JUDGMENT
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. These references are under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act).
2. The lands of the claimants were notified for acquisition for a public purpose viz., Bus Depot, bus-station, staff quarters and other allied works of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). The notification under Section 126(4) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, (MRTP Act) read with Section 6 of L.A. Act was issued and later on published in the Government Gazette and local newspapers. The notices under Section 9(3) and (4) were issued to the claimants. On 21st December 2002 the Award was declared.
3. The details pertaining to the lands including C.T.S. Number, area and the amounts awarded as under:
Discription of land under acquisition Village Dahisar Taluka Borivali District Mumbai suburban Village Dahisar Taluka Borivali District Mumbai suburban ==================================================== S. No. /H. No. C.T.S. No. Area in Sq. mtrs. ==================================================== 226/7 2352(pt) 946.76 226/6 2300(pt) 301.2 226/5 2347(pt) 752.64 226/10 2297 69.5 ====================================================
4. The claimants being dis-satisfied with the amount awarded have approached the Collector and he, in turn, has forwarded this reference for enhanced compensation. Needless to state that the amounts awarded have been accepted under protest. Further, the possession of lands has already been taken by MSRTC – Acquiring Body.
5. It is necessary to state the facts leading to issuance of the notification and the award.
6. It appears that the lands out of some of the C.S. Numbers were declared as “surplus” under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act) . The extent of surplus land is indicated in the award. It appears that the claimants through their constituted attorney informed competent authority that the area of the land bearing C.T.S. No. 2347 is 3039.01 sq. mtrs. as against the area considered earlier i.e. 2706.00 sq. mtrs. and, therefore, requested to issue a corrigendum to the order passed under Section 8(4) of the U.L.C. Act. The competent authority considered this request pertaining to the Area declared as surplus vacant land and issued a corrigendum in that behalf. In other words, by the corrigendum issued pertaining to surplus vacant land, the Competent Authority included portions which were handed over to MSRTC. Thereafter, the Divisional Controller of MSRTC vide letter dated 29th November 1998 submitted proposals to the Collector, Local Suburban Dist. for initiating acquisition of the land i.e. C.T.S. No. 2300 (part) area admeasuring 201.20 sq.mtrs, 2352(part) area admeasuring 9476.76 sq. mtrs. which was allowed to be retained with the land owners by the authorities under the U.L.C.
7. The land owners filed writ petitions in this Court and prayed for payment of compensation at prevailing market rates, in the alternative to challenge proceedings including that of acquisition. The Govt. took a stand that the corrigendum is sought to be revised in proceedings under Section 34 of ULC Act. This Court directed that the Revision Application be disposed of expeditiously.
8. Thereafter, the corrigendum under Revision was revised vide order dated 6th July 2001.
9. It appears that the competent authority made a revised order after remanding and computed the surplus area as above.
10. The legality and propriety of the above orders was challenged by the Land owners in W.P.2681 – 03 of 2001. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the land owners questioned the entire action. They desired that the lands which were declared surplus be excluded from their holding. However, these petitions were disposed of by an order dated 22nd February 2002. It was directed that land admeasuring 301.20 sq. mtrs. out of C.T.S. No. 2300, land admeasuring 946.76 Sq. Mtrs. out of C.T.S. No. 2352 and lands admeasuring 822.14 sq.mtrs. and out of C.T.S. No. 2347 and 2297 be acquired in accordance with the provisions of L.A. Act and M.R.T.P. Act and compensation to the land owners be paid accordingly.
11. It is, thereafter that the acquisition proposal was submitted by the acquiring body and the final notification as above was issued.
12. After the notices were despatched and claimants heard, ultimately, the SLAO made the award in respect of the lands and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,66,837/-.
13. Aggrieved by the award and not satisfied with the compensation offered therein, this reference under Section 18 came to be forwarded to this Court.
14. It appears that L.A.R. No. 4 of 1994 with L.A.R. 7 of 1992 with L.A.R.s. 2, 3 and 34 of 1998 were filed in this Court. These references were at the instance of claimants whose lands were notified for acquisition for the same purpose viz., Public Purpose viz., bus depot, bus station and staff quarters and allied works of M.S.R.T.C. That notification was issued on 28th July 1989 under identical provisions. It was published on 3rd August 1989. The lands were ultimately made subject matter of award dated 25th September 1990. The SLAO awarded compensation in favour of the claimants at Rs. 375/-in case of lands having access and Rs. 125/- where the lands did not have any access.
The notification covered the following lands:
========================================================
Name of owner Area Plot Acquired Rate
C.T.S. No. area awarded
No. S. No. Sq.mt. Rs.
226
========================================================
Janardhan L.
Patil 2352 p (1) 330.14 375/-
Harishchandra
L. Patil 2349 p (5) 1370.40 125/-
Jaganath A. 2350 p (3) 740.64 375/-
Patil 2350 p (4) 025.48
Mirabai V. Raut 2348 (6) 675.70 375/-
Mahadev V. Raut
Kashinath V.
Raut
Mukund V. Raut
Moreshwar V.
Raut
Nagubai G.
Patil 2347 p (7) 2249.90 375/-
Ramabai W.
Patil
Jayantibai N.
Patil
Jayanti N.
Patil
Yamunabai N.
Patil
Pandurang B.
Patil
Balchndra J.
Patil 2353 (2) 878.70 375/-
Venubai K.
Patil 2300 p (8) 1765.50 375/-
Namdeo K.
Patil
Motiram K.
Patil
Indubai K.
Patil
Inayak K. Patil
Prakash K.
Patil
========================================================
15. In these references which were for lands admeasuring 936.46 sq.mtr., the claimants examined only one witness viz., Hitendra Mehta, Architect and Valuer. He gave common evidence in respect of aforesaid LAR. He produced his valuation report dated 24th August 2004 along with site plan. He relied upon three instances for the purpose of enhanced compensation. The acquiring body viz., M.S.R.T.C. examined one Ashok Deshmukh, Prashant Vinayak Poddar and Deepak Dighade. One more witness was examined. Thus, the Acquiring body produced in all five witnesses in support of their case. Four sale instances were relied upon; three by the claimants and one by M.S.R.T.C.
