cent.
43.The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted
that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants are from
neighbouring villages which are situated at a very short distance
from the acquired lands. It is submitted that the evidence of the
claimants shows that Village Nandgaon is about 3 kilometres from
Village Parhar Khurd, Village Nirgudghar is about 1 kilometre
away and Village Apti is about 2 kilometres away. It is further
submitted that the Mahad Pandharpur Road is adjacent to Village
Parhar Khurd and Village Deoghar lies on its boundary. According
to the claimants, all these villages are situated within a radius of
about two to three kilometres and, therefore, the sale transactions
from these villages constitute proper and reliable comparable sale
instances for determining the market value of the acquired lands.
44.The learned counsel submitted that the Courts have accepted
sale transactions relating to lands situated at such distances where
the lands possess similar characteristics and quality. Reliance is
placed upon the decision reported in
The State of Maharashtra vs.
Abdul Sattar Abdul Wahab,
1994 (2) Mh.L.J. 1183, wherein
comparable sale instances situated at a distance of about two and
half kilometres were accepted as proper evidence for
determination of market value because the lands were found to
possess similar characteristics and potential.
45.The learned counsel further submitted that no deduction is
required while relying upon the sale instances produced by the
claimants because the acquired lands and the lands covered by the
33
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
sale deeds are similar in every material respect. According to the
claimants, all the lands are jirayat agricultural lands of similar
quality and none of them are developed plots. It is submitted that
even the Land Acquisition Officer, while passing the award, treated
the lands of Village Parhar Khurd and the adjoining villages as
comparable in quality. It is also pointed out that the evidence led
by the acquiring body itself shows that there was no substantial
difference in the nature and quality of the lands situated in these
villages. Therefore, according to the claimants, there is no
justification for making any deduction on the ground of difference
in quality or development.
46.The learned counsel submitted that the purpose of
acquisition is also an important circumstance while considering
deductions. According to the claimants, the lands in the present
case were acquired only for submergence under the Neera
Deoghar Project. Since the lands were never intended to be
developed for any residential, commercial or industrial purpose,
no expenditure towards roads, drainage, civic amenities or other
developmental works was required. It is therefore submitted that
the usual deductions applied in cases of acquisition for
development projects have no application in the present case. It is
further submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the
claimants also relate to agricultural jirayat lands of similar nature
and quality. According to the claimants, there is complete
similarity between the acquired lands and the lands covered by the
sale deeds. Therefore, there is no reason to reduce the value
reflected in the comparable sale transactions by making deductions
34
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
either for development or for any other reason.
47.The learned counsel also submitted that there cannot be any
deduction merely because the sale transactions relate to
comparatively small parcels of land. It is submitted that the
individual holdings acquired from the claimants are themselves of
small extent. Therefore, the size of the sale instances is comparable
with the size of the individual acquired holdings and no substantial
deduction is called for on that count.
48.In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon
paragraphs 69, 70, 71 and 74 of the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench in First Appeal No.150 of 2009 arising from Village
Dapkeghar. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench has
specifically held that the comparison should be made with the
individual acquired holdings and not with the total area acquired
under the entire project. According to the claimants, the
Coordinate Bench found that most of the individual holdings
acquired in those cases were below one hectare and were
comparable with the sale instances relied upon before the Court.
Therefore, it was held that such sale instances could not be
rejected merely because they related to smaller areas. The learned
counsel further submitted that the Coordinate Bench has also
observed that deductions on account of development are generally
applied where undeveloped lands are acquired for residential,
commercial or institutional projects requiring expenditure on roads
and civic amenities. According to the claimants, the present
acquisition stands on an entirely different footing because the
lands were acquired only for submergence in the dam waters.
35
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Consequently, no development activities were either contemplated
or required. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench also noticed
the evidence of the officer of the Maharashtra Krishna Valley
Development Corporation that the Neera Deoghar Dam is an
earthen dam and earth required for the project was taken from
nearby villages. The learned counsel submitted that paragraph 71
of the judgment further explains that deductions depend upon the
facts of each case and ordinarily relate to expenditure required for
development of acquired lands or where very small developed
plots are compared with large undeveloped tracts. According to
the claimants, neither of these situations exists in the present case.
It is also submitted that in paragraph 74 of the said judgment, the
Coordinate Bench ultimately held that though limited deductions
may be permissible depending upon the facts of the case, the
comparable sale instances cannot be discarded merely because
they relate to smaller areas. According to the claimants, the
Coordinate Bench also recorded that there was no appreciable
difference between the quality of the exemplar lands and the
acquired lands and that the acquisition was only for submergence
under the dam project and not for any developmental activity. The
claimants submit that the same reasoning squarely applies to the
present acquisition.
49.The learned counsel further relied upon the decisions in
Anjani Molu Dessai Vs State of Goa and Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 710,
Rishi Pal Singh and Ors. Vs. Meerut Development Authority and
Ors.,
(2006) 3 SCC 205, Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-L.A.O. Vs.
Azam Saheb and Ors.,
(2009) 4 SCC 395 and Viluben Jhalejar
36
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Contractor (D) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789. It is
submitted that these decisions recognise that deductions towards
development are not warranted where the acquired lands and the
exemplar lands are similar in nature and where the acquisition is
not for developmental purposes. It is also submitted that the
judgments recognise that small sale transactions cannot be rejected
merely because of their size if no better comparable evidence is
available. According to the claimants, even if this Court is of the
opinion that some adjustment is required because certain exemplar
lands are closer to the highway, such adjustment should be
minimal, as the lands in Village Parhar Khurd, Dapkeghar,
Nandgaon, Nirgudghar and Apti are all situated in the same river
basin and possess substantially similar physical features and
agricultural quality.
50.The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted
that the reference applications under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act have been filed well within the prescribed period of
limitation. It is submitted that none of the respondents have
produced any satisfactory material to establish that the references
were barred by limitation. According to the claimants, though the
burden of proving inadequacy of compensation lies upon the
claimants, once the respondents raise an objection regarding
limitation, they are required to establish the factual basis of such
objection by producing the necessary evidence. The learned
counsel submitted that the applications under Section 18 were
filed on 12 June 1999. According to the claimants, although the
respondents have referred to notices under Section 12(2) of the
37
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Act allegedly issued on 3 June 1999, no documentary evidence
showing actual service of such notices upon the claimants has been
produced before the Court. It is submitted that the respondents
relied only upon the report submitted by the Land Acquisition
Officer and not upon any acknowledgment or proof of service.
51.The learned counsel further submitted that even if the
respondents' case regarding service of notice dated 3 June 1999 is
accepted for the sake of argument, the reference applications filed
on 12 July 1999 are still within the period of six weeks prescribed
under the Act. It is therefore submitted that on either view of the
matter, the references cannot be treated as barred by limitation. It
is further submitted that the copy of the award was never supplied
to the claimants along with the alleged notice under Section 12(2).
According to the claimants, mere knowledge that an award has
been passed is not sufficient for commencement of limitation. It is
submitted that effective communication of the essential contents of
the award or supply of a copy of the award is necessary before
limitation can begin to run against the land owners. The learned
counsel relied upon paragraph 118 of the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.150 of 2009 arising from
Village Dapkeghar. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench has
held that in the absence of evidence proving issuance and service
of notices under Section 12(2), the objection regarding limitation
cannot be accepted. It is further observed therein that once the
claimants discharge their initial burden, the burden shifts upon the
State and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who are in
possession of the relevant records, to establish proper service of
38
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
notice. According to the claimants, failure of the respondents to
produce the best available evidence warrants an adverse inference
against them.
52.The learned counsel also relied upon paragraphs 123 to 127
of the same judgment. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench,
after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in
Premji
Nathu,
AIR 2012 SC 1624, held that before rejecting a reference
on the ground of limitation, it must be established that a copy of
the award had also been served along with the notice issued under
Section 12(2). Reliance is also placed upon the decision in
State of
Maharashtra Vs. Vishwas V. Gedam
, 2015 (5) Mh LJ 344, wherein
it has been held that where the claimant was not present or
represented at the time of making of the award, limitation would
commence only after supply of the copy of the award.
53.The learned counsel further submitted that the judgments of
the Supreme Court in
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. Deputy
Land Acquisition Officer,
AIR 1961 SC 1500, and State of Punjab
Vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum,
AIR 1963 SC 1604 hold that the
expression "date of the award" occurring in Section 18 cannot be
interpreted in a literal or mechanical manner. According to the
claimants, limitation begins only when the affected person
acquires actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents
of the award. Therefore, unless the respondents prove proper
communication of the award in accordance with law, the objection
regarding limitation deserves to be rejected.
39
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
54.The learned counsel submitted that the decisions relied upon
by the respondents before the Coordinate Bench were
distinguished on facts because in those cases there was clear proof
of service of notices under Section 12(2), whereas no such
evidence is available in the present matter. According to the
claimants, the legal principles laid down in
Premji Nathu and the
subsequent decisions support the maintainability of the present
references.
55.The learned counsel further submitted that even the
Reference Court has rejected the objection regarding limitation.
