{"id":205246,"date":"2009-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-06-27T05:12:40","modified_gmt":"2017-06-26T23:42:40","slug":"jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: P.V. Hardas, K. K. Tated<\/div>\n
                                  (1)\n\n\n\n\n            FIRST   APPEAL   NO.188   OF   2000   WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n            FIRST   APPEAL   NO.219   OF   1999   AND\n            FIRST   APPEAL   NO.213   OF   1999   WITH\n            FIRST   APPEAL   NO.218   OF   1999   AND\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n            FIRST   APPEAL   NO.245   OF   1999\n\n\n\n                    Date of decision:        24TH FEBRUARY, 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    For approval and signature.\n\n\n    THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE            P.V. HARDAS\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n    THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED\n\n\n    1.\n                       \n          Whether Reporters of Local Papers                        }     Yes\n          may be allowed to see the Judgment?                      }\n                      \n    2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not                   }     Yes\/No\n\n    3.    Whether Their Lordships wish to see                      }     No\n          the fair copy of the Judgment?                           }\n      \n\n\n    4.    Whether this case involves a substantial                 }\n          question of law as to the interpretation                 }     No\n   \n\n\n\n          of the Constitution of India, 1950 or                    }\n          any Order made thereunder?                               }\n\n    5.    Whether it is to be circulated to the                    }     No\n          Civil Judges?                                            }\n\n\n\n\n\n    6.    Whether the case involves an important                   }\n          question of law and whether a copy of                    }     No\n          the Judgment should be sent to Mumbai,                   }\n          Nagpur and Panaji offices?                               }\n\n\n\n\n\n         [A.S. Bhagwat)\n         Personal Assistant to\n         the Honourable Judge.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::\n                               1\n\n\n\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n        FIRST APPEAL NO.188 OF 2000\n                IN\n       LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.358 OF 1995\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    1) Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani,\n       Age-87 years, Occu:Agriculture,\n       R\/o-Kinwat, Tq-Kinwat,\n       Dist-Nanded\n       (Died through L.Rs)\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n    1\/1) Shanubani w\/o Sadroddin Hirani,\n         Age-62 years, Occu:Household &\n                   \n         Agriculture.\n\n    1\/2) Madat Ali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n         Age-59 years, Occu:Agriculture\n                  \n         & Business,\n\n    1\/3) Amirali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n         Age-49 years, Occu:Agriculture\n         & Business,\n      \n\n\n    1\/4) Sultanali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n         Age-44 years, Occu:Agriculture\n   \n\n\n\n         & Business,\n\n    1\/5) Shirinkhanu w\/o Sadroddin Lalani,\n         Age-59 years, Occu:Household,\n\n\n\n\n\n    1\/6) Malekbai w\/o Shamshuddin Pirani,\n         Age-56 years, Occu:Household,\n\n    All R\/o-Kinwat, Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n\n    2) Shahabanu w\/o Sadroddin Hirani,\n       Age-61 years, Occu:Household &\n\n\n\n\n\n       Agriculture.\n\n    3) Madatali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n       Age-56 years, Occu:Agriculture\n       & Business,\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::\n                               2\n\n\n\n\n    4) Amirali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n       Age-45 years, Occu:Agriculture\n       and Business, for himself and\n       power of attorney holder of\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n       claimant Nos. 2, 3 & 5.\n\n    5) Sultanali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n       Age-42 years, Occu:Agriculture\n       and Business,\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    All R\/o-Kinwat, Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n\n                                  .... APPELLANTS.\n\n                   VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n    1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                   \n       Through District Collector,\n       Nanded,\n\n    2) The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,\n                  \n       Minor Irrigation Works, Nanded.\n\n    3) The Municipal Council, Kinwat,\n       Through its Chief Officer,\n       Kinwat Municipal Council, Kinwat,\n       Dist-Nanded.\n      \n\n\n                                .... RESPONDENTS.\n   \n\n\n\n    WITH\n\n         FIRST APPEAL NO.219 OF 1999\n                 IN\n        LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.358 OF 1995\n\n\n\n\n\n    The Municipal Council,\n    Kinwat, Dist-Nanded,\n    Through its\n    Chief Officer,\n    Municipal Council,\n\n\n\n\n\n    Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n                          ...APPELLANT\n             VERSUS\n\n    1) Jafarali s\/o Mithabhai Hirani,\n       Since Deceased Through his LRs:\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::\n                              3\n\n\n\n\n    1\/1) Shanubani w\/o Sadroddin Hirani,\n         Age-59 years, Occu:Household &\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n         Agriculture.\n\n    1\/2) Madat Ali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n         Age-57 years, Occu:Agriculture\n         & Business,\n\n    1\/3) Amirali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n         Age-47 years, Occu:Agriculture\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n         & Business,\n\n    1\/4) Sultanali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n         Age-42 years, Occu:Agriculture\n         & Business,\n\n\n\n\n                                \n    1\/5) Shirinkhanu w\/o Sadroddin Lalani,\n         Age-59 years, Occu:Household,\n                   \n    1\/6) Malekbai w\/o Shamshuddin Pirani,\n         Age-54 years, Occu:Household,\n                  \n    All R\/o-Kinwat, Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n\n    2) Shahabanu w\/o Sadroddin Hirani,\n       Age-59 years, Occu:Household &\n       Agriculture.