16. Upon scrutiny and examination of the oral and documentary evidence so also after hearing claimants and acquiring body, a Single Judge of this Court (S.U.Kamdar, J – as he then was) made an award on 7th March 2005. In the award, the learned Judge arrived at a market value and awarded compensation in the following terms:
A) Market Value (Rate x Area)
Plot No. 1 C.T.S. No. 2352
(part) 330.14 sq.mtrs. X
Rs. 1539.16/sqm. Rs. 5,08,134.28
Plot No. 5 (C.T.S. No. 2349
(Part) 1370.40 sq.mtrs X
960.85/sq.mtr. Rs. 13,16,748.84
======================================================
Rs. 18,24,887.12
B. SOLATIUM (30% OF M.V.)
= M.V. x 0.30 Rs. 5,57,466.13
C. COMPONENT Under Section 23(1A) @ 12%
P.A. = M.V. x (278 days/
265 days) x 0.12 Rs. 1,66,789.68
D. Total Compensation
(D = A + B + C) Rs. 25,39,142.93
E. Compensation awarded by
S.L.A.O. Rs. 8,67,297.51
F. Additional Compensation
Payable (F + D - E) Rs. 16,51,845.42
G. Interest on (F) above @
9% p.a. from 30/6/90 till
29/6/1991 (for first year) Rs. 1,48,666.08
H. Interest on (F) above @
15% p.a. from 30/6/1991
till 28/2/2005 i.e. for
13 years & 243 days Rs. 33,86,056.83
I. Total Compensation payable
as on 28/2/2005 i.e.
(I = F + G + H) Rs. 51,86,568.33
======================================================
A) Market Value (Rate x Area)
Plot No. 3 C.T.S. No. 2350
(part) 740.64 sq.mtrs. X
Rs. 1105.42/sqm. Rs. 8,18,718.26
Plot No. 5 (C.T.S. No. 2350
(Part) 1025.48 sq.mtrs X
1105.42/sq.mtr. Rs. 11,33,586.10
======================================================
Rs. 19,52,304.36
B. SOLATIUM (30% OF M.V.)
= M.V. x 0.30 Rs. 5,85,691.31
C. COMPONENT Under Section 23(1A) @ 12%
P.A. = M.V. x (278 days/
265 days) x 0.12 Rs. 1,78,435.27
D. Total Compensation
(D = A + B + C) Rs. 27,16,430.94
E. Compensation awarded by
S.L.A.O. Rs. 9,21,515.44
F. Additional Compensation
Payable (F + D - E) Rs. 17,94,915.50
G. Interest on (F) above @
9% p.a. from 30/6/90 till
29/6/1991 (for first year) Rs. 1,61,542.39
H. Interest on (F) above @
15% p.a. from 30/6/1991
till 28/2/2005 i.e. for
13 years & 243 days Rs. 36,79,330.89
I. Total Compensation payable
as on 28/2/2005 i.e.
( I = F + G + H) Rs. 56,35,788.78
======================================================
A) Market Value (Rate x Area)
Plot No. 6 C.T.S. No. 2348
(part) 675.70 sq.mtrs. X
Rs. 888.56 /sqm. Rs. 6,00,399.99
B. SOLATIUM (30% OF M.V.)
= M.V. x 0.30 Rs. 1,80,120.00
C. COMPONENT Under Section 23(1A) @ 12%
P.A. = M.V. x (278 days/
365 days) x 0.12 Rs. 54,874.91
D. Total Compensation
(D = A + B + C) Rs. 8,35,394.90
E. Compensation awarded by
S.L.A.O. Rs. 3,52,562.67
F. Additional Compensation
Payable (F + D - E) Rs. 4,82,832.23
G. Interest on (F) above @
9% p.a. from 30/6/90 till
29/6/1991 (for first year) Rs. 43,454.90
H. Interest on H above till
29/6/1991 (for first year) Rs. 1,44,693.18
H. Interest on (F) above @
15% p.a. from 30/6/1991
till 28/2/2005 i.e. for
13 years & 243 days Rs. 32,95,568.94
I. Total Compensation payable
as on 28/2/2005 i.e.
(I = F + G + H) Rs. 50,47,964.16
======================================================
A) Market Value (Rate x Area)
Plot No. 2 C.T.S. No. 2353
(part) 878.70 sq.mtrs. X
Rs. 1683.74/sqm. Rs. 14,79,502.34
Plot No. 5 (C.T.S. No. 2300
(Part) 1765.50 sq.mtrs X
886.56/sq.mtr. Rs. 15,68,752.68
======================================================
Rs. 30,48,255.02
B. SOLATIUM (30% OF M.V.)
= M.V. x 0.30 Rs. 9,14,476.56
C. COMPONENT Under Section 23(1A) @ 12%
P.A. = M.V. x (278 days/
265 days) x 0.12 Rs. 2,78,602.15
D. Total Compensation
(D = A + B + C) Rs. 42,41,333.73
E. Compensation awarded by
S.L.A.O.
Plot No. 2 Rs. 4,58,482.79
Plus
Plot No. 8 Rs. 3,07,063.98 Rs. 7,65,546.77
F. Additional Compensation
Payable (F + D - E) Rs. 34,75,786.96
G. Interest on (F) above @
9% p.a. from 30/6/90 till
29/6/1991 (for first year) Rs. 3,12,820.82
H. Interest on (F) above @
15% p.a. from 30/6/1990
till 28/2/2005 i.e. for
13 years & 243 days Rs. 71,24,887.82
I. Total Compensation payable
as on 28/2/2005 i.e.
( I = F + G + H) Rs. 1,09,19,494.91
===-==================================================
17. It is not in dispute that this judgement and award was read in evidence in the present reference. Additionally, the affidavits of the witnesses viz., the Valuers were filed in lieu of examination in chief and they were cross examined. The documents including orders of this Court in the writ petitions, correspondence etc. are exhibited. Exhibits C-10 to C-12 and C-14 are the copies of the agreements in the sale instances.
18. The valuer examined by claimants in this reference, Mr. Mehta, was also examined by the claimants in the earlier reference. In his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief filed on 19th August 2005 in para 5, he states thus:
5. I say that at the request of Mr. Mangesh Keshav Dalvi, Constituted Attorney of the Claimants in LAR proceedings being L.A.R. No. 7 of 2003, 8 of 2003, 9 of 2003 filed in the Honble High Court at Bombay, I have prepared a Valuation Report dated 18th August 2005 in respect of the lands under acquisition respectively viz., Survey No. 226/7, C.T.S. No. 2352(pt) admeasuring 946.76 sq.mtrs. Survey No. 226 Hissa No. 5, C.T.S. No. 2347 (pt) admeasuring 752.64 sq.mtrs. and Survey No. 226, Hissa No. 10, C.T.S. No. 2297 admeasuring 69.50 sq.mtrs. & total admeasuring 822.14 sq.mtrs. and Survey No. 226 Hissa No. 6, C.T.S. No. 2300 (pt) admeasuring 301.20 sq.mtrs. situate at Village Dahisar, Near Nancy Colony, Borivali (East), Mumbai determining the true and correct market value of the lands which are the subject matter of L.A.References mentioned above. I tender the valuation report dated 18th August 2005. The valuation report is signed by me. The contents of the said report are true and correct.
19. He has given his valuation of land as on 27th December 1993 i.e. the date of taking possession by the acquiring body. This is as per the Division Bench order of this Court in the writ petitions.