Attention is invited to paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment,
wherein the Reference Court has held that assuming the notice
under Section 12(2) was served on 3 June 1999, the reference
applications filed on 12 July 1999 were still within six weeks from
the date of service and, therefore, were well within limitation.
According to the claimants, this finding does not call for any
interference.
56.The learned counsel next submitted that if this Court
ultimately determines the market value at a rate higher than the
amount claimed in the reference applications, the claimants should
be permitted to pay the requisite additional court fees and receive
compensation accordingly. It is submitted that determination of the
correct market value is the statutory duty of the Court under
Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and the claimants should
not be deprived of lawful compensation merely because the
amount originally claimed was lower. Reliance is placed upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in
Bhimasha Vs. Special Land
40
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Acquisition Officer and others, (2008) 10 SCC 797.
57.The learned counsel lastly submitted that once the market
value is enhanced, the claimants would also be entitled to all
consequential statutory benefits available under the Land
Acquisition Act. According to the claimants, they are entitled to
solatium under Section 23(2), additional amount under Section
23(1A) from the date of the notification till the date of the award
and interest under Section 28 on the enhanced compensation as
provided under the Act.
58.On the basis of the sale transactions relied upon by the
claimants, the earlier judgments relating to Villages Dapkeghar
and Deoghar and the escalation claimed by them, the learned
counsel submitted that the claimants are entitled to enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs.4,31,217/- per hectare together
with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.
59.Mr. A. R. Patil learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the State and Mr. Gabhale learned counsel
appearing for the acquiring body supported the judgment of the
Reference Court to the extent it declined to grant the
compensation claimed by the claimants. It is submitted that the
claimants have failed to establish that the lands of Village Parhar
(Khurd) possess the same location, potential and market value as
the lands acquired from Village Dapkeghar or other neighbouring
villages. The learned Additional Government Pleader invited
attention to the evidence of the claimants and submitted that the
claimants themselves have admitted that River Neera lies between
41
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Village Parhar (Khurd) and the Mahad Pandharpur Road.
According to the respondents, the existence of the river between
the acquired lands and the main road is a disadvantage affecting
accessibility and market value. It is submitted that the Reference
Court has not given due weight to this important circumstance
while determining compensation. It is further submitted that in
the cross examination, the claimants admitted that there is a
stream between Villages Parhar (Khurd) and Parhar (Budruk) and
that Village Dapkeghar is situated towards the eastern side of
Village Parhar (Khurd). According to the respondents, these
geographical features indicate that the acquired lands cannot be
treated as identical to the lands situated in other villages merely
because they are nearby.
60.The learned Additional Government Pleader further relied
upon the evidence of Mr. Pandurang Ramakant Kanjalkar, Sub
Divisional Engineer of the Maharashtra Krishna Valley
Development Corporation. It is submitted that Mr. Kanjalkar had
been working in the Neera Deoghar Project area for more than two
years and was familiar with the locality. According to the
respondents, he deposed that the project area is about 18
kilometres from Bhor city and that, for verifying the distances of
the villages, he obtained a certificate from the Deputy Executive
Engineer of the Public Works Department. It is submitted that the
certificate produced by Mr. Kanjalkar shows that the distance
between Bhor and Village Parhar (Khurd) is about 33 kilometres
and the distance between Bhor and Village Parhar (Budruk) is
about 36 kilometres. The certificate further shows that the distance
42
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
between Bhor and Village Dapkeghar is about 24.50 kilometres.
According to the respondents, this demonstrates that Village
Dapkeghar is substantially closer to Bhor than Village Parhar
(Khurd), and this difference in distance is a relevant circumstance
while assessing market value.
61.The learned Additional Government Pleader further
submitted that Mr. Kanjalkar also stated that both Villages Parhar
(Khurd) and Parhar (Budruk) are situated between hills. According
to the respondents, this is another circumstance affecting the
potential and value of the acquired lands. It is submitted that the
claimants did not effectively challenge this part of the witness's
evidence in cross examination. According to the respondents,
except putting questions regarding the Ring Road referred to in the
certificate, there was no serious challenge to the evidence relating
to the distance of the villages from Bhor or to their topographical
features. Therefore, it is submitted that this part of the evidence
remained substantially uncontroverted.
62.In support of these submissions, reliance is placed upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in
Kanwar Singh and others Vs.
Union of India,
(1998) 8 SCC 136. It is submitted that the
Supreme Court has held that lands situated in different villages
cannot automatically be treated as comparable because each
village may have different location, surroundings and development
potential. According to the respondents, the burden lies upon the
claimants to establish that the lands in different villages possess
similar advantages and potential before relying upon sale instances
from those villages.
43
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
63.The learned Additional Government Pleader also relied upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in
P. Ram Reddy and others Vs.
Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad and others,
(1995) 2 SCC
305. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has held that in land
acquisition matters the Court is not required to accept every
statement made by a witness merely because it has not been
specifically challenged in cross examination. According to the
respondents, the Court is required to examine the evidence on the
basis of surrounding circumstances, probabilities and ordinary
human conduct before accepting it. It is submitted that public
money cannot be awarded merely because certain evidence
remains formally unchallenged. On that basis, the respondents
contend that the findings recorded in the judgment relating to
Village Dapkeghar cannot automatically be extended to the present
acquisition.
64.The learned counsel appearing for the acquiring body further
submitted that even the sale instances relied upon in the judgment
relating to Village Dapkeghar do not support the claim of
continuous increase in market value. It is submitted that one sale
transaction dated 17 July 1989 reflected a higher rate per guntha,
whereas another sale transaction dated 6 September 1990 relating
to a larger area reflected a lower rate. Similarly, according to the
respondents, the sale transactions from Village Nandgaon also
show variation in rates. It is submitted that some sale deeds
executed after the notification relating to Village Dapkeghar
reflected lower rates than earlier transactions. Therefore,
according to the respondents, the sale transactions themselves do
44
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
not establish any consistent increase in market value.
65.The learned counsel for the acquiring body submitted that
the notification relating to Village Dapkeghar was issued in the
year 1993, whereas the notification in the present case was issued
only in the year 1997. According to the respondents, merely
because there is a gap of four years, the claimants are not
automatically entitled to yearly escalation at the rate of twelve per
cent. It is submitted that escalation can be granted only when
there is reliable evidence showing actual increase in market value
during the relevant period.
66.In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in
Land Acquisition Officer Vs. B.
Vijender Reddy and others,
(2001) 10 SCC 669. It is submitted
that in the absence of satisfactory evidence showing increase in
market value, the Supreme Court declined to grant escalation.
According to the respondents, the same principle should be applied
in the present case and the claim for twelve per cent yearly
escalation deserves to be rejected.
67.In reply, the Mr. Potnis learned counsel appearing for the
claimants submitted that the certificate relating to distance relied
upon by the respondents has not been proved in accordance with
law because the officer who prepared or certified the document
was never examined before the Court. According to the claimants,
in the absence of examination of the author of the document, the
certificate cannot be treated as reliable evidence for determining
the distance between the villages. It is further submitted on behalf
45
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
of the claimants that the certificate relied upon by the respondents
was issued in the year 2019, whereas the acquisition took place in
the year 1997 and the villages had already gone under
submergence thereafter. According to the claimants, the distances
mentioned in the certificate are therefore of no assistance for
determining the market value as it existed on the date of
acquisition. The learned counsel for the claimants lastly submitted
that the distance from Bhor city is not the decisive factor in
determining market value. According to the claimants, both the
Land Acquisition Officer and the Coordinate Bench in the
Dapkeghar case relied upon sale transactions from Villages
Nandgaon, Nirgudghar and Apti while determining compensation.
It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer himself recorded
that Village Dapkeghar is situated near Villages Parhar (Khurd)
and Parhar (Budruk). The claimants further submitted that the
Coordinate Bench has already accepted yearly escalation at the
rate of twelve per cent while determining compensation for Village
Dapkeghar and that even the Land Acquisition Officer had adopted
the same rate of escalation in the award. Therefore, according to
the claimants, the same principle deserves to be applied in the
present case also.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
68.The present group of appeals arise out of common
acquisition of agricultural lands situated at Village Parhar (Khurd),
Taluka Bhor, District Pune, for the public purpose of Neera
Deoghar Project. Since all these references arise from the same
notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
46
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
1894, the evidence led by the parties, the issues involved and the
rival submissions are common. Hence, all these appeals are being
decided by this common judgment. Though Land Reference
No.230 of 2003 is treated as the lead matter for convenience, the
findings recorded herein shall govern all connected appeals also,
to the extent they are applicable to the facts of each reference.
69.There is no dispute between the parties that the notification
under Section 4 of the Act was published on 9 October 1997 and
thereafter the award came to be declared on 17 May 1999. It is
also not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Officer divided the
jirayat lands into four groups and awarded compensation ranging
from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.46,000/- per hectare depending upon the
classification made by him. The claimants were not satisfied with
the said compensation as according to them it did not represent
the market value prevailing on the date of notification. Therefore,
they sought references under Section 18 of the Act claiming
compensation at the rate of Rs.3,68,000/- per hectare. The
Reference Court, after appreciating the material placed before it,
partly enhanced the compensation. Since the claimants felt that
the enhancement was inadequate and the State as well as the
acquiring body felt that the enhancement itself was excessive, both
sides have preferred these appeals before this Court.