\n      \n\n\n    3) Madat Ali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n       Age-54 years, Occu:Agriculture\n   \n\n\n\n       & Business,\n\n\n    4) Amirali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n       Age-45 years, Occu:Agriculture\n\n\n\n\n\n       and Business,\n\n    5) Sultanali s\/o Jafar Ali Hirani,\n       Age-40 years, Occu:Agriculture\n       and Business,\n\n\n\n\n\n    All R\/o-Kinwat, Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n\n    (Respondent No.4 Amir Ali is GPA Holder\n    of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5)\n\n                                 ....   RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::\n                                4\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n    AND\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n          FIRST APPEAL NO.213 OF 1999\n\n                  IN\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n          LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.360 OF 1995\n\n\n    Jivanbhai s\/o Mandanbhai Dobani,\n    Age-54 years, Occu:Agriculture,\n    R\/o-Kinwat, Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded,\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n    Through Power of Attorney Holder\n    Amin s\/o Jivanbhai Dobani,\n                       \n    Age-32 years, Occu:Agriculture,\n    R\/o-Kinwat, Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n    (died through L.Rs.)\n                      \n    1) Fatambai w\/o Jivanbhai Dobani,\n       Age-59 years, Occu:Household\n\n    2) Amin s\/o Jivanbhai Dobani,\n       Age-36 years, Occu:Agriculture\n      \n\n\n    3) Din Mohammed s\/o Jivanbhai Dobani,\n       Age-33 years, Occu:Agriculture\n   \n\n\n\n    4) Sultan s\/o Jivanbhai Dobani,\n       Age-28 years, Occu:Agriculture\n\n    All R\/o-Kinwat, Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   .... APPELLANTS.\n\n                    VERSUS\n\n    1) The State of Maharashtra,\n       Through District Collector,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Nanded,\n\n    2) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,\n       Minor Irrigation Works, Nanded.\n\n    3) The Municipal Council, Kinwat,\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::\n                               5\n\n\n\n\n       Through its Chief Officer,\n       Kinwat Municipal Council, Kinwat,\n       Dist-Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                                .... RESPONDENTS.\n\n    WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n        FIRST APPEAL NO.218 OF 1999\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                    IN\n\n       LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.360 OF 1995\n\n\n    The Municipal Council,\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n    Kinwat, Dist-Nanded,\n    Through its\n    Chief Officer,\n    Municipal Council,\n    Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n                         \n                        \n                         ...APPELLANT.\n\n           VERSUS\n\n\n    1) Fatambai w\/o Jivanbhai Dobani,\n      \n\n\n       Age-57 years, Occu:Household\n   \n\n\n\n    2) Amin s\/o Jivanbhai Dobani,\n       Age-35 years, Occu:Agriculture\n\n    3) Din Mohammed s\/o Jivanbhai Dobani,\n       Age-31 years, Occu:Agriculture\n\n\n\n\n\n    4) Sultan s\/o Jivanbhai Dobani,\n       Age-27 years, Occu:Agriculture\n\n    All R\/o-Kinwat, Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n\n    5) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Through the District Collector,\n       Collectorate, Nanded.\n\n    6) The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,\n       Minor Irrigation Works,\n       Nanded, Dist-Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::\n                                6\n\n\n\n\n                                   ....   RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                                            \n    AND\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n          FIRST APPEAL NO.245 OF 1999\n\n                  IN\n\n          LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.359 OF 1995\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n                       \n    1) Smt. Gopikabai w\/o Ramloo Nemaniwar,\n       Age-69 years, Occu:Agriculture\n       and Household, R\/o-Kinwat,\n                      \n       Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n\n\n    2) Ramesh s\/o Ramloo Nemaniwar,\n       Age-44 years, Occu:Agriculture\n       and Business, R\/o-Kinwat,\n      \n\n\n       Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n       For himself and Power of\n   \n\n\n\n       Attorney Holder of No.1 and 3.\n\n\n    3) Ashok s\/o Ramloo Nemaniwar,\n       Age-39 years, Occu:Agriculture\n\n\n\n\n\n       and Business, R\/o-Kinwat,\n       Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded.\n\n                                   .... APPELLANTS.\n\n\n                    VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n\n    1) The State of Maharashtra,\n       Through District Collector,\n       Nanded,\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::\n                                    7\n\n\n\n\n    2) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,\n       Minor Irrigation Works, Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n    3) The Municipal Council, Kinwat,\n       Through its Chief Officer,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n       Kinwat Municipal Council, Kinwat,\n       Dist-Nanded.\n                                .... RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                             ...\n\n    Mr.M.V. Deshpande Advocate for Appellants\/\n    Claimants in First Appeal Nos. 188 of 2000, 213\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n    of 1999 and 245 of 1999; and for Respondent Nos.\n    1 to 4 in First Appeal No.218 of 1999 and for the\n                     \n    Respondent Nos. 1\/1 to 1\/4 and 2 to 5 in in First\n    Appeal No.219 of 1999.\n\n    Mr.V.B. Ghadge, A.G.P. for Respondent State and\n                    \n    Respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer in all\n    Appeals.\n\n    Mr.P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel for Respondent\n    No.3 in First Appeal No.188 of 2000.\n      \n\n\n    Mr.B.A. Darak Advocate for Appellant in First\n    Appeal No.218 and 219 of 1999; and for the\n   \n\n\n\n    Respondent No.3 in First Appeal No.213 and 245 of\n    1999.\n\n                       ...\n\n\n\n\n\n            CORAM:     P.V. HARDAS\n                       AND\n                       K.K. TATED, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
     RESERVED ON :     11TH FEBRUARY, 2009.