20. He has in his report pointed out that he has visited the site of the sale instances in May 2002 and July 2005. He has stated that he started practice as Architect and Valuer from 1985. He is well acquainted with the western Suburbs including Dahisar and Borivali since 1977. He has pointed out that the entire locality is popularly known as Nancy Colony. He has perused the documents referred to in para 3 of his valuation report. He has pointed out that the lands totally admeasure 2070.28 sq.mtrs. and they belong to the claimants i.e. for short referred to as Patil family. He has prepared a site plan which is annexed as Annexure A to this report. The lands which are forming part of Survey No. 226 (part) are in possession of M.S.R.T.C. They are being used as S.T. bus stand plus depot with all amenities. He states that the main development of the locality has taken place some time prior to 1982. The Area around S. No. 226 (part) abutting 18.30 mtrs. wide D.P. Road was fully developed, well before the relevant date. It is one of the most prominent locality of Borivali (East). It is in close proximity to Borivali railway station. Borivali railway station is at walkable distance i.e. 2 kms. from S. No. 256 (part). In para 8 of his report he has pointed out that within 200 mtrs. of the land under acquisition, there are prominent residential buildings and complexes. Within 500 meters of the land under acquisition there is cinema hall, commercial complex, banks and coop.housing societies. In the year 1993, the area surrounding the lands under acquisition was fully developed in terms of civic amenities like market such as Ashokvan Market, Bank of Baroda and High schools which are within walkable distance i.e. 3 minutes and 2 minutes. The nature of the land which is divided into plots has immense development potential as pointed out in paras 11 and 12 of the valuation report. The valuer has pointed out that one of the plots viz., plot No. 1 is directly abutting 18.30 mtrs. wide D.P. road having wide frontage of 30 meters. However, none of the other plots have any direct access, frontage to any municipal road. Topography of land under acquisition is also set out by the valuer in para 13 of his report. He, therefore, concludes that on the basis of the judgement and order of this Court in the earlier references which are concerning immediate adjacent land and for the same public purpose, for the same acquiring body, some deductions will have to be made for levelling and hardening of lands for the relevant period. However, this is in comparison with the instance plot Nos. 2, 3 and 4. For the land under acquisition, in comparison with Instance No. 3, necessary deduction has been made by this Court in the earlier award.
21. In para 15 of his report, he deals with Annual increase in price and opines thus:
15. Basis for Annual Rise of Land Price:-A: Consideration of purely land prices:- It is observed from the conveyance between Mr. U.V. Parmar and Anr., the Vendor and M/s. Shraddha Associates, the purchasers, executed on 4/7/1988, registered under No. P-3576/88 for the plot having area of 207.50 sq.mtrs. for the amount of consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-was again sold by another agreement between M/s. Shraddha Associates, the Vendor and Mrs. Saroj D. Sawant & Anr., the purchasers, executed on 28/10/1994, registered under No. 1404 of 1994, for the amount of consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The earlier sale have been relied upon and proved before the Honble High Court in the L.A.R. No. 4 of 1994, 7/1994, 2/1998, 3/1998 and 4/1998 and the later sale is being relied upon in this report as Sale Instance No. 2, details of which have been given hereafter.
It is evident from both the transactions of the same land, particularly in 1988 and 1993, that the land prices have been appreciated by 100% in about five years.
Thus, the escalation (rise) in land prices in the locality under reference between 1988 to 1993 works out to 20% per annum.
22. However, it is clear that for the purpose of the annual increase in price, he has referred to sale of flats in the residential building. Rest of the material is already referred to in the award of this Court in the earlier reference which, as stated above, is for adjoining lands.
23. On the basis of the award of this Court and the Sale instance therein, the valuer has finally concluded that the increase on account of time factor gives valuation of the lands under reference on the relevant date as under:
FOR PLOT No. 1: C.T.S. No. 2352 (pt) As compared to this plot there is a plot in the abovementioned L.A. reference, viz., C.T.S. No. 2353(pt), for which valuation of Rs. 1,683.74 sq.mt. have been finalised as on 03/08/1980.
Giving rise of 20% per annum i.e. total rise of 86.67% for the period of four years and four months from August 1989 to December 19993, the land price for the valuation of Plot No. 1 i.e. C.T.S. No. 2352(pt) works out to Rs. 3,143.04 as on relevant date i.e. 27/12/1993.
24. Mr. Korde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the award of this Court is the best guide in this case. In the light of the said award, the valuation done by the valuer who has been cross examined as well deserves to be accepted. The valuer appointed by the acquired body has adopted a very casual approach. His valuation is vitiated by total non application of mind. It does not give any comparison at all. The valuer has not understood as to why his assistance is sought in the matter. He, therefore, submits that the valuation report be discarded. He has invited my attention to the testimony of the valuer on behalf of MSRTC and his cross examination and more particularly the answers given to question Nos. 20 to 24, 26 to 31 and 32 to 36. In his submission, if these answers are perused, it would go to show that the valuer was aware of the assignment and the expectation from him. However, he has not at all applied his mind to the various issues and aspects so also relevant factors. The valuer has taken into consideration 16% annual rise. That apart, Mr. Korde submits that the judgement of this Court is directly relevant. There is no dispute that it is pertaining to the adjacent lands. Mr. Korde has taken me through the judgement of this Court and has submitted that once this Court has taken into consideration all necessary and relevant factors and has awarded a rate consistent therewith, then, that judgement should be followed by me and considering the rate of increase, the valuation should be as suggested by the valuer appointed by the claimants. He submits that nothing has been elicited from his cross examination and his testimony is not shaken.
25. Mr. Korde has also emphasised another Aspect. He submits that the claimants in this case are entitled to Rental compensation as well. In this behalf, he submits that possession of the lands under reference was illegally taken under U.L.C. Act and handed over to M.S.R.T.C. on 27th/30th December 1993. The judgement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2681, 2682, 2683 of 2001 holding that the land was not surplus vacant land was delivered on 22nd February 2002. On 20th August 2002, notification under Section 126(4) of M.R.T.P. Act read with Section 6 of L.A. Act was published. The award of S.L.A.o. is dated 31st December 2002 and formal possession under L.A. Act is taken on 31st January 2003.