70.The principal controversy between the parties is regarding
determination of the market value of the acquired lands as on the
date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
According to the claimants, the Reference Court ought to have
followed the market value determined in the earlier judgments
47
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
relating to Villages Dabkeghar and Deoghar and thereafter granted
annual escalation at the rate of 12%. On the other hand, the State
Government and the acquiring body contend that Village Parhar
(Khurd) cannot be treated as comparable with those villages
because of geographical and other features. According to them, the
Reference Court has granted sufficient compensation and no
further enhancement is called for.
71.Before examining these rival submissions, it is necessary to
keep in mind the settled principles governing a reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. A proceeding under Section
18 is an original proceeding before the Court. The Court does not
sit in appeal over the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Therefore, the Court is not required to find out whether the award
is right or wrong as an appellate Court would do. Its duty is to
determine the market value on the basis of the evidence brought
before it. The award made by the Land Acquisition Officer is an
offer made on behalf of the State to the land owner. Therefore,
every finding regarding market value must rest upon evidence
produced before the Reference Court and not merely upon the
reasons recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award.
72.The initial burden lies upon the claimants to establish that
the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is
inadequate and does not represent the true market value of the
acquired lands. Unless such material is brought on record, no
enhancement can be granted. However, once sufficient material is
produced showing that the award does not reflect the market
value, then the evidence led by the State Government and the
48
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
acquiring body deserves consideration. The Court cannot examine
only one side of the evidence. Therefore, while appreciating the
material available on record, it becomes necessary to examine not
only the documents and oral evidence relied upon by the claimants
but also the documents produced by the respondents during the
course of trial.
73.The claimants have relied upon three categories of evidence
in support of their claim for enhancement. Firstly, they examined
the claimant by filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief at
Exhibit 13 and thereafter he was subjected to detailed cross
examination. Secondly, they produced certified copies of sale deeds
relating to adjoining villages namely Nirgudghar, Nandgaon, Apti
and Kari with a view to establish market value. Thirdly, they
placed reliance upon earlier judgments delivered in land
acquisition references relating to Villages Dabkeghar and Deoghar.
Besides these documents, they also produced village records
including 7/12 extracts and Talathi certificates to show the nature
and location of the acquired lands. According to the claimants, all
these documents, when read together, establish that the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was
inadequate.
74.The respondents examined Mr. Pandurang Ramakant
Kanjalkar on behalf of the acquiring body. They also produced a
map along with correspondence and certificates relating to the
location, topography and distance between the villages. The
principal challenge raised by the claimants is that Mr. Kanjalkar
had no personal knowledge about the acquisition proceedings
49
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
which took place in the year 1997 and therefore his evidence
should not receive much weight. The respondents, however,
contend that though he was not personally connected with the
acquisition proceedings, his evidence regarding geographical
features, location of villages and surrounding topography is based
upon official records as well as his experience while serving in the
Neera Deoghar Project. Therefore, according to them, his
testimony cannot be ignored merely because he was not serving in
the project at the relevant point of time.
75.While appreciating the oral evidence, it is necessary to
distinguish between facts which are within the personal knowledge
of a witness and facts spoken on the basis of official records. So far
as the acquisition proceedings of the year 1997 are concerned, Mr.
Kanjalkar admitted that he was not serving in the concerned
project during that period. He admitted that he had not personally
participated in the acquisition proceedings. Such admissions
reduce the evidentiary value of his testimony regarding the actual
condition and quality of the lands as they existed on the date of
acquisition because he had no opportunity to see those facts. At
the same time, merely because he was not serving in the project in
the year 1997, his evidence cannot be thrown away. If a witness
deposes regarding official records, existing maps or geographical
features which continue to exist and if such evidence otherwise
appears reliable, the Court cannot reject the testimony only
because he lacked personal knowledge regarding the acquisition
proceedings. Therefore, his evidence deserves proper appreciation
instead of complete rejection.
50
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
76.Likewise, the evidence of the claimant also cannot be
accepted merely because statement made by him could not be
shaken in the cross examination. The claimant is an interested
witness because he seeks higher compensation for his acquired
land. At the same time, he is also a resident of the village and
therefore possesses personal knowledge regarding the location of
neighbouring villages, the nature and quality of lands, the crops
cultivated and the geographical features. Therefore, his evidence
cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is an interested
person. Such testimony has to be tested in the light of
documentary evidence and probabilities arising from the record. In
land acquisition matters the Court must carefully evaluate oral
evidence because compensation is paid from public funds. At the
same time, genuine land losers also should not be denied just
compensation merely because they happen to be interested
witnesses. Thus, the evidence of both sides has to be appreciated
with equal caution.
77.The affidavit of the claimant shows that he has stated that
the lands situated in Village Parhar (Khurd), Nirgudghar,
Nandgaon, Apti and Kari are similar in quality. He has also stated
that Mahad Pandharpur Road was situated adjacent to the area
separated by River Neera and that Village Dabkeghar as well as
Village Deoghar are adjoining villages. He has further explained
that certified copies of sale deeds and previous judgments were
produced because no sale transactions from Village Parhar (Khurd)
were available after restrictions came into force under the
rehabilitation scheme. These statements receive support from the
51
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
award wherein the Land Acquisition Officer has recorded that sale
instances from adjoining villages were required to be considered
because sale transactions from the acquired village were not
available. Thus, the oral testimony of the claimant finds some
support from the documentary material on record.
78.The cross examination of the claimant assumes importance
because it gives opportunity to test the truthfulness of his
assertions. It appears that though suggestions were put to him
during cross examination, his evidence regarding the existence of
River Neera, the adjoining location of Village Dabkeghar and the
similarity in quality of certain neighbouring lands could not be
materially shaken. The claimant admitted that there was one
stream between Parhar (Khurd) and Parhar (Budruk) and that
River Neera was flowing on one side of the village. However, he
maintained that the quality of lands in Village Dabkeghar, Hirdoshi
and his village was similar and that these villages came under
submergence. Therefore, these assertions are required to be
appreciated together with the entire evidence available on record.
79.The submission advanced by the respondents that the
claimant admitted existence of River Neera and therefore
comparability with Village Dabkeghar comes to an end, cannot be
accepted. Mere existence of a river by is neither always a positive
factor nor always a negative factor affecting market value. The
actual effect of such geographical feature depends upon several
surrounding circumstances like availability of approach roads,
existence of bridge, transportation facilities, distance between
villages and usability of the lands. Therefore, existence of River
52
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Neera is one relevant circumstance which deserves consideration,
but by itself it cannot become conclusive for deciding whether the
lands are comparable or not.
80.The next aspect concerns the evidentiary value of the earlier
judgments relating to Villages Dabkeghar and Deoghar. It is true
that a previous judgment determining market value does not
become conclusive evidence in every subsequent land acquisition
reference. Every acquisition has to be decided on its own facts and
evidence. However, where the earlier judgment relates to
acquisition of neighbouring lands, arising from nearby
notifications and concerning comparable circumstances, such
judgment possesses persuasive value. If the evidence in the
subsequent case establishes similarity in location, quality,
potentiality and surrounding circumstances, there is no legal bar in
placing reliance upon such earlier determination after making
adjustments wherever required by the facts of the case.
81.In the present matter, both sides have relied upon the
judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench relating to Village
Dabkeghar. The claimants rely upon the said judgment for
determining the market value and also for claiming escalation. The
respondents rely upon the same judgment while contending that
the deductions and distinguishing features recorded therein should
apply to the present acquisition. Therefore, neither side disputes
the relevance of the earlier judgment. The dispute between them is
regarding the extent to which the conclusions recorded in that
judgment can be applied to the acquisition involved in the present
appeals.
53
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
82.The sale deeds produced by the claimants require careful
consideration because they constitute evidence for determining
market value. It is not disputed that these sale transactions relate
to Villages Nirgudghar, Nandgaon, Apti and Kari. More
importantly, it is also an admitted position that even the Land
Acquisition Officer relied upon sale transactions from adjoining
villages because no sale instances from Village Parhar (Khurd)
were available. The respondents have not produced any sale deeds
showing a different market value nor have they disputed the
genuineness of the sale deeds produced by the claimants. This
circumstance gives some weight to the sale instances relied upon
by the claimants. Whether sale deed is a comparable instance or
whether some of them deserve acceptance is a different question
and that issue will require examination while determining the
correct market value.
83.Therefore, on overall appreciation of the evidence at this
stage, this Court is of the opinion that neither the evidence led by
the claimants nor the evidence led by the respondents can be
accepted or rejected in its entirety. The claimant's testimony
receives support from certain evidence and from some admissions
appearing on record. Similarly, the evidence of Mr. Kanjalkar
cannot be completely brushed aside, though its evidentiary value
regarding the condition of the acquired lands stands weakened
because he had no personal knowledge of the acquisition
proceedings of the year 1997. Thus, the previous judgments, the
comparable sale deeds and the surrounding material assume
importance than the oral assertions. It therefore becomes
54
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
necessary to examine next whether the geographical situation,
connectivity and quality of lands sufficiently establish that Village
Parhar (Khurd) is comparable with Village Dabkeghar and other
adjoining villages for the purpose of determining the market value
of the acquired lands.