\n     PRONOUNCED ON:    24TH FEBRUARY, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
    COMMON JUDGMENT:   (PER K.K. TATED, J.)<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
    1.       All         these First Appeals can be disposed of<\/p>\n
    by     Common Judgment as identical question of                           fact<\/p>\n
    and law arise in these Appeals.                   Lands acquired in<\/p>\n
    these        Appeals for Integrated Development                      Scheme,<\/p>\n
    Extension            of     Gavthan     at      Kinwat,        Tq-Kinwat,<\/p>\n
    Dist-Nanded,             for Kinwat Municipal Council, Kinwat<\/p>\n
    i.e.         Acquiring Body.           Learned counsel           appearing<\/p>\n
    on     behalf        of     the parties pointed out              that       the<\/p>\n
    First        Appeals,<\/p>\n
    evidence led by the parties is common in all these<\/p>\n
                                 therefore       these Appeals           can      be<\/p>\n
    disposed of by Common Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    2.       First           Appeal     No.188 of 2000 preferred                  by<\/p>\n
    the      original           claimant         against     the       impugned<\/p>\n
    Judgment           and     award    dated      12th     November,          1998<\/p>\n
    passed        in     Land Acquisition Reference                No.358         of<\/p>\n
    1995     is for enhancement of compensation,                         whereas<\/p>\n
    First        Appeal        No.219 of 1999 is preferred by                   the<\/p>\n
    Acquiring           Body     i.e.     Municipal        Council,        Kinwat<\/p>\n
    challenging the impugned Judgment and award passed<\/p>\n
    by     the     Reference Court.             First Appeal No.213               of<\/p>\n
    1999 is preferred by original claimant challenging<\/p>\n
    the     impugned           Judgment    and       award      dated          17th<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
    November,       1998      passed by the Reference Court                 in<\/p>\n
    Land     Acquisition       Reference     No.360 of         1995       for<\/p>\n
    enhancement       of      compensation    ;     whereas             First<\/p>\n
    Appeal     No.218       of 1999 is filed by the             Acquiring<\/p>\n
    Body     i.e.     Municipal Council, Kinwat             challenging<\/p>\n
    the    impugned        Judgment    and award passed            by     the<\/p>\n
    Reference       Court.     First Appeal No.245 of 1999                  is<\/p>\n
    preferred       by     original claimant       challenging            the<\/p>\n
    impugned        Judgment and award dated 13th              November,<\/p>\n
    1998     passed      by    the     Reference    Court        in      Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition<\/p>\n
                         Reference      No.359      of       1995         for<\/p>\n
    enhancement of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        Learned      counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    original        claimants categorically made a statement<\/p>\n
    that     in     all these First Appeals filed               by      them,<\/p>\n
    they     are challenging the compensation awarded                       by<\/p>\n
    the    Reference        Court only;      whereas      the        learned<\/p>\n
    Senior        Counsel      appearing     on    behalf        of       the<\/p>\n
    Acquiring       Body      made    a statement that          they      are<\/p>\n
    challenging       the additional component and interest<\/p>\n
    awarded       by the Reference Court to the              claimants.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties<\/p>\n
    made a statement that though they have raised some<\/p>\n
    of the grounds challenging the acquisition itself,<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
    those     grounds are not pressed by them at the time<\/p>\n
    of     argument     and same are waived.                 Therefore,             by<\/p>\n
    consent     all these First Appeals are taken up                               for<\/p>\n
    final     hearing on the question of market rate                               and<\/p>\n
    additional component as per Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        In First Appeal No.188 of 2000 preferred by<\/p>\n
    the     original        claimant,       it is the          case       of       the<\/p>\n
    Appellant that notification under Section 4 of the<\/p>\n
    Land      Acquisition           Act     was        published        in         the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra<\/p>\n
                       Gazette, Aurangabad Division on                         10th<\/p>\n
    July,     1993.     Learned Counsel Mr.                 M.V.      Deshpande<\/p>\n
    appearing        on behalf of the Appellants\/                     Claimants<\/p>\n
    submitted        that     the claimants were owner                    of       the<\/p>\n
    land     Survey     No.304        admeasuring 4            Hector          9    Rs<\/p>\n
    situated        within the limits of Municipal                      Council,<\/p>\n
    Kinwat     and     out of the said land, 1 Hector 84                            Rs<\/p>\n
    land     i.e.      2,00,376           sq.     ft.        land     had          been<\/p>\n
    acquired for the purpose of Integrated Development<\/p>\n
    Scheme,     Extension           of Gavthan at           Kinwat.            After<\/p>\n
    issuing     notice        under       Section       4     of    the            Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition Act, the Respondent State issued final<\/p>\n
    notification            under         Section      6     of     the            Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition         Act     dated           30th       September,          1993.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter        claimants have been served with notice<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
    under Section 9 (3)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act<\/p>\n
    calling upon the claimants to raise objections, if<\/p>\n
    any     in     respect          of        measurement        of     the       land,<\/p>\n
    personal           interest and in respect of market value.\n<\/p>\n
    In response to the said notice the claimants filed<\/p>\n
    their        written          claim before the Land               Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Officer        and claimed market value of the                          acquired<\/p>\n
    land     at        the     rate      of      Rs.150\/-        per        sq.     ft.\n<\/p>\n
    alongwith documentary evidence in support of their<\/p>\n
    claim.         After          following       due      process          of     law,<\/p>\n
    Special        Land<\/p>\n
                               Acquisition           Officer      declared          the<\/p>\n
    award        dated       12th     September,         1995       and      awarded<\/p>\n
    compensation             in     respect of acquired land at                     the<\/p>\n
    rate     of        Rs.44\/-       per sq.          meter.          The     learned<\/p>\n
    counsel        appearing          on      behalf       of     the       original<\/p>\n
    claimants          stated       that        the     possession           of     the<\/p>\n