26. The submission of Mr. Korde, therefore, is that the claimants would not be entitled to receive interest under Section 34 and Section 28 of the L.A. Act from the date when possession was taken prior to the notification under Section 126(4) of M.R.T.P. Act in this case. However, they are entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation of the land by M.S.R.T.C. from the date when the said possession was taken under U.L.C. Act, till it was taken under L.A. Act. In other words, he submits that the claimants would be entitled to claim damages or get rent from 27th/30th December 1993 till 31st January 2003. He submits that it is, therefore, for the Court to determine the amount of rental compensation and for delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded. In this behalf, he places reliance upon three decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned below:
i) R.C. Jain(D) by Lrs. v. DDA and Ors.
ii) Land Acquisition Officer & Assistant Commissioner (2005) 12 S.C.C. 443.
iii) State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Maimuma Banu and Ors. ;
27. He submits that the S.L.A.O./ Reference Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim for rental compensation and interest thereon even when possession was taken prior to issuance of Section 4 notification and de hors the L.A. Act. In such circumstances and in equity this Court should consider this claim and not drive the claimants to any other court.
28. On the other hand, Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for acquiring body has submitted that the award of this Court is nothing but an instance. He submits that the valuation of the claimants valuer is totally one-sided and no assistance can be taken from the same. On the other hand, the Valuer of the Acquiring body has compared instance land after the judgement of this Court. He submits that after S.L.A.Os. award, additional materials are there. He submits that after instance No. 3 also there are additional materials. The Acquired land is the best instance. He refers to instance No. 9 in the award of S.L.A.O. and submits that the instances are comparable. He submits that when S.L.A.O. has referred to instance No. 9 in the new award and this award itself is a piece of evidence, then, all instances referred to therein are also relevant. They can be read in evidence. More so, when valuer has referred to them. There is no necessity of finding out any comparison.
29. The thrust of his submission is that instance No. 9 in the award of S.L.A.O. in the present case was not before this Court when this Court delivered judgement in the References of the adjoining lands. The learned Judge only considered instance No. 6 and discarded the same. He submits that valuer has referred to the earlier award and when the award of this Court refers to instance No. 3 which is not comparable to the sale instance before S.L.A.O., then, it is open for this Court to take an independent view of the matter and not just rely upon award of this Court. He submits that Exhibit R-3 is not comparable because there the conveyance is dated 4th July 1988 whereas the property has changed hands thereafter and he relied upon the conveyance dated 28th October 1994 with regard to the same land in that behalf. Mr. Hegde has, thereafter, invited my attention to page 368 of Volume III and the answer given to question No. 19 by the valuer of M.S.R.T.C. He has also invited my attention to page 27 of Vol.I and has contended that the valuer of the claimants has taken note of the fact that the land which is covered by the conveyance dated 4th July 1988 has been re-sold on 28th October 1994. Mr. Hegde has then invited my attention to page 262 of Vol.II which is nothing but the agreement dated 28th October 1994 (Exh.C-11) pertaining to the land covered by conveyance dated 4th July 1988. Mr. Hegde has emphasised the fact that the plans were sanctioned before the vendors entered into the agreement for sale dated 28th October 1994. He also invites my attention to the fact that benefit of F.S.I., C.C., I.O.D., would be available to the purchaser. Thus, some benefit is there. Size is also a factor which is relevant in such cases, according to Mr. Hegde. He submits that the new Award must be seen before any final decision is taken by this Court.
30. With the assistance of Mr. Korde and Mr. Hegde I have perused the relevant materials. I have also perused the provisions of both L.A. Act and M.R.T.P. Act. I have also perused the decisions brought to my notice.
31. In this case, the undisputed facts are that the lands of the claimants are acquired for the purpose of M.S.R.T.C. There was litigation prior to Award. Before notification under the relevant statutory provisions being issued possession was already taken by the acquiring body. Since, there was dispute with regard to computation of surplus vacant land for the purpose of applicability of U.L.C. Act, the matter was carried to this Court and this Court ultimately, bearing in mind the equities and consideration of justice, directed that the acquiring body should take steps to acquire the land under L.A. Act.
32. This Court directed as under:
In the result, the impugned order dated 10.9.2001 is set aside. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are directed to acquire the said area of 822.40 sq.mtrs. in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act read with M.R.T.P. Act and pay compensation to the petitioners within a period of six months. It is needless to say that the date of handing over of possession of the land shall be taken as the relevant date for fixing of the market value of the land.
Therefore, this Court categorically held that the date on which the possession was handed over shall be taken as the relevant date for fixation of market value. Thus, the relevant date in this case would be 27th December 1993. Further undisputed fact is that by a notification issued dated 28th July 1989, the lands bearing S. Nos. 226, 2352(part), 2349(part), 2350(part), 2348, 2347(part), 2353 and 2300 (part) were acquired for the same purpose. The notification was published in the Government gazette on 3rd August 1989. Award was made on 25th September 1990 and the S.L.A.O. awarded Rs. 375/-per sq. mtr. in case where the land has access and Rs. 125/-per sq.mtr. where there was no access. There is no dispute that the lands of the owners under these proceedings are adjacent to the present claimants lands. These claimants preferred a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and the references were placed before this Court. They are, L.A.R. Nos. 4 and 7 of 1994, 2, 3 and 4 of 1998. They are disposed of by a common judgement.
33. The learned Judge has observed that the claimants examined the same valuer on their behalf as was done in the present case. The valuer is the same viz., Mr. Hitendra Mehta. His valuation report was dated 23rd August 2004. The officials of the acquiring body were examined. It examined one Ramesh Rayate, Architect and Valuer on its behalf, who produced his valuation report dated 3rd August 2004. Thus, the claimants before this Court in the above references have examined only the valuer whereas the acquiring body examined five witnesses. Before this Court about four instances were produced during the course of evidence. Three of them were referred to and produced by the Valuer Mr. Mehta and one sale instance produced during the course of cross examination of Mr. Rayate. This Court discarded instance Nos. 1 and 2 because they were in respect of residential flats. Instance No. 3 which was produced pertained to a land and registered deed of conveyance was placed on record. This plot of land admeasuring 2750 sq.mtrs. situate at Dahisar (East). It is at a distance of 4.5 kms. from Borivali railway station and away from land under acquisition in the above reference. The date of conveyance is dated 4th July 1988 and is registered on 13th June 1994. The vendor, is one Mrs. Urmila v. Parmar and the purchaser was one M/s.Shraddha Associates. The total consideration is Rs. 3 lakhs and rate per sq.mtr. was somewhere around Rs. 445.78.
34. Even before this Court in the above reference, M.S.R.T.C. did not produce any sale instance but relied upon sale instance referred to by S.L.A.O. However, this Court observed that the witnesses examined by the M.S.R.T.C. did not have registered deed or even Index II. However, instance which was placed on record was considered by this Court and it was referred to as instance No. 6. It pertained to land just adjacent to the land under acquisition before this Court in the above reference. The land was C.T.S. No. 2351, S. No. 224, Hissa No. 1 and areas was admeasuring 2023.36 sq.mtrs. The rate awarded is Rs. 351.43. The vendor of land is one Ratilal Thakkar and purchaser is Borivali Sai Smruti Coop.Housing Society.