84.The controversy between the parties is whether Village
Parhar (Khurd) can be treated as comparable with Village
Dabkeghar and the neighbouring villages of Deoghar, Nirgudghar,
Nandgaon and Apti for the purpose of determining the market
value of the acquired lands. The claimants have maintained that
all these villages form one belt, are situated close to each other
and possess similar quality of agricultural lands. According to
them, there is no difference in the physical features or agricultural
potential of these villages and, therefore, the market value
determined for Village Dabkeghar can be taken as the basis for the
present acquisition after making adjustment for time. On the other
hand, the State Government and the acquiring body have disputed
this position. According to them, Village Parhar (Khurd) has
distinguishing geographical features which reduce the market
value of the acquired lands. Therefore, before examining the
question of compensation, it becomes necessary to examine the
evidence relating to location, surrounding circumstances, quality
of lands and geographical features because the answer to this issue
has bearing on determination of the market value.
85.The claimants have asserted that Village Parhar (Khurd)
shares a boundary with Village Dabkeghar. They have further
stated that Village Deoghar lies across River Neera and that
55
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Villages Nirgudghar, Nandgaon and Apti are situated within a short
distance. According to them, all these villages are so situated that
they form one agricultural region and are separated by River
Neera and not because of any geographical disadvantage. The
claimants have relied upon the village maps, the earlier judgments
delivered in respect of neighbouring villages and even the
observations recorded by the Reference Court. The claimant, in his
affidavit, has stated that Village Nandgaon is about three
kilometres away, Village Nirgudghar is about one kilometre away
and Village Apti is about two kilometres away. He has further
deposed that the quality of lands in all these villages is similar.
According to him, River Neera lies between his village and Mahad
Pandharpur Road and there existed a bridge directly connecting
the village with the said road. According to the claimants,
therefore, the mere existence of the river did not create any
disadvantage so far as accessibility of the lands was concerned.
86.The findings recorded by the Reference Court in paragraphs
33, 37, 40 and 43 of the impugned judgment, recorded that Village
Parhar (Khurd) and Village Dabkeghar have a common boundary
and that there is no difference in the quality of lands situated in
these two villages. The Reference Court has further observed that
during cross examination, the respondents suggested to the
claimant that the quality of lands in both villages was the same
and such suggestion was accepted. Though these findings are not
binding upon this Court while deciding the present appeals, they
cannot be ignored because they are based upon appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence which came before the Reference
56
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Court. They indicate that the evidence led before the trial Court
pointed towards similarity between the two villages. Unless such
findings are shown to be contrary to the evidence or perverse, they
carry persuasive value while reappreciating the evidence in appeal.
87.The respondents, however, contend that mere existence of a
common boundary is not enough to treat two villages as
comparable for determining market value. According to them,
Village Parhar (Khurd) is situated at a greater distance from Bhor
city. It is also their case that the village lies between two
mountains and River Neera separates it from Mahad Pandharpur
Road. According to the respondents, these geographical features
reduce the market value because accessibility becomes less and the
village cannot enjoy the same advantages as the neighbouring
villages. In support of these submissions, reliance has been placed
upon the evidence of Mr. Kanjalkar and also upon the certificate
issued by the Public Works Department showing distances between
various villages. According to the respondents, these circumstances
distinguish Village Parhar (Khurd) from Village Dabkeghar and
therefore the market value determined for Village Dabkeghar
cannot be adopted without reduction.
88.After carefully considering the evidence available on record,
this Court finds that the respondents have not been able to
establish these distinguishing features with the degree of certainty
required in law. The distance certificate relied upon by the
respondents came to be prepared in the year 2019, almost twenty
two years after publication of the notification under Section 4.
Naturally, by that time the entire geographical situation had
57
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
undergone change because the project had been completed and
the original villages had come under submergence. More
importantly, the officer who prepared the said certificate has not
entered the witness box. Therefore, the claimants were deprived of
an opportunity to cross examine him regarding the source of
information and the actual basis upon which the distances were
calculated. In absence of such examination, the evidentiary value
of the certificate becomes weak. Such document may provide some
assistance, but it cannot be treated as conclusive proof regarding
the geographical situation prevailing on the date of acquisition in
the year 1997.
89.Apart from this, the evidence discloses another difficulty in
accepting the respondents' case. The witness Mr. Kanjalkar
admitted during his cross examination that the map relied upon by
him depicts the Ring Road which came into existence after the
year 2001 and not the original Mahad Pandharpur Road existing
on the date of acquisition. He further admitted that the original
Mahad Pandharpur Road had gone under the waters of the Neera
Deoghar Project after construction of the dam. These admissions
assume importance because the market value has to be determined
with reference to the situation existing on the date of publication
of the notification under Section 4 and not on the basis of
developments which took place years thereafter. If the map reflects
a later situation created after completion of the project, it becomes
unsafe to determine the market value prevailing in the year 1997
on the basis of such subsequent road. Therefore, much weight
cannot be attached to the map for deciding the controversy
58
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
regarding comparability.
90.The respondents have also attempted to distinguish the
villages by emphasising the distance between Bhor city and Village
Parhar (Khurd). In my view, this submission does not carry much
substance. Market value of agricultural land cannot be determined
only with reference to the distance from the Taluka headquarters.
Distance from Bhor may be one relevant circumstance but it is
never the sole factor. The Court has to consider the location of the
acquired lands in relation to comparable lands, their quality,
fertility, accessibility, surrounding features, physical characteristics
and other advantages or disadvantages existing on the relevant
date. If neighbouring villages possess similar character,
geographical situation and cultivation pattern, then mere
difference of a few kilometres from the Taluka headquarters may
not become decisive. Otherwise, every village situated a little
farther away from the town would receive lower compensation
even though its lands may be identical in all respects. Such
approach would not be consistent with settled principles governing
determination of market value.
91.There is another important circumstance which, in my
opinion, cannot be overlooked. The Land Acquisition Officer
recorded in the award that no sale transactions from Village Parhar
(Khurd) were available because restrictions had come into
operation after the rehabilitation notifications. Therefore, he
collected sale transactions from neighbouring villages like
Nirgudghar, Apti, Nandgaon and Kari for determining the market
value. This conduct of the acquiring authority assumes
59
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
significance. If those villages were different in quality, location or
agricultural potential, the Land Acquisition Officer could not have
treated them as comparable while passing the award. Though the
award is not evidence of market value, the method adopted by the
Land Acquisition Officer indicates that even the acquiring authority
considered these adjoining villages to be comparable for valuation
purposes. The respondents cannot now depart from the basis
adopted by their own officer without producing evidence showing
distinction.
92.The respondents have further argued that Village Parhar
(Khurd) lies between two mountains and therefore its agricultural
potential is lower. It is true that Mr. Kanjalkar has made such
statement in his evidence. However, beyond this assertion, no
detailed map, survey report or technical material has been
produced to demonstrate that the acquired lands themselves were
hilly, rocky or incapable of cultivation. On the contrary, the
claimant has stated that the acquired lands were jirayat and paddy
lands yielding crops such as rice, nachani, varai, sawa and grass.
He has also deposed that rain water used to be retained by
constructing small bunds and cultivation had been carried on for
several years before acquisition. These statements were not
demolished during cross examination. No evidence has been
produced by the respondents to show that these lands were barren
or inferior to the lands situated in Village Dabkeghar. Therefore, a
mere statement that the village lies between mountains cannot
establish that the acquired lands possessed lower market value.
60
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
93.Further, the record shows that the acquired lands formed
part of the submergence area of the Neera Deoghar Dam.
Ordinarily, lands acquired for creation of a reservoir are low lying
or comparatively plain lands capable of retaining water after
construction of the dam. Though this circumstance cannot
determine market value or establish the nature of the lands, it
weakens the contention of the respondents that the acquired lands
were hilly and incapable of cultivation. Had the lands been steep
hill slopes, the question of their forming part of the submergence
area would require supporting evidence. No such evidence has
been placed on record. Therefore, the respondents have not
produced material to establish that the lands acquired from Village
Parhar (Khurd) possessed inferior quality when compared with
Village Dabkeghar.
94.The argument regarding River Neera requires consideration
because emphasis has been laid upon it by both sides. According to
the respondents, the river creates a geographical disadvantage and
therefore reduces the market value of the acquired lands. The
claimants, however, submit that before construction of the dam
there was hardly any water in River Neera during major part of the
year except in rainy season and a small bridge connected the
villages with Mahad Pandharpur Road. This submission of the
claimants is not without support. The Coordinate Bench, while
deciding the appeals relating to Village Dabkeghar, has noticed
that except during rainy months River Neera hardly contained
water and that there existed a small bridge connecting the villages
situated on both sides of the river. The Coordinate Bench has
61
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
further observed that the villages situated on both sides possessed
similar terrain, agricultural conditions and quality of lands. These
observations assume importance because they relate to
neighbouring villages acquired under the same project and after
appreciation of similar evidence.