    acquired land was taken on 1st April, 1985.                                   These<\/p>\n
    facts        are     not       disputed by          Acquiring         Body      and<\/p>\n
    State.         Thereafter            the Special Land             Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Officer        served notice under Section 12 (2) of the<\/p>\n
    Land Acquisition Act on 11th October, 1995 calling<\/p>\n
    upon     the        claimants          to    receive        the     amount        of<\/p>\n
    compensation.             It is the case of the claimant that<\/p>\n
    they     were not present or represented at the                                time<\/p>\n
    when     the        award       was passed by          Land       Acquisition<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
    Officer.           On that day out of total compensation of<\/p>\n
    Rs.10,07,113\/-              only    Rs.2,56,643\/- were               paid       as<\/p>\n
    advance        compensation and Rs.3,45,794\/- were                          paid<\/p>\n
    on     11th        October,        1995.        Thus a     total       sum      of<\/p>\n
    Rs.6,02,437\/-              were    paid to the claimants due                    to<\/p>\n
    non     availability of funds.                  It is the case of the<\/p>\n
    claimants           that they have withdrawn the amount                         of<\/p>\n
    compensation              of their acquired land under protest<\/p>\n
    and     preferred           Reference under Section 18 of                     the<\/p>\n
    Land     Acquisition Act for enhanced compensation in<\/p>\n
    respect        of<\/p>\n
                             the acquired land, on 17th                November,<\/p>\n
    1995.         It     is the case of the claimants that                        the<\/p>\n
    possession           of     the land under acquisition                   Survey<\/p>\n
    No.304        to     the extent of 1 Hector 84 Rs had                        been<\/p>\n
    taken     by        the Acquiring Body on 1st                 April,         1985<\/p>\n
    along     with        one well, cement pipe line 4″                      having<\/p>\n
    length        of     300 ft., one crompton               electric           motor<\/p>\n
    with     fans        5 HP, 46 ft.          Iron pipe        2″,      Crompton<\/p>\n
    Electric motor 5 HP and other articles.                            It is the<\/p>\n
    case     of        the     claimants        that     the      compensation<\/p>\n
    awarded        by        the Land Acquisition Officer                  at     the<\/p>\n
    rate     of Rs.44\/- per sq.                meter is inadequate, too<\/p>\n
    low     and does not reflect the true market value of<\/p>\n
    the land under acquisition.                     It is the case of the<\/p>\n
    claimants           that     Special Land Acquisition                  Officer<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
    has     not        awarded compensation for the well,                      pipe<\/p>\n
    line       and      other articles as described by them                        in<\/p>\n
    their       application           under Section 18 of             the      Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition             Act.    It is the case of the claimants<\/p>\n
    that       the Special Land Acquisition Officer                         failed<\/p>\n
    to         award        additional        component       payable          under<\/p>\n
    Section 23 (2) and 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Act.         It is the case of the claimants that Kinwat<\/p>\n
    is     a     Taluka        place in Nanded         District         and      has<\/p>\n
    population          of more than 40,000\/-.               Kinwat is           big<\/p>\n
    Railway          station
\n                                ig on Purna Adilabad line of                 South<\/p>\n
    Central Railway.               It is connected by Pucca Tar and<\/p>\n
    Metal       roads to all the big cities in                     Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    and     Andhra Pradesh.             There is a big Depot and Bus<\/p>\n
    Station            of     Maharashtra          State     Road       Transport<\/p>\n
    Corporation             and S.T.     service is available to all<\/p>\n
    the     places          connected with the road.               It     is     the<\/p>\n
    case       of      the claimants that all              facilities          like<\/p>\n
    education,              health,     communication              etc.          are<\/p>\n
    available at Kinwat.               The claimants further stated<\/p>\n
    that main road Kinwat-Nanded is at distance of 100<\/p>\n
    ft.         from        the land of the claimants towards                    the<\/p>\n
    eastern          side.         Towards,    East, West,          North        and<\/p>\n
    South       there        are     houses and       Pucca      construction<\/p>\n
    buildings.               The     forest        office,     post       office,<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
    vegetable market situated abutting to the acquired<\/p>\n
    land.        There are shops and kirana, cloth and other<\/p>\n
    types of shops towards North East side of the land<\/p>\n
    of     the     claimants.        On the date of               notice        under<\/p>\n
    Section        4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated                          10th<\/p>\n
    July,        1993 all facilities were available near the<\/p>\n
    acquired        land.         Considering        these           facts,       the<\/p>\n
    claimants        claim     compensation in respect                     of     the<\/p>\n
    acquired land at the rate of Rs.150\/- per sq.                                 ft.\n<\/p>\n
    i.e.         Rs.1500\/- per sq.          meter along with                 market<\/p>\n
    value<\/p>\n
                 of well, wire, fencing, houses etc.                         In all<\/p>\n
    claimants        have claimed a sum of               Rs.3,53,50,777\/-\n<\/p>\n
    after        deducting     the     amount     paid          by     the       Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition Officer to them.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        In     First     Appeal       No.213 of           1999       learned<\/p>\n
    counsel        for     the Appellant submitted that out                         of<\/p>\n
    Survey        No.305     of     Kinwat 0.32          R    land       situated<\/p>\n
    within the limits of Municipal Council, Kinwat had<\/p>\n
    been     acquired        for     the      purpose         of      Integrated<\/p>\n
    Development            Scheme,     Extension         of        Gavthan          at<\/p>\n
    Kinwat.          He     further        pointed           out      that        all<\/p>\n
    facilities           were available on the date of                     issuing<\/p>\n
    notification            under      Section       4       of       the        Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition Act.           All these facilities are already<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
    explained as above in First Appeal No.188 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    6.        In     respect of First Appeal No.245 of 1999,<\/p>\n
    learned        counsel       appearing         on       behalf       of       the<\/p>\n