35. Thus, before this Court comparison was made between only two instances viz., 3 and 6 which have been produced by the claimants in the cross examination of respondents witnesses.
36. This Court analysed the entire material and after following the relevant factors as laid down by the Supreme Court and considering rival contentions, ultimately on a comparison between instance No. 3 and 6 discarded instance No. 6 which was relied upon by the acquiring body for reasons set out in paras 42 to 45 of the judgement. This Court accepted the sale instance No. 3 as comparable and proceeded to determine the market value of the lands under acquisition in the above reference in comparison with this sale instance. Thereafter, by a comparative process of the plus and minus factors with this instance No. 3, final award was made by this Court.
37. The reasons for not taking into consideration this award made by the Court, according to Mr. Hegde are that when this Court was deciding the reference filed in the year 1994, it had before it an award made by S.L.A.O. on 25th September 1990. It is in this context that the instances which are referred and relied upon by both sides before this Court assume significance. Mr. Hegdes contention is that the award passed in the present reference is admittedly, after the award which was made in the earlier references. Therefore, the instances relied upon by this Court cannot now be relied upon as they are much prior to the present award. In the present case, the award was made after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. The relevant date is the date of taking possession i.e. 27th December 1993. Therefore, the judgement and award of this Court disposing of the references may have delivered on 7th March 2005 but the award therein being near about 15 years prior thereto as far as the present case is concerned, neither the award of this Court nor the instance therein should be relied upon. He submits that the award made in the present case is a new award. It is made in the year 2002. Therefore, no assistance or help can be taken by the claimants of the judgement and award of this Court.
37. While setting out the principle of an Award of the Court being taken as as Instance, the Supreme Court has observed thus:
5. No doubt, a judgement of a court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of land in the vicinity of the acquired lands, even though not inter partes, could be admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or inferred as has been held by the Calcutta High Court in H.K. Mallicks case (supra) based on the authority of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Secretary of State v. Indian General Steam Navigation and Railway Co. (1909) ILR 36 Cal 967, where the Judicial Committee did refuse to interfere with High Court judgement in a land acquisition case based on previous awards, holding that no question of principle was involved in it. But what cannot be overlooked is that for a judgement relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either as an instance or acquired land could be inferred or deduced, must have been a previous judgement of Court and as an instance, it must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgement by adducing evidence aliunde that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances, it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. In the cases on hand, the petitioners who are claimants claiming enhanced compensation for their acquired land have not produced the judgement of the High Court on which they propose to rely for finding the market value of their acquired lands as evidence in their cases, in that they could not have done so for the reason that it was not a judgement then available to them as a previous judgement relating to market value of land in the vicinity. Much less is there any evidence aliunde adduced by them in the cases on hand to show that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances, it could form the basis for determining the market value of their acquired lands. Hence, there is no justification for us to act upon a subsequent judgement of the High Court, cited before us from a Law Report, to enhance the market value of the acquired lands of the petitioners merely because it was claimed on their behalf that the market value of the lands concerned therein could become evidence for determining the market value of the lands concerned in the appeals respecting which the present Special Leave Petitions are filed. Moreover, when judgement is rendered by a Court determining he market value of lands acquired under the Act, by agreement of parties, such judgement becomes final and it would not be open to any of the parties thereto to appeal against that judgement. Hence, these Special Leave Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
38. In the present case as would be clear from the description of the lands, they are C.T.S. No. 2352 (pt), 2347 (pt), 2297/ 2300 (pt) of Village Dahisar, near Nancy Colony, Borivali (East), Mumbai. The relevant date is taken as 27th December 1993. The award is made on 31st December 2002. The S.L.A.O. has referred to the sale instances which include an Award dated 25th September 1990. This Award was subject matter of the references disposed of by this Court on 7th March 2005. Thus, this award itself was a sale instance before the Court. Before S.L.A.O., the sale instance No. 3 is with respect to a flat. Similar is the case with Sale instance Nos. 4 and 5. Sale instance No. 6 is an agreement for sale of flat again. The sale instance No. 7 is the the award passed by the S.L.A.O. on 25th September 1990. Thus, the Award made by SLAO and subject matter of present references refers to as an instance, the earlier Award of 1990 pertaining to adjacent lands and acquired for the same purpose. Both sides have pointed out before the S.L.A.O. that the situation, location and purpose of acquisition in respect of lands covered by the award dated 25th September 1991 and the present reference are identical. The0L.A.O. awarded in that case Rs. 375 per sq.mtr. for land abutting road and Rs. 125/- per sq.mtr. for interior land i.e. having no access. The lands under acquisition in the present reference are forming part of already acquired land in the earlier reference and award. It is having same status and position as per the S.L.A.O. On the basis of the rate found in the declared award, the acquiring body has valued the land under acquisition in the award dated 25th September 1991 as per the rate prevailing on the relevant date, for our present reference at Rs. 450/-per sq.mtrs. for land having access and Rs. 150/- for land having no access. It has taken 5% rise for the time gap. Thus, when both acquiring body as also the claimants are relying upon the award, which was the subject matter of the lands in L.A.R. Nos. 4 and of 1994 and 2, 3 and 4 of 1998 as one of the instance, then, there is no reason to discard the award of this Court in these L.A.Rs. granting enhancement in compensation pertaining to identical lands. In other words, the acquisition being for common purpose, the situation and location as also position of the lands being identical, it will not be fair to brush aside the judgement and award of this Court and the instances referred to therein. It is in these circumstances and for the reasons assigned above that I am unable to accept the suggestion of Mr. Hegde. Merely because the judgement and Award of this Court has enhanced the compensation that the Acquiring Body desires that it be discarded.
39. As far as the materials which are produced in the present reference , in the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of Mr. Hitendra Mehta, Valuer of the claimants, he has categorically said that he is an experienced valuer and his firm is in the profession since 1985. About his qualification and experience, there is no dispute.
40. In other words, he has submitted a valuation report in which he has placed reliance upon the documents enlisted at para 3 of his report. Document No. 3 is the copy of the order passed in L.A.R. No. 4 of 1994, 7 of 1994, 2 of 1998, 2 and 4 of 1990 i.e. judgement of Kamdar, J (as he then was) dated 7th March 2005. Additionally, he has placed reliance upon a valuation report prepared by Dy.Director Town Planning, Government Resolution confirming use of Ready Reckoner and sale instance at Item No. 7. He has prepared a site plan and the area totally admeasures 2070.28 sq.mtrs. which is divided into four survey numbers and C.T.S. numbers. It is not in dispute that the lands are strategically situated and located. The area is known as Nancy Colony. It is a developed area. The development has taken place more or less completely by the time the possession of the land was taken. I have already referred to the positive factors as culled out in the report.