95.The respondents have not produced any material to
establish that the situation prevailing in Village Parhar (Khurd)
was different from that considered by the Coordinate Bench while
deciding the Dabkeghar appeals. On the contrary, the witness
examined by the acquiring body admitted that the original Mahad
Pandharpur Road had become submerged after completion of the
project and that the Ring Road came into existence thereafter.
These admissions reduce the force of the respondents' argument
that River Neera created barrier affecting the market value of the
lands. If there was a bridge connecting the villages and if the river
contained little water during most part of the year, then existence
of the river cannot become a negative factor. Every geographical
feature has to be appreciated in the background prevailing on the
date of acquisition.
96.Another submission advanced by the claimants is that no
evidence has been produced by the respondents to establish that
Villages Nirgudghar, Nandgaon and Apti possessed any non
agricultural potential because they were situated nearer to Mahad
Pandharpur Road. I find substance in this submission. Except
making general assertions, neither the State Government nor the
acquiring body has produced any documentary material showing
existence of commercial establishments, industries, residential
62
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
layouts or any other developmental activity in those villages before
publication of the notification under Section 4. Mere existence of a
road does not lead to an inference that all lands adjoining such
road possess higher market value. Much depends upon actual
development, user of the lands and surrounding circumstances. In
absence of evidence showing such development, it would not be
proper to presume that the neighbouring villages had non
agricultural potential.
97.The respondents have relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in
Kanwar Singh to contend that lands situated in
different villages should not be treated as comparable unless
similarity is established. There can be no disagreement with this
proposition of law. However, whether such similarity is established
or not depends upon the evidence available in each case. In the
present matter, there is oral evidence of the claimant, documentary
evidence in the form of maps, findings recorded by the Reference
Court, admissions elicited during cross examination, reliance
placed by the Land Acquisition Officer upon adjoining villages and
also the observations made by the Coordinate Bench while
deciding the neighbouring acquisitions. Therefore, this is not a
case where comparability is sought to be presumed because the
villages happen to be situated nearby. On the contrary, the
claimants have placed material in support of their contention and
such material deserves weight while appreciating the rival
submissions.
98.The contention of the respondents that the judgment relating
to Village Dabkeghar cannot be relied upon cannot be accepted. At
63
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
the same time, the submission of the claimants that the said
judgment should be applied without any examination also
deserves rejection. The earlier judgment constitutes an important
piece of evidence because it concerns adjoining villages acquired
for the same project within a proximate period and after
considering comparable sale transactions. Still, every acquisition
has to be decided on the evidence available in that case. Therefore,
before adopting the market value determined in the earlier
judgment, this Court must examine whether the sale instances,
geographical situation, deductions applied by the Coordinate
Bench and the time gap between the two notifications justify
adoption of the same basis with modifications.
99.Thus, after considering the entire evidence relating to
location, geographical features and surrounding circumstances, I
am of the opinion that the claimants have succeeded in
establishing that Village Parhar (Khurd) is comparable with Village
Dabkeghar in respect of agricultural quality, characteristics and
overall situation. The respondents have pointed out certain
distinguishing features such as greater distance from Bhor city and
existence of River Neera. These circumstances cannot be ignored
because every relevant factor deserves due consideration while
determining market value. However, the evidence available on
record is not sufficient to hold that these factors create such
distinction as would render the earlier determination relating to
Village Dabkeghar inapplicable. At the highest, these features may
justify adjustment while determining the market value. They do
not justify discarding the comparable instances altogether or
64
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
refusing to consider the earlier determination as a guiding
circumstance.
100.The next question which arises for consideration is regarding
the evidentiary value of the comparable sale deeds, the earlier
judgments relating to Village Dabkeghar and Village Deoghar, the
principle governing adoption of the highest bona fide sale instance
and the extent of annual escalation to which the claimants may be
entitled while determining the market value of the acquired lands
as on 9 October 1997. These aspects now require examination
because they affect the determination of compensation payable to
the claimants.
101.The determination of market value in the present case
depends upon the comparable sale instances produced on record
and also upon the earlier judgments relied upon by both the sides.
The claimants have placed reliance upon several sale deeds of
Villages Nandgaon, Nirgudghar and Apti. They have relied upon
the judgments delivered in respect of Village Dabkeghar and
Village Deoghar, contending that those villages are adjoining
villages acquired for the same project and, therefore, the market
value determined therein should guide the present determination.
The respondents have not disputed that these villages are situated
in the surrounding area. However, according to them, neither
every sale instance nor every finding recorded in the earlier
judgments can be applied to the acquired lands in the present case.
They submit that every acquisition has its own facts and every
comparable instance must satisfy the legal test before it can be
relied upon. Therefore, in my opinion, the evidentiary value of
65
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
each category of evidence requires careful examination before
arriving at the market value.
102.At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the Land
Acquisition Officer has recorded in the award that no sale
transactions were available from Village Parhar (Khurd) because
after initiation of rehabilitation proceedings and application of the
rehabilitation scheme, sale transactions had stopped in that
village. This circumstance is not disputed. The award further
records that because of such absence of sale transactions, sale
statistics from the adjoining villages of Apti, Nandgaon,
Nirgudghar and Kari were collected and examined for
determination of market value. The Land Acquisition Officer has
further stated that after visiting those villages and comparing the
quality of lands, he found that the acquired lands as well as the
lands covered by those sale transactions were of similar quality.
This part of the award assumes importance. Though it is true that
the award is not substantive evidence regarding market value, still
it reflects the method adopted by the acquiring authority while
fixing compensation. The acquiring authority cannot be permitted
to disregard the basis adopted by its own officer unless material is
brought on record showing that such basis was erroneous.
Therefore, while appreciating the evidence before the Court, this
circumstance cannot be ignored.
103.The claimants have produced certified copies of eight sale
deeds relating to the adjoining villages. These sale deeds have
been duly exhibited before the Reference Court and have formed
part of the evidence. Significantly, the respondents have neither
66
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
challenged their genuineness nor suggested that they are collusive
or brought into existence only for claiming higher compensation.
No evidence has been led to show that these transactions did not
reflect genuine market dealings. Further, no sale transactions have
been produced by the respondents to demonstrate that the
prevailing market value was lower than what is reflected in these
sale deeds. Even the witness examined on behalf of the acquiring
body has not expressed any opinion that these sale instances are
fabricated or unreliable. Therefore, once these sale deeds stand
proved and their genuineness is not questioned, they cannot be
discarded because they relate to neighbouring villages instead of
Village Parhar (Khurd). In the peculiar facts of the present case,
where no sale transactions from the acquired village were
available, the neighbouring sale instances assume significance.
104.However, it is well settled that every sale transaction from a
neighbouring village cannot become a proper comparable
exemplar. Mere production of a sale deed is not enough. The Court
has to carefully examine whether the transaction is comparable
with the acquired land. The distance between the lands, the
proximity of time between the sale transaction and the notification
under Section 4, the area sold, the nature and quality of the land,
surrounding development and other attending circumstances are
all relevant factors. Unless these factors correspond, the sale
transaction may not furnish a safe guide. Therefore, though the
sale deeds produced by the claimants are relevant and admissible
in evidence, each one of them cannot be given equal evidentiary
value. Some may deserve greater weight while others may require
67
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
exclusion depending upon their facts.
105.The Coordinate Bench, while deciding the appeals relating to
Village Dabkeghar, had undertaken such an exercise. Instead of
relying upon every sale transaction produced before it, the
Coordinate Bench examined each sale deed independently. After
analysing the location, time, extent of land and surrounding
circumstances, it came to the conclusion that only Exhibits 13, 17
and 19 constituted the most reliable comparable exemplars. The
remaining sale transactions were not accepted as proper exemplars
for reasons recorded in the judgment. Thereafter, the Coordinate
Bench determined the market value by considering those selected
sale deeds together with the advantages and disadvantages of the
acquired lands. In my opinion, such approach is in consonance
with the settled principles governing determination of
compensation. A Court is expected to separate reliable evidence
from less reliable material instead of treating every sale
transaction alike.
106.The claimants have argued that the highest bona fide sale
instance alone ought to have been adopted and that the
Coordinate Bench committed an error in not doing so. For this
proposition they have relied upon several judgments of the
Supreme Court including
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust, Hans Raj,
Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Anjani Molu Dessai and
Manohar
. There cannot be any dispute regarding the legal
proposition laid down in these judgments. Ordinarily, where there
are several genuine and comparable sale instances, preference
should be given to the highest bona fide exemplar because
68
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act is compulsory in nature
and the land owner has no option to refuse the acquisition.
Therefore, if reliable evidence of a higher market value is
available, there is no reason why the land loser should receive
compensation based upon a lower transaction. This principle is
intended to ensure that a person whose property is acquired is not
placed at an unfair disadvantage.
107.At the same time, the rule regarding adoption of the highest
sale instance is not an inflexible rule. It cannot be applied in every
case. Before accepting the highest transaction, the Court must
satisfy that the transaction is genuine and comparable . Sometimes
a small plot may fetch a high price because of its peculiar location.