    Appellants        pointed          out that land          admeasuring            1<\/p>\n
    Hector     15        Rs     i.e.     1,25,235\/-          sq.         ft.      was<\/p>\n
    acquired        from        Survey No.306 situated within                     the<\/p>\n
    limits     of        Municipal       Council,           Kinwat       for      the<\/p>\n
    purpose         of        Integrated           Development             Scheme,<\/p>\n
    Extension        of       Gavthan     at       Kinwat.          He     further<\/p>\n
    submitted            that
\n                               ig as    on     the      date       of      issuing<\/p>\n
    notification              under      Section        4    of      the        Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition          Act, all facilities were available as<\/p>\n
    explained        hereinabove in First Appeal No.                         188 of<\/p>\n
    2000.      First          Appeal     No.218 of          1999     and       First<\/p>\n
    Appeal     No.219 of 1999 are filed by the                          Acquiring<\/p>\n
    Body,     Municipal          Council, Kinwat challenging                      the<\/p>\n
    Judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
    7.        In     short following lands were acquired                            in<\/p>\n
    all these First Appeals:-\n<\/p>\n
    …………………………………………..<\/p>\n
\n\n    First Appeal              Acquired       Survey         Compensation\n\n    No.                       Land           No.            awarded by\n\n\n\n\n                                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>\n                                      16<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                                               S.L.A.O.\n\n<\/pre>\n
    ………………………………………….\n<\/p>\n
                       1 H.                    Rs.44 per sq.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    188\/2000           84 Rs      304          meter.\n\n\n\n    213\/1999           32 Rs      305          Rs.44 per sq.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                                               meter.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    245\/1999           1 H.       306          Rs.44 per sq.\n\n                       15 Rs\n                            ig                 meter.\n                          \n<\/pre>\n
    ………………………………………….<\/p>\n
\n      \n\n\n    .         The    claimants   in all these       Appeals         have\n   \n\n\n\n    claimed     the amount of compensation at the rate of\n\n    Rs.150 per sq.         ft.\n\n\n\n\n\n    8.        The    Respondent- State filed their             written\n\n    statement         in    Reference      Court    and        opposed\n\n<\/pre>\n
    enhancement in respect of acquired land on various<\/p>\n
    grounds.        Learned A.G.P.   Mr.    Ghadge appearing on<\/p>\n
    behalf     of the State pointed out that the               Special<\/p>\n
    Land     Acquisition Officer awarded compensation                   in<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                             17<\/span><\/p>\n
    respect        of     acquired land at the rate of               Rs.44\/-\n<\/p>\n
    per     sq.     ft.     as per prevailing market rate as on<\/p>\n
    the     date of issuing notification under Section                         4<\/p>\n
    of the Land Acquisition Act i.e.                   10th July, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned        A.G.P.        Mr.     Ghadge also pointed out that<\/p>\n
    as     per     the     joint measurement report             there       was<\/p>\n
    well, house, pipe line and wire fencing but at the<\/p>\n
    time     of spot enquiry, it has been found that they<\/p>\n
    were     in a dilapidated condition.                Learned        A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
    further         pointed        out     that   the     lands         under<\/p>\n
    acquisition are towards the Western side of Kinwat<\/p>\n
    town     and are near to Penganga river.                   In the year<\/p>\n
    1983 and 1988 due to heavy flood to Penganga river<\/p>\n
    the     entire acquired land and some part of                      Kinwat<\/p>\n
    town     came under the flood zone and therefore                        the<\/p>\n
    market        value     of     the     acquired    land     cannot        be<\/p>\n
    compared        with     the other lands situated near                  the<\/p>\n
    acquired        lands.        Considering these facts, Special<\/p>\n
    Land     Acquisition Officer awarded compensation                         in<\/p>\n
    respect        of acquired land as per market value i.e.<\/p>\n
    Rs.44\/- per sq.              ft.\n<\/p>\n
    9.        The       Acquiring Body i.e.           Municipal Council<\/p>\n
    by     filing       their written statement           in     Reference<\/p>\n
    Court        opposed the enhancement of compensation                      in<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                                18<\/span><\/p>\n
    respect        of        the acquired land on the ground                     that<\/p>\n
    the     claimants          failed to produce comparable                      sale<\/p>\n
    instances           to     show     that     they     are      entitled          to<\/p>\n
    enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land.\n<\/p>\n
    Not     only        that       the Acquiring Body            also       opposed<\/p>\n
    enhancement           of       compensation on the             ground        that<\/p>\n
    acquired lands were not in developed area.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    10.       The        Reference Court after hearing all                         the\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    parties,        by       the      impugned      Judgment         and      award,\n\n    dismissed            the\n                                ig   claim          for     enhancement              of\n\n    compensation             but partly allowed the claim to                       the\n                              \n    extent     of        interest to be paid to              the        claimants\n\n<\/pre>\n
    over the amount of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
    11.       Learned          senior        counsel Mr.           Mandlik         and<\/p>\n
    counsel        Mr.       B.A.      Darak, appearing on behalf                    of<\/p>\n
    Municipal           Council,       Acquiring          Body,         submitted<\/p>\n
    written        submission          and same is taken on                 record.\n<\/p>\n
    Though     in        the written submission Acquiring                        Body<\/p>\n
    has     raised           objection about earlier               notification<\/p>\n
    issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act<\/p>\n
    dated     6th May, 1976, at the time of argument they<\/p>\n
    made a categorical statement that they do not want<\/p>\n
    to      press            their      objection         about       subsequent<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                         19<\/span><\/p>\n
    notification          issued   by Respondent Nos.              1 and       2<\/span><\/p>\n
    under     Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated<\/p>\n
    10th     July, 1993.        The learned senior counsel                  Mr.<\/p>\n