41. As far as cross examination of this witness is concerned, the acquiring body could not elicit anything. In fact the cross examination by the acquiring body commences as under:
Cross examination by Shri G.S.Hegde, learned Counsel for the acquiring body:
Q.1: Mr. Mehta, are the lands involved in Reference No. 4 of 1994 and connected matters and the lands involved in the present references identically situated topographically?
Ans: All lands in the present references and in the earlier references are identically situated topographically but individual differences are shown in my report.
Thus, the cross examination itself commences with a suggestion or question regarding common features and connection between the lands under acquisition and forming subject matter of the present reference and the earlier references. Then, the Commissioner appointed by this Court for cross examination observes thus:
By consent, the cross examination of the present Witness in LAR No. 4 of 1994, 2 of 1998, 7 of 1994, 3 of 1998 and 4 of 1998 be treated as part of cross examination of the present witness in the present LARs. This is without prejudice to the Claimants contention that some of the questions put in cross examination to the witness in the aforesaid references are not relevant to the issues involved in the present references.
The cross examination is thus absolutely cryptic and short and only relies upon deposition of this very valuer, including his cross examination, in the aforesaid earlier references. The questions based are only with regard to comparison with the lands covered by earlier references.
42. As far as the claimants valuer is concerned, his valuation report is dated 6th October 2005 and he also does not dispute that the location is as above. However, the valuer on behalf of acquiring body in his report observes thus:
Main features of both types of lands are as under:
1) The entire area is low-lying area;
2) The entire area is/was surrounded by poor class people/hutment/stable etc.
3) The buildings around the said land such as green view part (2001) on north side Shree Adinath Towers (2001) on west side with two adjoining building under construction Sun Mun Coop. Hsg. Society (2000), Om Ganesh Darshan Coop.Hsg. Socy. (2000) on east side. Snehal Tower (1995) Datta Prasad (2003) on south side etc. are constructed after 1993.
4) All the basic amenities such as school, market hospital, cinema etc. are available at around 2 km. distance i.e. Chogale High School, Shrikrishna is about 1 km. away from the site.
5) The deed of conveyance dated 30/7/1993 between (1) N.G. Patil, (2) Mrs. S.N. Patil (3) D.N. Patil, (4) M.N. Patil, (5) N.N. Patil… and others through their constituted attorney Shri J.D. Shukla & Smt. K.J. Shukla & Ors. for land admeasuring 202.34 sq.mt. S. No. 176, H. No. 11 corresponding C.T.S. No. 2508 together with structures standing thereof occupied by 4 tenants for Rs. 30,000/-. It is on Shiv Vallabh Road, near service road of western express highway, 5 minutes walking distance from our bus stand site. The copy is enclosed herewith for ready references.
6) The instances of sale and Award No. LAQ/SR-513-A dated 30/12/1991 are enclosed herewith, such as:
i) Between Pramilawati Roshanlal Mehra & Dharamchand Sintex (P) Ltd. executed on 19/9/1989;
ii) Between H.G.Patil and Ors. and M/s.Jayashree Builders & Contractors (P) Ltd. executed on 9/5/1991
iii) Between A.M.Dubli and Shantaben A. Dubli & C.D. Dave and M.C.Dave executed on 11/5/1987;
43. The conclusion, therefore, is that rate of Rs. 500/- per sq.mtr. and rate of Rs. 200/- per sq.mtr. would be the rate on the relevant date. The valuer has termed about 40% property as landlocked and has bifurcated area of the land with access road and without access road and has computed the compensation thus:
Considering all the relevant data as stated above, we assume the rate of 1) Rs. 500/-per sq.mt. (2) Rs. 200/-per sq.mtr. Since it is land locked property at 40% of Rs. 500.00 as stated hereunder:
A) Area of Land (With access
Road)
C.T.S. 2352 (P) 946.76 sq.mt.
Value of the Land
(With access road)
946.76 sq.mt. &
Rs.500 per sq.mt. Rs. 4,73,380/-
B) Area of land (Without access
Road)
C.T.S. 2300(p) 301.20 sq.mt.
C.T.S. 2347(p) 752.64 sq.mt.
C.T.S. 2297 69.50 sq.mt.
================================================
1,122.74 sq.mt.
================================================
Value of Land (Without access road) 1,122.74 sq.mtr.x Rs. 200/-/sq.mt. Rs. 2,24,548.80
44. The Valuer of the Acquiring Body Naresh Narayan Mule in his affidavit has referred to a deed of conveyance and some sale instances, including an award of S.L.A.O. However, in the cross examination on behalf of the claimants, they are able to elicit admissions and those pertain to very vital and basic aspects including method of valuation.
45. The Valuer examined by Acquiring Body admits that he has referred to four instances and one award. When questioned as to whether he has treated the award also as an instance for valuation of reference lands, his answer is that it is not an instance. When asked whether his valuation of the award is apart from four instances he says Yes. Thereafter, a question is posed about the most comparable instance for valuation i.e. four sale instances or the Award. He says in answer, comparison of Average of all instances and not only one. Therefore, according to him, four instances and the award are equally comparable for valuing the land under acquisition but he has taken the average. He again states that the figure which is taken by him as average is not as per the mathematical calculation but on his judgement and experience. He has deposed as an expert valuer on very few occasions. Apart from exhibiting his inexperience and un-willingness to answer certain relevant questions, it is pertinent to note that he has failed to demonstrate as to how he has valued the lands under reference at Rs. 500/- per sq.mtr. He has admitted that he has not seen the site nor visited the same. About the sale instances also his answer is that he does not know as to whether the land was sold along with the building, whether it was tenanted or owner occupied or whether it was sold as vacant land. When a suggestion is given clearly that if the land at Exh.R-5 is sold as vacant, it would have fetched Rs. 120/-in 1993, his answer is plain “NO”.
About every single sale instance that he sought to rely upon, a question was put to him about its value on the relevant date, in comparison to the lands under reference. Each of the instance plots have either not been visited or not seen by him and he states that his statements in the valuation report are on the basis of “general understanding”, which according to him, is sufficient. He admits that instance at Exh.R-5 and 6 are free hold lands. The basis on which this answer is given is a sale deed and sale deed is always for free hold land. Exh. R-7 is one another instance with regard to which he has been posed several questions and he says that it is sale of only land but he does not know anything about the features as he has never seen the plot. He has stated that he has not even seen the sale deed.
46. Question No. 41 and 42 as also 44 and 45 read thus:
Q.41: Will it be correct to say that as far as the instances of Ex.R-5, Ex.R-6, Ex.R-7 and the Conveyance dated 30th July 1993 are concerned, the only data considered by you was the three Index II extracts and a copy of the said Sale Deed, is that correct?
Ans: Yes.
Q.42: Will it be correct to say that while making the adjustment for the time factor while considering Ex.R-5, Ex.R-6 and R-7 1981-1989 and 1989-1993 you have gone on the basis of an increase in land values @ 10% per annum?