Sometimes a purchaser may pay high consideration because of
some advantage available to that land. Therefore, while applying
the principle of the highest exemplar, the Court must carefully
examine all surrounding facts and ensure that the highest
transaction reflects the market value. Thus, the principle of highest
exemplar has to be applied with caution.
108.In the present case, the claimants have attempted to
demonstrate that the difference between the highest and the
remaining sale instances ranges between thirty and fifty per cent
and, therefore, the transactions cannot be said to fall within a
narrow bandwidth. According to them, once the sale instances do
not fall within a narrow range, the highest sale transaction from
Village Nandgaon ought to have been accepted as the basis for
determining market value. On the other hand, the respondents
have pointed out that certain subsequent sale transactions disclose
69
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
lower values than earlier transactions. According to them, the
market was not showing any upward trend and therefore the
highest transaction cannot be treated as representing the market
value prevailing in the locality. Thus, both sides have attempted to
draw different inferences from the same sale transactions.
109.This Court finds that neither of the rival submissions can be
accepted in absolute terms. The mere existence of variation in sale
prices does not establish that the highest sale transaction is
unreliable. Similarly, the fact that one transaction reflects the
highest price does not make it the safest guide for determining
compensation. Agricultural land transactions are influenced by
several factors including size of the land, location, fertility, access
to roads, urgency of the vendor, bargaining between parties and
many other surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the Court has
to examine the totality of circumstances before selecting the
proper exemplar. The Coordinate Bench had the opportunity of
analysing these sale deeds in detail while deciding the Dabkeghar
appeals. It selected those exemplars which were most comparable
after considering the location, extent, quality and timing of the
transactions. No material has been placed before this Court to
demonstrate that the said exercise suffered from any factual error.
Therefore, there appears no reason to reopen the exercise afresh.
110.The next question concerns the evidentiary value of the
judgments relating to Village Dabkeghar and Village Deoghar. The
claimants submit that these judgments furnish the safest guide
because they concern acquisitions made for the same project
involving adjoining villages and notifications issued within a
70
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
proximate period. According to them, once similarity of lands has
been established, the earlier judicial determination should be
followed so that similarly situated land holders receive similar
compensation. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that
every acquisition must be decided on its own evidence and that
earlier judgments cannot conclude the controversy because the
acquisitions relate to neighbouring villages.
111.In my opinion, there is considerable force in both the
submissions though neither can be accepted in its entirety. A
previous judgment determining market value is not a statutory
precedent fixing market value for all acquisitions. Every acquisition
has to be decided on the evidence available in that case. At the
same time, where adjoining lands acquired for the same project
have been evaluated after appreciation of comparable evidence,
such determination cannot be ignored without sufficient reasons.
Uniformity in awarding compensation to similarly situated land
holders is a relevant consideration. Persons whose lands possess
similar characteristics and are acquired for the same project should
not receive different compensation unless distinguishing
circumstances are established by evidence. Therefore, earlier
judgments possess persuasive value and deserve due weight
though they cannot replace evaluation by the court.
112.The evidence available on record shows that Village
Dabkeghar and Village Parhar (Khurd) share a common boundary.
The quality of lands has been found by the Reference Court to be
similar. The Land Acquisition Officer relied upon common sale
transactions while determining compensation. The Coordinate
71
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Bench has recorded detailed findings regarding the situation,
proximity and characteristics of the neighbouring villages. In such
circumstances, the earlier judgments possess persuasive value and
provide guidance while determining the compensation. They
cannot be treated as conclusive, but they cannot be brushed aside
merely because they relate to another village.
113.The claimants have further relied upon the judgment relating
to Village Deoghar. The respondents have opposed such reliance by
contending that Village Deoghar enjoyed the advantage of Mahad
Pandharpur Road and certain other features which were not
available to Village Parhar (Khurd). It is important that the
Coordinate Bench noticed these features while determining the
market value of Dabkeghar lands and accordingly made
deductions before fixing compensation. Therefore, in my opinion,
the judgment relating to Village Deoghar cannot be applied for
determining compensation of Village Parhar (Khurd). At the same
time, it cannot be said that the judgment is irrelevant. It furnishes
one circumstance while examining the overall valuation and also
helps in understanding the relative position of neighbouring
villages. Therefore, it deserves consideration.
114.The submission of the respondents that no reliance can be
placed upon the earlier judgments also deserves rejection. The
purpose of judgment in earlier acquisitions is to provide guidance
where lands are similarly situated and the evidence overlaps. If
every Court were required to ignore earlier determinations, then
inconsistency would arise in awards relating to the same project
and similarly situated land holders may receive different
72
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
compensation without any valid basis. Such inconsistency should
be avoided. Therefore, previous judgments deserve consideration
though they cannot substitute appreciation of the evidence
available in the case.
115.The respondents have also argued that the sale instances
relied upon in the Dabkeghar judgment disclose fluctuating market
prices and therefore there was no basis for any further
enhancement. This submission cannot be accepted. Agricultural
land transactions seldom disclose uniform prices. Variations may
occur because of size of the plot, fertility, location, access to roads,
individual bargaining or several other circumstances. Therefore,
isolated fluctuations in sale prices cannot establish absence of
appreciation in market value. At the same time, such fluctuations
require the Court to proceed with caution before applying any
uniform increase. The Court must balance both these
considerations while arriving at a conclusion.
116.The Reference Court has relied upon the rate determined for
Village Dabkeghar but granted escalation only at the rate of six per
cent. The claimants have challanged this approach by contending
that once the Reference Court accepted the Dabkeghar judgment
as the basis of valuation, it ought to have adopted the entire
method followed including the principle regarding annual
escalation. At first sight this submission appears attractive because
ordinarily the method adopted for arriving at the comparable
value should receive due consideration. However, determination of
annual escalation is a issue requiring independent examination.
Adoption of a comparable market rate and determination of
73
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
annual appreciation depend upon different considerations.
Therefore, merely because the Reference Court accepted the basic
market value determined for Village Dabkeghar, it does not follow
that the same rate of annual escalation must apply. The correctness
of the escalation granted by the Reference Court has to be
examined on the basis of evidence.
117.Another aspect which deserves consideration is the absence
of rebuttal evidence from the respondents regarding the sale deeds
relied upon by the claimants. Though the respondents have
challenged the comparability of the villages and questioned the
claim for higher compensation, they have not produced any sale
transactions showing a lower market value. This omission
strengthens the evidentiary value of the sale deeds produced by
the claimants because there is no contrary documentary evidence
available on record. Nevertheless, compensation cannot be
determined merely because the respondents failed to produce
better evidence. The burden initially lies upon the claimants and
they must establish that the sale instances relied upon by them
represent the market value on the relevant date. The weakness in
the respondents' evidence cannot become the sole foundation for
enhancement of compensation.
118.Having considered the oral evidence, documentary evidence,
the comparable sale transactions, the earlier judgments and the
rival submissions advanced by both the sides, I am of the opinion
that the comparable sale deeds produced by the claimants
constitute reliable evidence for determination of market value. The
earlier judgments relating to Village Dabkeghar and Village
74
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Deoghar provide guidance because of the proximity of time, place
and purpose of acquisition. However, neither the highest sale
instance nor the average of every sale transaction can be adopted
mechanically. The final market value has to emerge after
considering the comparable exemplars, the features of the
acquired lands, deductions, the findings recorded in the earlier
judgments and the question whether annual escalation at the rate
claimed by the claimants has been established on the basis of the
evidence available on record. That issue now requires detailed
consideration.
119.Having considered the entire evidence available on record,
now the only issue which survives for consideration is whether the
Reference Court was justified in granting escalation at the rate of
6% per annum over the market value of Rs.2,05,000/- per hectare
determined by the Coordinate Bench in respect of Village
Dabkeghar, or whether the claimants have been able to establish
that they are entitled to escalation at the rate of 12% per annum
till the notification under Section 4 dated 9 October 1997. In my
opinion, this issue goes to the root of the present group of appeals
because every other controversy has been answered either by the
evidence on record or by the findings recorded by the Reference
Court. The Reference Court has accepted that Village Parhar
(Khurd) and Village Dabkeghar are comparable villages and has
adopted the market value determined for Village Dabkeghar as the
base rate. Once such finding is accepted, the basic market value is
no longer in dispute. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is
confined to the extent of annual appreciation which should be
75
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
granted so as to arrive at the correct market value on the date of
acquisition. Thus, the answer to this issue will decide whether the
compensation awarded by the Reference Court represents market
value or whether enhancement is necessary.
120.The impugned judgment records that the respondents had
accepted before the Reference Court that the rate determined for
Village Dabkeghar could be applied to the acquired lands of Village
Parhar (Khurd), though they opposed grant of escalation over the
said rate. This circumstance has importance because it shows that
according to the respondents, the market value determined for
Village Dabkeghar could be taken as the starting point for
determining compensation in the present acquisition. Thus, the
comparability of the two villages was not under dispute before the
Reference Court. In fact, paragraphs 37, 40 and 43 of the
impugned judgment record findings that Village Dabkeghar and
Village Parhar (Khurd) share a common boundary, that the quality
of lands in both villages is similar and that there is no evidence on
record to show that the acquired lands of Village Parhar (Khurd)
were either superior or inferior to the lands acquired from Village
Dabkeghar. These findings are based upon appreciation of the
evidence produced before the Reference Court. No material has
been pointed out before this Court to show that these findings are
contrary to the record. The respondents have not been able to
assail these findings by producing any evidence. Therefore, once
the base market value of Rs.2,05,000/- per hectare determined for
Village Dabkeghar is accepted, the controversy becomes confined
only to the question of annual appreciation till the notification
76
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
under Section 4 issued.