    Mandlik         and    counsel     Mr.       B.A.       Darak         made<\/p>\n
    categorical       statement that they are proceeding in<\/p>\n
    the     above     mentioned       matters     on     the     basis        of<\/p>\n
    subsequent        notification      dated     10th        July,       1993<\/p>\n
    issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act<\/p>\n
    only.      The        learned senior counsel          Mr.        Mandlik<\/p>\n
    submitted       that as the possession of the suit land<\/p>\n
    was<\/p>\n
            taken on 1st April, 1985 and 80% amount                       i.e.<\/p>\n
    compensation          at   the market rate was paid to                  the<\/p>\n
    claimants       and remaining 20% amount was also                     paid<\/p>\n
    to     the claimants along with interest at the                       time<\/p>\n
    of     award, therefore, no further claim remained to<\/p>\n
    be paid.        Mr.    Mandlik, learned senior counsel and<\/p>\n
    counsel     Mr.        B.A.    Darak further submitted                that<\/p>\n
    suit     land is agricultural land and it remained as<\/p>\n
    agricultural          land till the date of possession and<\/p>\n
    also till the date of award.                The claimants failed<\/p>\n
    to produce any evidence regarding adjacent similar<\/p>\n
    agricultural          lands in support of their claim                   for<\/p>\n
    enhancement       and      therefore they are not              entitled<\/p>\n
    for      enhancement        and     learned        Reference        Court<\/p>\n
    rightly     rejected       their     claim     for      enhancement.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                         20<\/span><\/p>\n
    They      further     submitted          that    considering          the<\/p>\n
    provisions        of Section 23 of the Land             Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Act,     claimants      are not entitled for            any      amount<\/p>\n
    under     Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act<\/p>\n
    as the possession is taken on 1st April, 1985 much<\/p>\n
    prior     to date of notification under Section 4                       of<\/p>\n
    the     Land    Acquisition Act i.e.            10th July,        1993.\n<\/p>\n
    The     learned     Senior Counsel Mr.          Mandlik        further<\/p>\n
    submitted      that     the    Reference         Court     erred        in<\/p>\n
    awarding       interest at the rate of 9%, 12% and                    15%<\/p>\n
    under<\/p>\n
              the different heads to the claimants though<\/p>\n
    they     are not entitled to the same.              In support of<\/p>\n
    these     submissions,        Mr.   Mandlik      learned         senior<\/p>\n
    counsel relied on the following Authorities:\n<\/p>\n
    i)       Ram    Jatan and others vs.            Dy.     Director of<\/p>\n
    Consolidation and others<\/a>, 1996 (7) SCC 544,<\/p>\n
    ii)      Yadu     Nandan      Garg vs.     State of        Rajasthan<\/p>\n
    and others<\/a>, AIR 1996 SC 520,<\/p>\n
    iii)     State     of   Himachal Pradesh and others                   vs.<\/p>\n
    Dharam Das, AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 127,<\/p>\n
    iv)      Smt.      Kamalabi Jageshwar Joshi and                  others<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                      21<\/span><\/p>\n
    vs.      State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1996 SC<\/p>\n
    981.<\/p>\n
    12.      On   the basis of these submissions              learned<\/p>\n
    senior     counsel    Mr.   Mandlik submitted         that       the<\/p>\n
    Appeals preferred by the Municipal Council, Kinwat<\/p>\n
    may    be allowed and the First Appeals filed by the<\/p>\n
    claimants be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    13.      In    the\n                          igabove     mentioned        facts         and\n\n<\/pre>\n
    circumstances now we have to decide:\n<\/p>\n
    (a)      whether claimants are entitled for enhanced<\/p>\n
    compensation in respect of acquired land as on the<\/p>\n
    date     of   the notification under Section 4 of                the<\/p>\n
    Land Acquisition Act dated 10th July, 1993?\n<\/p>\n
    (b)      Whether     claimants    are   entitled          to     12%<\/p>\n
    component     payable    under Section 23 (1-A) of               the<\/p>\n
    Land     Acquisition Act from the date of           possession<\/p>\n
    i.e.     1st April, 1985 till the date of award?                 and<\/p>\n
    (c)      Whether claimants are entitled for interest<\/p>\n
    on     enhanced compensation,if it is enhanced,                from<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                                22<\/span><\/p>\n
    the date of possession i.e.                      1st April, 1985?\n<\/p>\n
    14.      In      support of the contention on behalf                                of<\/p>\n
    the     claimants\/        Appellants             learned          counsel         Mr.<\/p>\n
    Deshpande submitted that claimants in all produced<\/p>\n
    eleven     (11)        sale        deeds in           Reference        Court        to<\/p>\n
    support their contention that they are entitled to<\/p>\n
    the compensation in respect of land at the rate of<\/p>\n
    Rs.150\/-       per sq.         ft.        He further submitted                  that<\/p>\n
    though     the<\/p>\n
                       sale deeds were in respect                          of       small<\/p>\n
    plot     of     lands,        same        can     be     considered             after<\/p>\n
    deducting        some     amount towards smallness                         of     the<\/p>\n
    land     involved        under        the sale           deeds.          At      this<\/p>\n
    juncture, it is necessary for us to refer the Apex<\/p>\n
    Court         Judgment        in     the         matter       of       Chimanlal<\/p>\n
    Hargovinddas            vs.         Special             Land        Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Officer,       AIR<\/a>      1988,        Supreme           Court,        1652         for<\/p>\n
    considering        the     claim          of       the      claimants             for<\/p>\n
    enhancement        of     compensation.                The Apex Court               in<\/p>\n
    this     matter        held        that         the     market       value        for<\/p>\n
    compensation           in respect of acquired land is to be<\/p>\n
    determined        as     on crucial date of publication                             of<\/p>\n
    notification           under       Section        4     and       also       guided<\/p>\n
    methodology        of     determination                of     market         value.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                              23<\/span><\/p>\n
    Para 3 and 4 of the said Judgment read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
          “3      Before tackling the    problem of
\n          valuation of the land under acquisition it<\/p>\n
          is   necessary  to   make   some   general
\n          observations.  The compulsion to do so has
\n          arisen as the trial Court has virtually
\n          treated the award rendered by the Land
\n          Acquisition Officer as a Judgment under<\/p>\n
          Appeal and has evinced unawareness of the
\n          methodology for valuation to some extent.