Ans: Yes.
Q.44: I put it to you that in these years land prices were rising at least @ 20% per annum during the period 1985 to 1995?
Ans: No.
Q.45: What is the basis of your estimate of rate of rise of 10% per annum during the period between 1987-1993? Ans: My judgement. There is no mathematical calculation.
47. With regard to question No. 47 and 48, the witness Mule while referring to instance at Exh.R-4 has taken time and the questions were explained to him in both English and Marathi, but has not been able to clarify the position as regards the rate arrived at by him. There is, therefore, substance in the contention of Mr. Korde that his valuation is not at all trustworthy and reliable. The valuer has not been able to even clarify basic and fundamental aspects of valuation including the method followed. He fails to appreciate the necessity to explain salient features of the sale instance and the lands under reference. He has merely said that the rate in the award dated 30th December 1991 which is assumed to be the only data is Rs. 375/- per sq.mtr. and he has given weightage of two years and arrived at calculation of Rs. 500/-per sq.mtr. While answering this question (Q.53), the Valuer thereafter admits that he has taken 16% as the annual rate of increase. This is his general view.
48. When he was questioned with regard to references which were decided by Single Judge of this Court, he admits that there is a judgement of this Court with regard to those references but he has not seen the judgement and read it. He says that in respect of adjoining lands, a judgement and award of this Court has been delivered but it is not directly relevant for valuing lands under reference in the present case. He has, however, admitted that the valuer of the acquiring body had submitted his report in the earlier references disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court. A photocopy of the valuation report dated 21st October 2004 has been brought on record only because of the statement of this witness.
49. Therefore, the questions that followed were pertaining to the comparison with the lands which are covered by earlier references and present reference, their proximity to the railway station, availability of amenities and the position prevailing as on the relevant date. The valuer has been unable to substantiate his statements and in fact admitted that the hutments/unauthorised structures which are seen in the locality were in existence on 27th December 1993, when possession was taken. Still he denies the fact that the same was not the position. This answer is given despite admitting that a detailed plan was prepared while taking possession by the acquiring body. The valuer answers this question in the negative. Later on, he says that there are some plans but they do not show any hutments. He insists that his statement being recorded that there are no hutments but structures. Question Nos. 74 to 76 at pages 386/7 are answered thus:
Q.74. : I am drawing your attention to the endorsement made at the bottom of this plan on the right-hand side stating that out of the lands shown on the plan, on C.T.S. Nos. 2348, 2263, 2263/1, 2263/2, 2264, 2265, 2301, 2201, 2262 (part), 2261 (part) hutments are existing and therefore the possession is taken of the remaining land after leaving the land covered by hutments. Will you now agree that the various structures shown on this plan are in fact hutments?
Ans: I agree.
Q.75. : Looking at this Plan, will you agree that your statement that the adjoining area of the land under reference i.e. C.T.S. Nos. 2352(part), 2347(part), 2297, 2300(part) is occupied by the hutments is not correct?
Ans: I do not agree.
Q.76: What is the basis of your statement that adjoining land under acquisition is marshy land. Ans: A part of the total land which was acquired is still marshy land and it requires filling. Even we can today verify the same.
50. Mr. Kordes criticism that the deposition read as a whole demonstrates ignorance of the basic facts is justified when in answer to question No. 80 he says that he has not seen the award made by the SLAO in the present case.
51. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that SLAO himself in the award states that the land under acquisition is falling in residential zone and it is about 15 to 20 minutes walkable distance from Borivali railway station on east side. BEST buses are available on existing D.P. road, civic amenities, school, market, Cinema at an average distance of 20 minutes walk. Surrounding area is fully developed for residential building. The valuer of MSRTC agrees that the lands fall in residential zone but does not agree with the statement of SLAO. When asked whether he has any independent material to justify his report, he has not been able to produce anything.
52. I have read his deposition with the assistance of both sides and while admitting that the lands surrounding the acquired land are fully developed, that there are all amenities available and that they are at 15 minutes walkable distance, the valuer insists that they would not fetch the rate which is claimed.
53. That the lands under reference are situate in Nancy colony is an admitted fact. At page 391 in answer to Question Nos. 91 and 92, the Valuer states thus:
Q.91: I am drawing your attention to a Plan which shows four plots under acquisition in the present case in green colour and the eight plots which were the subject matter of the said Judgement dated 7th March 2005. Please check and confirm that the four plots which are subject matter of the present references and the eight plots which are the subject matter of the judgment are correctly shown on this plan.?
Ans: I confirm that they are correctly shown on this plan which is shown to me.
Q.92: Mr. Mulye, I put it to you that your valuation is totally incorrect and has resulted in valuing the lands under acquisition at an excessively low rate. Do you agree.
Ans: I do not agree.
54. Thus, there is merit in the submission of Mr. Korde that the method followed by the valuer is contrary to well known principles and that he has no data with regard to the instances relied upon by him. There is further justification in this criticism because the judgement of this Court is also not taken into consideration by him.
55. Mr. Korde has contended that correct market value of the four plots of land under acquisition is:
====================================================
Plot LAR No. C.T.S. No. Area Inst. No. 3
No. in Land Rate/
sq.mt. sq.mtr.
====================================================
1. 7/03 2352(pt) 946.76 Rs. 3,143.04
2. 8/03 2347(pt) 752.64 Rs. 1,658.67
3. 8/03 2297 69.50 Rs. 1,650.79
4. 9/03 2300(pt) 301.20 Rs. 1,658.67
====================================================
Whether the claimants should be awarded enhanced compensation on the basis of these figures is something which needs to be decided by me. The above figures are based on some data. However, as far as the Acquiring Body is concerned, it has failed to produce cogent material in support of its plea that the judgement of this Court and the instance relied upon therein cannot form the basis for awarding enhanced compensation. The Acquiring Body contends that the Award of this Court in respect of adjacent lands should not form the basis for considering the claim for enhanced compensation but its witness has failed to produce reliable and trustworthy proof to support his computation of the market value in respect of the subject lands.
56. It is in the above circumstances that I am unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Hegde appearing for the acquiring body. The acquiring body has been unable to substantiate its pleas by producing enough material that the award passed in this case being a New Award, it is an Instance by itself and, therefore, not only the instances earlier relied upon but even the judgement of this Court analysing the same should not be taken into consideration. As pointed out above, when the Acquiring Body itself relies upon earlier instances, including cross examination of the claimants valuer in the earlier references, then it is futile to contend that the new award must be taken as an independent piece of evidence. That apart, in the new award as well the SLAO has relied upon the very instances which have been referred to in the award of this Court. Thus, it will not be possible to accede to the submissions of the acquiring body.