121.The Reference Court has declined to grant escalation at the
rate of 12% per annum on the ground that the claimants failed to
establish surrounding circumstances showing increase in market
value at such rate and also because the acquired lands were not
commercial lands. Proceeding on such reasoning, the Reference
Court granted escalation only at the rate of 6% per annum for the
period between the notification issued for Village Dabkeghar in the
year 1993 and the notification issued in the present case in the
year 1997 and determined the market value at Rs.2,54,000/- per
hectare. Thus, though the Reference Court accepted that there
must be increase in market value because of the time gap of more
than four years, it considered that increase at the rate of 6% per
annum was sufficient. In other words, the principle regarding
increase in value was accepted, but the extent of such increase was
reduced.
122.In my considered opinion the reasoning adopted by the
Reference Court on this aspect cannot be accepted. The reasons
assigned for restricting the annual escalation to only 6% per
annum do not appear to be supported by the material available on
record. Some circumstances, which have bearing upon the issue of
escalation, have either not been considered or have not received
adequate weight. Therefore, this finding deserves closer scrutin.
123.Firstly, the question of annual escalation cannot be examined
only from the angle whether the acquired lands possess
commercial potential. In my opinion, such approach does not
77
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
reflect the realities governing increase in land prices. Increase in
market value is not confined only to commercial lands.
Agricultural lands also appreciate with passage of time depending
upon prevailing market conditions, fertility, demand, surrounding
circumstances and several other relevant factors. Even purely
agricultural lands do not remain at the same price for several
years. Therefore, merely because the acquired lands are
agricultural lands and not commercial lands, that circumstance
cannot become a ground for refusing annual appreciation. If such
reasoning is accepted, agricultural lands would remain stagnant in
value for yearsr, which does not appear to be supported either by
common experience. Therefore, absence of commercial potential
by itself cannot justify reduction of annual escalation.
124.Secondly, while deciding First Appeal No.150 of 2009
relating to Village Dabkeghar, the Coordinate Bench has noticed in
paragraph 35 that the Reference Court had granted escalation at
the rate of 12% per annum and that such escalation had not been
challenged. The Coordinate Bench observed that the rate of 12%
per annum was borne out from the material available on record.
Thus, the Coordinate Bench found that the evidence justified
grant of annual escalation at the rate of 12%. This observation
assumes importance because it relates to acquisition under the
same Neera Deoghar Project and concerns neighbouring lands
whose market value has been accepted by the Reference Court as
the basis for the present acquisition. Therefore, when a Coordinate
Bench found support for annual escalation at the rate of 12%,
there ought to have been reasons for departing from that
78
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
approach. Such reasons are not found in the impugned judgment.
125.Thirdly, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer
assumes significance though it is well settled that the award is not
substantive evidence regarding market value. Even so, the award
records the methodology adopted by the acquiring authority while
determining compensation. It is seen that the Land Acquisition
Officer granted notional annual increase at the rate of 12% while
updating the comparable sale transactions up to the material date.
Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer accepted that increase in land
prices had taken place with passage of time and accordingly
adopted annual increase at the rate of 12%. Therefore, both the
Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Coordinate Bench
proceeded on the basis that annual appreciation at the rate of 12%
was appropriate in the facts relating to acquisitions under this
project. Though this circumstance may not be conclusive, it lends
support to the contention of the claimants that grant of annual
escalation at the rate of 12% is not claim made without any
material. It is based upon the methodology adopted by the
acquiring authority and accepted by the Coordinate Bench.
126.The claimants have also relied upon the Statement of Objects
and Reasons accompanying the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
Act, 1984 introducing Section 23(1A) of the Act. It is true that the
additional amount payable under Section 23(1A) operates in a
different field and cannot be treated as annual escalation while
determining market value on the basis of earlier sale transactions.
Both the concepts are different. However, the legislative object
behind introducing the said provision cannot be ignored. The
79
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Statement of Objects and Reasons recognises that acquisition
proceedings often remain pending for considerable period and that
such delay causes hardship to land owners because land prices
continue to increase with passage of time. Thus, the Legislature
recognised the tendency of increase in land values. Therefore,
though Section 23(1A) cannot by itself determine appreciation
while comparing sale transactions, the legislative recognition of
rising land prices supports the principle that escalation may be
granted wherever such escalation is supported by the evidence
available on record. Hence, this circumstance provides some
support to the claimants' contention.
127.The learned Additional Government Pleader has relied upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in
P. Ram Reddy and submitted
that the Court should not accept oral assertions regarding increase
in market value. There cannot be any dispute with this
proposition. In land acquisition matters the Court has to act
cautiously because compensation is paid from public funds.
Therefore, compensation must be determined on the basis of
reliable evidence, surrounding circumstances and legal principles.
However, in the present case the claimants do not rest their claim
merely upon oral statements. They have relied upon comparable
sale transactions, the methodology adopted by the Land
Acquisition Officer, the earlier judgment of the Coordinate Bench
and the admitted time gap of four years between the two
notifications. Thus, there is documentary material supporting their
claim. Therefore, in my opinion, the present case stands on
different footing and the decision in
P. Ram Reddy does not
80
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
advance the respondents' case.
128.The respondents have also relied upon the judgment in Land
Acquisition Officer Vs. B. Vijender Reddy
to contend that escalation
cannot be granted in absence of evidence. The principle laid down
therein is also well settled and cannot be disputed. However, every
land acquisition case depends upon its own evidence and
surrounding circumstances. In the present matter there exists
material in the form of sale deeds, the methodology adopted by
the Land Acquisition Officer, the earlier judgment of the
Coordinate Bench and the gap of more than four years between
the two notifications. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim
for escalation rests merely upon assumptions. The present claim is
supported by surrounding material and hence the ratio of the said
judgment does not assist the respondents.
129.The respondents have next argued that sale transactions
relied upon in the Dabkeghar case disclose descending market
prices and, therefore, there was no increase in market value. This
submission does not persuade this Court. Individual sale
transactions may vary because of many reasons. The size of the
land sold, urgency of the vendor, financial condition of the parties,
fertility of the plot, location, access to road or several other
surrounding circumstances may influence the sale price. Therefore,
it would not be safe to infer absence of appreciation in market
value merely because one or two subsequent transactions disclose
lower rates. More importantly, the Coordinate Bench had
examined those sale instances in detail before fixing the market
value of Village Dabkeghar at Rs.2,05,000/- per hectare.
81
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Therefore, isolated fluctuations appearing in some sale
transactions cannot outweigh the overall conclusion reached after
examination of the evidence.
130.The contention of the respondents regarding River Neera,
greater distance from Bhor city and the alleged location of the
acquired lands between two mountains has also been considered.
These circumstances were relied upon to contend that Village
Parhar (Khurd) could not receive the same treatment as Village
Dabkeghar. However, as already discussed while considering the
issue of comparability, the evidence does not establish that these
features reduced the market value of the acquired lands. On the
contrary, the respondents' witness admitted that the map relied
upon by him depicts the Ring Road constructed after the
acquisition and not the Mahad Pandharpur Road existing on the
date of notification. The certificate regarding distances was also
prepared much later and its author was not examined before the
Court. Thus, the foundation of the respondents' argument
regarding distance becomes weak. Therefore, these circumstances
do not furnish basis for reducing the annual appreciation which
appears supported by the material available on record.
131.The rejoinder submissions advanced on behalf of the
claimants deserve acceptance to a limited extent. The submission
that the distance certificate cannot be treated as conclusive
evidence in absence of examination of its author appears to be
justified. Unless the author enters the witness box, the basis upon
which the measurements were made cannot be properly tested.
More importantly, the Land Acquisition Officer relied upon sale
82
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
instances from Nandgaon, Nirgudghar and Apti while determining
compensation for Village Parhar (Khurd). This conduct of the
acquiring authority supports the comparability of these villages
and weakens the contention advanced by the respondents that
those villages are different for the purpose of valuation.
132.At the same time, I am unable to accept the submission of
the claimants that this Court should determine compensation on
the basis of the highest sale transaction showing market value of
more than Rs.5,33,000/- per hectare. Such submission overlooks
the fact that the Coordinate Bench has undertaken scrutiny of all
the comparable sale deeds and determined the market value for
Village Dabkeghar after making deductions having regard to the
advantages and disadvantages of the lands. In the present appeals,
both the claimants as well as the respondents have proceeded on
the footing that the market value determined for Village
Dabkeghar forms the base for further determination. Therefore,
once that basic value of Rs.2,05,000/- per hectare is accepted, the
proper course would be to determine annual appreciation over
that amount instead of reopening the entire exercise relating to
selection of sale exemplars and fixation of basic market value.