\n          The true position therefore requires to be
\n          capsulized.<\/p>\n
          “4      The following factors         must         be<\/p>\n
          etched on the mental screen:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (1) A reference under Section 18 of
\n                  the Land Acquisition Act is not an
\n                  appeal against the Award and the
\n                  Court cannot take into account the<\/p>\n
                  material relied upon by the Land
\n                  Acquisition Officer in his Award
\n                  unless   the same     material   is
\n                  produced and proved     before the
\n                  Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (2) So also the award of the Land
\n                  Acquisition Officer is not to be<\/p>\n
                  treated as a Judgment of the trial
\n                  court open or exposed to challenge
\n                  before    the Court    hearing   the
\n                  Reference.    It is merely an offer
\n                  made    by the    Land   Acquisition<\/p>\n
                  Officer and the material utilized
\n                  by him for making his valuation
\n                  cannot be utilized by the Court
\n                  unless produced and proved before
\n                  it.    It is not the function of the
\n                  court to sit in appeal against the
\n                  award, approve or disapprove its<\/p>\n
                  reasoning, or correct its errors or
\n                  affirm, modify or      reverse   the
\n                  conclusions reached by the Land
\n                  Acquisition Officer, as if it were
\n                  an appellate Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                  24<\/span><\/p>\n
       (3) The court has to be treat the
\n       Reference as an original proceeding
\n       before it and determine the market<\/p>\n
       value afresh on the basis of the
\n       material produced before it.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (4) The claimant is in the position
\n       of a plaintiff who has to show that
\n       the price offered for his land in
\n       the award is inadequate on the
\n       basis of the materials produced in<\/p>\n
       the Court. Of course the materials
\n       placed and proved by the other side
\n       can also be taken into account for
\n       this purpose.<\/p>\n
       (5) The market value of the land<\/p>\n
       under   acquisition has     to   be
\n       determined as on the crucial date<\/p>\n
       of publication of the notification
\n       under   Section 4 of
\n       Acquisition    Act
\n                                the
\n                               (date
\n                                      Land
\n                                        of
\n       notifications under Ss. 6 and 9<\/p>\n
       are irrelevant).\n<\/p>\n
       (6) The determination has to be
\n       made standing on the date line of
\n       valuation (date of publication of
\n       notification under S.4) as if the<\/p>\n
       valuer is a hypothetical purchaser
\n       willing to purchase land from the<\/p>\n
       open market and is prepared to pay
\n       a reasonable price as on that day.
\n       It has also to be assumed that the
\n       vendor is willing to sale the land
\n       at a reasonable price.\n<\/p>\n
       (7) In doing so by the instances
\n       method, the Court has to correlate
\n       the market value reflected in the
\n       most comparable   instances which
\n       provides the index of the market
\n       value.\n<\/p>\n
       (8) Only genuine instances have to
\n       be taken into account (some times
\n       instances    are      rigged    in
\n       anticipation   of  acquisition of
\n       land).\n<\/p>\n
                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                     25<\/span><\/p>\n
       (9)     Even    post   notification
\n       instances can be taken into account<\/p>\n
       (1) if they are very proximate, (2)
\n       genuine and (3) the acquisition
\n       itself    has not   motivated   the<\/p>\n
       purchaser to pay higher price on
\n       account      of    the    resultant
\n       improvement     in      development
\n       prospects.\n<\/p>\n
       (10) The most comparable instances
\n       out of genuine instances have to be
\n       identified   on     the   following
\n       considerations:\n<\/p>\n
               (i) Proximity         from       time\n\n\n\n\n                    \n               angle\n        ig     (ii)     proximity\n               situation angle\n                                                from\n\n\n       (11)    Having     identified   the\n      \n<\/pre>\n
       instances which provides the index
\n       of market value the price reflected
\n       therein may be taken as the norm
\n       and the market value of the land
\n       under acquisition may be deduced by
\n       making suitable adjustments for the<\/p>\n
       plus and minus factors vis-a-vis
\n       land under acquisition by placing<\/p>\n
       the two in juxtaposition.\n<\/p>\n
       (12) A balance sheet of plus and
\n       minus factors may be drawn for this
\n       purpose and the relevant factor may<\/p>\n
       be evaluated in terms of price
\n       variation as a prudent purchaser
\n       would do.\n<\/p>\n
       (13) The market value of the land
\n       under acquisition has thereafter to
\n       be deduced by loading the price<\/p>\n
       reflected in the instance taken as
\n       norm for plus factors and unloading
\n       it for minus factors.\n<\/p>\n
       (14)   The   exercise    indicated           in<\/p>\n
                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                     26<\/span><\/p>\n
       clause (11) to (13) has to be
\n       undertaken in a common sense manner
\n       as a prudent man of the world of<\/p>\n
       business   would   do.     We   may
\n       illustrate some such illustrative
\n       (not exhaustive) factors:-\n<\/p>\n
       Plus Factors.\n<\/p>\n
       1.    Smallness of size<\/p>\n
       2.    Proximity to a road<\/p>\n
       3.    Frontage on a road<\/p>\n
       4.    Nearness to developed area<\/p>\n
       5.    Regular shape<\/p>\n
       6.   Level vis-a-vis
\n       acquisition
\n                                      land      under<\/p>\n
       7.   Special value for an owner of
\n       an adjoining property to whom it
\n       may   have   some    very   special
\n       advantage.\n<\/p>\n
        Minus factors.\n<\/p>\n
        1.   Largeness of area<\/p>\n
        2.   situation in the interior at a
\n        distance from the road.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   Narrow strip of land with very
\n        small frontage compared to depth<\/p>\n
        4.   Lower level    requiring   the
\n        depressed portion to be filled up<\/p>\n
        5.    Remoteness     from          developed<\/p>\n
        locality<\/p>\n
        6.   Some special disadvantageous
\n        factor    which would   deter   a
\n        purchaser<\/p>\n
                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                   27<\/span><\/p>\n
       (15)   The evaluation     of   these
\n       factors of course depends on the<\/p>\n
       facts of each case. There cannot
\n       be any hard and fast or rigid rule.