57. The question now remains is whether the submissions pertaining to Rental compensation need to be considered and dealt with. This submission proceeds on the basis that acquiring body took possession of the lands much earlier and without payment of any monies enjoyed the properties of the claimants. It is only when Writ Petitions were filed in this Court by the claimants that the acquiring body accepted the directions of this Court and agreed that compensation under LA Act be paid. That is how the Notifications are issued under M.R.T.P. and L.A. Act. However, there were no acquisition proceedings and yet possession was taken. Thus, lands were utilised free of cost.
58. In my view, when the claimants filed petitions in this Court and they were disposed of by this Court, prima facie, the issue of rental compensation was not raised independently and even the claimants agreed that no claim for compensation de hors the L.A. Act will be made. Prima facie, therefore, the claimants now cannot raise a distinct claim.
59. Assuming that such claim can be raised and considered, even then, no materials have been placed on record with regard to the Rentals/yearly compensation for open lands in the vicinity. The material that is relied upon is the claimants valuers deposition. In this report and deposition, complete material with regard to prevailing rents has not be disclosed. The report is silent with regard to prevailing rates applied by the State when allotting lands on long term lease basis. Thus, it would not be proper to entertain the claim for Rental Compensation without this foundation being laid by the claimants.
60. That apart, I have my own doubts as to whether decisions of Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Korde hold that the aspect of rental compensation can in all cases be gone into by a Reference court. The Reference court is deriving its jurisdiction to make an award after taking cognisance of a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Hence, the request of claimants to grant rental compensation has to be declined and it would be open for the claimants to initiate such proceedings, as permissible in law to claim the same.
61. In the result, the references are disposed of by directing that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation on the Market value of land under references. The same as on the relevant date would be as under:
L.A.R. No. 7
Special Land Acquisition Officer (2)
And
Smt.Anibai Janardhan Patil and Ors. .. Claimants
And
Executive Engineer
Mumbai - 400051 .. Acquiring Body
A. Market Value (Plot No. 1)
(946.76 x Rs. 2,413.30) = Rs. 22,84,815.90
B. Solatium 30% on (A) above = Rs. 6,85,444.77
C. Additional component
Under Section 23(1)(A)
[@12% on (A) above
from 3.10.02 to 31.12.02
(90 days)] = Rs. 67,402.06
D. Total compensation payable
[A + B + C] = Rs. 30,37,662.73
E. Compensation awarded by
S.L.A.O. = Rs. 6,92,341.00
F. Additional compensation
payable [D-E] = Rs. 23,45,321.73
G. Interest @9% p.a. on
(F) above from 31.1.03
to 30.1.04 = Rs. 2,11,078.95
H. Interest @15% p.a. on
(F) above from 31.1.04
to 23.11.06 = Rs. 9,89,725.77
I. Total amount payable to
the claimants [F+G+H] = Rs. 35,46,126.45
Note: The Claimants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 35,46,126.45 (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Forty Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Six and Paise Forty Five only) together with interest on amount of Rs. 23,45,321.73 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Three Hundred Twenty One and Paise Seventy Three only) from 24.11.2006 till the date of payment.
L.A.R. No. 8 Special Land Acquisition Officer (2) And Chandrakant Ganpat Patil and Ors. .. Claimants And Divisional Controller .. Acquiring Body A. Market Value of : Plot No. 2 (752.64 x Rs. 1,273.57)=Rs.9,58,539.72 Plot No. 3 (69.50 x Rs. 1,267.51) =Rs. 88,091.94 ------------- Total : = Rs. 10,46,631.66 B. Solatium 30% on (A) above = Rs. 3,13,989.49 C. Additional component Under Section 23(1)(A) [@12% on (A) above from 3.10.02 to 31.12.02 (90 days)] = Rs. 30,875.63 D. Total compensation payable [A + B + C] = Rs. 13,91,496.78 E. Compensation awarded by S.L.A.O. Plot No. 2 = Rs. 5,50,386.00 Plot No. 3 = Rs. 50,823.00 -------------- Total : = Rs. 6,01,209.00 F. Additional compensation payable [D-E] = Rs. 7,90,287.78 G. Interest @9% p.a. on (F) above from 31.1.03 to 30.1.04 = Rs. 71,125.90 H. Interest @15% p.a. on (F) above from 31.1.04 to 23.11.06 = Rs. 3,33,501.44 I. Total amount payable to the claimants [F+G+H] = Rs. 11,94,915.12
Note: The Claimants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 11,94,915.12 (Rupees Eleven lacs ninety four thousand nine hundred fifteen and paise twelve only) together with interest on amount of Rs. 7,90,287.78 (Rupees Seven lacs ninety thousand two hundred eighty seven and paise seventy eight only) from 24.11.2006 till the date of payment.
Table No. 9
Special Land Acquisition Officer (2)
And
Ramkrishna Bhalchandra Patil and Ors. .. Claimants
And
Divisional Controller
Parel, Mumbai - 400 025. .. Acquiring Body
A. Market Value (Plot No. 4)
(301.20 x Rs. 1,273.57) = Rs. 3,83,599.28
B. Solatium 30% on (A) above = Rs. 1,15,079.78
C. Additional component
Under Section 23(1)(A)
[@12% on (A) above
from 3.10.02 to 31.12.02
(90 days)] = Rs. 11,316.17
D. Total compensation payable
[A + B + C] = Rs. 5,09,995.23
E. Compensation awarded by
S.L.A.O. = Rs. 73,287.00
F. Additional compensation
payable [D-E] = Rs. 4,36,708.23
G. Interest @9% p.a. on
(F) above from 31.1.03
to 30.1.04 = Rs. 39,303.74
H. Interest @15% p.a. on
(F) above from 31.1.04
to 23.11.06 = Rs. 1,84,290.87
I. Total amount payable to
the claimants [F+G+H] = Rs. 6,60,302.84
Note: The Claimants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 6,60,302.84 (Rupees Six lacs sixty thousand three hundred two and paise eighty four only) together with interest on amount of Rs. 4,36,708.23 (Rupees Four lacs thirty six thousand seven hundred eight and paise twenty three only) from 24.11.2006 till the date of payment.
The Acquiring Body is directed to deposit the amount of compensation under each L.A.R., as shown in the computation above, in this Court within twenty weeks from today.
62. While making the award and computing market rate, I have considered the fact that Honble Supreme Court has consistently granted 10% increase. That rate should be ordinarily presumed is the observation of the Supreme Court. Since the award under earlier reference was made on 25th September 1990, the prices of the instances mentioned therein would have to be increased by 10% annually. The lands under reference are adjacent to those covered by the award of this Court. Therefore, the rise of 10% annually in the rate awarded is taken and that is how the market value is arrived at and compensation computed.
63. Land Acquisition References are disposed of in the above terms. No orders as to costs.