133.The notification under Section 4 relating to Village
Dabkeghar was issued on 6 May 1993 whereas the notification
involved in the present acquisition was published on 9 October
1997. Thus, there is a time gap of about four years and five
months. During such period, the market value of agricultural lands
cannot be expected to remain static. In fact, the Reference Court
has accepted that there would be increase in market value during
83
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
the intervening period. Having accepted this principle, there
appears to be no convincing reason for restricting the annual
appreciation only to 6% per annum when the material available on
record, including the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, the
methodology adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and the
surrounding evidence, indicates annual appreciation at the rate of
12% per annum. In my opinion, the finding limiting escalation to
only 6% per annum does not appear to have support.
134.In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that
the Reference Court was not justified in reducing the annual
escalation to only 6% per annum. The claimants have been able to
establish on the basis of the evidence available on record that the
market value determined for Village Dabkeghar requires to be
updated by granting annual escalation at the rate of 12% per
annum till the date of publication of the notification under Section
4 in the present acquisition. Consequently, the compensation of
Rs.2,54,000/- per hectare awarded by the Reference Court does
not represent the fair market value of the acquired lands as on the
relevant date.
135.Applying annual escalation at the rate of 12% per annum to
the market value of Rs.2,05,000/- per hectare determined for
Village Dabkeghar for the period between the two notifications,
the market value of the acquired lands in Village Parhar (Khurd),
as on 9 October 1997, works out approximately to Rs.3,13,981/-
per hectare. Having regard to the evidence discussed, the sale
transactions, the findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench, the
methodology adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and the
84
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
surrounding circumstances brought on record, this amount
appears to represent just compensation. It is supported by the
evidence available in the present case and maintains consistency
with the earlier judgment relating to the same project.
Consequently, the claimants become entitled to enhancement of
compensation from Rs.2,54,000/- per hectare to Rs.3,13,981/- per
hectare, together with all statutory benefits admissible under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appeals preferred by the
claimants, therefore, deserve to be partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent, whereas the appeals preferred by the State Government
and the acquiring body challenging such enhancement are liable to
stand dismissed.
136.In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon overall
assessment of the material record, the following order is passed:
(i) The First Appeals preferred by the claimants are partly
allowed;
(ii) The First Appeals preferred by the Maharashtra
Krishna Valley Development Corporation (MKVDC) are
dismissed;
(iii) The common judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court are modified only to the extent indicated
herein below:
(iv) It is held that the claimants are entitled to
compensation for the acquired jirayat lands at the rate of
Rs.3,13,981/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Nine
Hundred Eighty One only) per hectare, instead of
85
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
Rs.2,54,000/- per hectare awarded by the Reference Court;
(v) The claimants shall be entitled to the enhanced
compensation together with all statutory benefits available
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including additional
amount under Section 23(1A), solatium under Section
23(2), and interest under Section 28 of the Act, as admissible
in accordance with law. The compensation already paid, if
any, shall be given credit while calculating the amount
payable;
(vi) The directions contained in the impugned judgment
regarding apportionment, withdrawal, adjustment of the
amount already received, and all other directions not
inconsistent with the present judgment shall remain
unaltered and shall continue to operate;
(vii) The acquiring body and the State Government shall
deposit the balance amount of compensation together with
all statutory benefits before the Reference Court, after giving
due credit to the amount already paid, within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of this judgment;
(viii) On such deposit being made, the Reference Court shall
permit the claimants to withdraw the amount in accordance
with law and in terms of the apportionment already
determined, after due verification of their entitlement;
(ix) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
86
fa194-2021 & connected.doc
(x) Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(xi) Drawn up decree accordingly.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
87
The recent judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, specifically the ruling in First Appeal No.194 of 2021 & Connected Matters, delivered by Justice Amit Borkar, stands as a critical read for legal professionals. This landmark decision clarifies crucial principles in land acquisition compensation, notably regarding the determination of market value and annual escalation. Both [Main Keyword 1] and [Main Keyword 2] are thoroughly analyzed in this ruling, available now on CaseOn.
This group of appeals stemmed from a common land acquisition proceeding concerning agricultural lands in Village Parhar (Khurd), Taluka Bhor, District Pune, acquired for the Neera Deoghar Project. The primary issues addressed by the High Court were:
The High Court meticulously applied several established legal principles concerning land acquisition compensation:
The High Court's analysis delved into various aspects of the case, critically evaluating the evidence presented by both sides.
The Court upheld the Reference Court's finding that Village Parhar (Khurd) and Village Dapkeghar shared a common boundary and had similar land quality. The respondents' attempts to distinguish them based on geographical features, such as the River Neera, distance from Bhor city, or being situated between mountains, were largely dismissed. The Court found the distance certificate relied upon by the respondents unreliable as it was prepared decades after the acquisition and its author was not cross-examined. Moreover, the map presented depicted a 'Ring Road' constructed post-acquisition, not the original Mahad Pandharpur Road that was submerged. Crucially, the Land Acquisition Officer himself had previously treated these villages as comparable for valuation, a position from which the acquiring authority could not deviate without substantial evidence.
Claimants submitted several unchallenged sale deeds from neighboring villages (Nirgudghar, Nandgaon, Apti, Kari). The Court noted that since no sale transactions were available for Parhar (Khurd) post-rehabilitation notifications, these neighboring instances were significant. While acknowledging the principle of adopting the highest bona fide sale instance, the Court emphasized the need for careful examination of each transaction. It found no reason to reopen the exercise conducted by the Coordinate Bench in the Dapkeghar case (First Appeal No.150 of 2009), which had identified specific reliable exemplars after detailed analysis.
The Court recognized the persuasive value of earlier judgments, particularly those relating to the same project and similar lands. While the judgment for Village Deoghar was considered less directly applicable due to specific advantages (like proximity to Mahad Pandharpur Road) that led to deductions, it still contributed to the overall valuation context.
CaseOn.in 2-minute audio briefs have become an invaluable tool for legal professionals, offering concise summaries of complex rulings like this one. These briefs highlight the core legal principles and the High Court's reasoning on comparability and escalation, making it easier for lawyers to quickly grasp the nuances of similar land acquisition judgments and apply them to their own cases.
This was the central point of contention. The High Court rejected the Reference Court's decision to limit annual escalation to 6% per annum based on the argument that the lands were not commercial. The Court firmly stated that agricultural lands also appreciate over time due to various market conditions. It pointed out that:
Given the time gap of four years and five months between the Dapkeghar notification (May 1993) and the Parhar (Khurd) notification (October 1997), the Court found no convincing reason to restrict the annual appreciation to 6% when 12% was consistently supported by previous judicial findings and the acquiring authority's own methodology.
The Court held that no deductions for development charges were warranted. The acquisition was solely for submergence under the Neera Deoghar Project, not for developmental purposes requiring expenditure on roads, drainage, or civic amenities. The acquired lands were agricultural 'jirayat' lands, similar in nature to the sale instances, and the individual holdings were small, making a large-scale development deduction inappropriate.
The High Court concurred with the Reference Court in rejecting the limitation objection. Even assuming the Section 12(2) notice was served on June 3, 1999, the reference applications filed on July 12, 1999, were well within the six-week statutory period. Furthermore, the respondents failed to provide documentary evidence proving actual service of the award copy, which is crucial for the commencement of the limitation period.
Based on a comprehensive review of the evidence and legal principles, the High Court concluded that the claimants had successfully established the comparability of their lands in Village Parhar (Khurd) with those in Village Dapkeghar. It accepted the base market value of Rs. 2,05,000/- per hectare, as determined for Village Dapkeghar by the Coordinate Bench, as the starting point for compensation.
The Court ruled that an annual escalation rate of 12% per annum should be applied for the period between the two notifications (May 1993 to October 1997). This calculation led to an enhanced market value of Rs. 3,13,981/- per hectare for the acquired jirayat lands. Consequently, the High Court:
This judgment, consolidating numerous First Appeals, primarily addresses the compensation for land acquired for the Neera Deoghar Project in Village Parhar (Khurd), Pune. It details the claimants' arguments for enhanced compensation based on comparable sales, previous judgments in neighboring villages (Dapkeghar, Deoghar), and a higher annual escalation rate (12% vs. 6% awarded by the Reference Court). The respondents disputed comparability, highlighted geographical disadvantages, and challenged the escalation. The High Court analyzed witness testimonies, documentary evidence (sale deeds, maps), and legal precedents. It ultimately found Village Parhar (Khurd) comparable to Dapkeghar, dismissed arguments against comparability and higher escalation, and increased the compensation from Rs. 2,54,000/- to Rs. 3,13,981/- per hectare, along with all statutory benefits.
This judgment is a cornerstone for anyone dealing with land acquisition matters. For practicing lawyers, it provides a clear roadmap on:
For law students, this case offers a practical demonstration of the IRAC method in action, showcasing how complex factual matrices are analyzed against established legal principles to arrive at a just outcome in compulsory acquisition.
All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances. CaseOn assumes no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken based on the information provided herein.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....