\n       Common sense is the best and most<\/p>\n
       reliable guide. For instance, take
\n       the factor regarding the size.     A
\n       building plot of land say 500 to
\n       1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared
\n       with a large tract or block of land<\/p>\n
       say 10000 eq.      yds.    or more.\n<\/p>\n
       Firstly while a smaller plot is
\n       within the reach of many, a large
\n       block of land will have to be
\n       developed by preparing a lay out,
\n       carving out roads, leaving open<\/p>\n
       space, plotting out smaller plots,
\n       waiting for purchasers (meanwhile<\/p>\n
       the invested money will be blocked
\n       up)    and
\n       enterpreneur.\n<\/p>\n
                      the     hazards\n                       The factor can be\n                                         of\n\n<\/pre>\n
       discounted by making a deduction by<\/p>\n
       way   of   an   allowance    at   an
\n       appropriate rate ranging approx.
\n       between 20% to 50% to account for
\n       land required to be set apart for
\n       carving lands and      plotting out
\n       small plots. The discounting will<\/p>\n
       to some extent will also depend on
\n       whether it is a rural area or urban<\/p>\n
       area, whether building activities
\n       is picking up, and whether waiting
\n       period during which the capital of
\n       the enterpreneur would be locked
\n       up, will be longer or shorter and<\/p>\n
       the attendant hazards.\n<\/p>\n
       (16) Every case must be dealt with
\n       on its own fact pattern bearing in
\n       mind as these factors as a prudent<\/p>\n
       purchaser of land in which position
\n       the Judge must place himself.\n<\/p>\n
       (17) These are general guide-lines
\n       to be applied with understanding
\n       informed with common sense.”\n<\/p>\n
                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                          28<\/span><\/p>\n
    15.      In       support       of    claimants        claim         for<\/p>\n
    enhancement of compensation in respect of acquired<\/p>\n
    land, they relied on following sale instances:-<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    (a)      As     per     sale    deed Exhibit      38    dated        1st\n\n    January,        1990 Plot No.14\/305 in Ward No.14 having\n\n    area     of 464.51 was sold at the rate of                 Rs.269.10\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    per sq.       meter.\n                            \n    (b)      As     per     sale    deed Exhibit 39        dated       15th\n                           \n    February,       1990,    Plot     No.14\/163     in     Ward      No.14\n\n    having     area of 101.20 sq.             meter was sold at          the\n\n    rate of Rs.296.44 per sq.             meter.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n    (c)      As     per     sale    deed Exhibit 40        dated       16th\n\n    June,     1990, Plot No.1\/74 in Ward No.1 having area\n\n\n\n\n\n    of     194.30     sq.     meter was sold at          the    rate       of\n\n    Rs.257.33 per sq.           meter.\n\n\n\n    (d)      As     per     sale    deed Exhibit      41    dated        9th\n\n\n\n\n\n    September,       1992,      Survey    No.268 having         area       of\n\n    50.83 sq.        meter was sold at the rate of Rs.295.10\n\n    per sq.       meter.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>\n                                               29<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n    (e)      As         per     sale    deed Exhibit 42           dated       13th\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n<\/pre>\n
    July, 1993, Plot No.12 in Survey No.141 (old), New<\/p>\n
    Survey        No.303       in Ward No.13, having area of                    180<\/span><\/p>\n
    sq.      meter was sold at the rate of Rs.361.66                            per<\/p>\n
    sq.     meter.\n<\/p>\n
    (f)      As         per     sale    deed Exhibit 43           dated       15th<\/p>\n
    July, 1993, Plot No.1 in Ward No.16 having area of<\/p>\n
    101.20        sq.         meter     was   sold      at    the      rate       of<\/p>\n
    Rs.494.07 per sq.
\n                                ig   meter.\n<\/p>\n
    (g)      As         per     sale    deed Exhibit 46           dated       26th<\/p>\n
    July, 1993, Plot No.5 in Ward No.13, Survey No.141<\/p>\n
    (old)     and Survey No.303 (new) having area of                            150<\/p>\n
    sq.      meter        and three old rooms was sold                   at     the<\/p>\n
    rate of Rs.1473.33 per sq.                     meter.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n    (h)      As         per     sale    deed Exhibit 47           dated       26th\n\n    July,     1993,           Plot     No.13 in      Ward    No.13,        Survey\n\n    No.141        (old), Survey No.303 (new) having area                          of\n\n    150     sq.     meter was sold at the rate of                    Rs.463.33\n\n\n\n\n\n    per sq.        meter.\n\n\n\n    (i)      As         per     sale    deed Exhibit 48           dated       28th\n\n\n\n\n                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>\n                                               30<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n    March,        1995,       Plot No.4 in Ward No.13               in      Survey\n\n    No.141        (old), Survey No.303 (new) having area                           of\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n    150 sq.        meter along with parking shed was sold at\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    the rate of Rs.826.66 per sq.                     meter.\n\n\n\n    (j)      As         per     sale     deed Exhibit 49           dated       28th\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    June,        1995,        one plot from Survey            No.141        (old),\n\n    Survey        No.303 (new) having area of 150 sq.                        meter\n\n    with     parking          shed     was     sold      at    the       rate      of\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    Rs.1026.66 per sq.               meter.\n                               \n    (k)      As         per     sale     deed Exhibit 70           dated       24th\n                              \n    April,        1992 Plot having area of 111.55 sq.                        meter\n\n    was sold at the rate of Rs.537.87 per sq.                             meter.\n      \n\n\n    16.      The         claimants also produced map at Exhibit\n   \n\n\n\n    63     showing the acquired land and distance of                             the\n\n    lands under sale deeds from the acquired land.                                 If\n\n\n\n\n\n    we     carefully go through the map at Exhibit 63                              it\n\n    shows        that     the     sale       deed     referred      above        are\n\n    adjacent        to        the acquired land.         Though the            sale\n\n    deeds        are in respect of small plot of lands, same\n\n\n\n\n\n    can     be     considered          for fixing       market        value        of\n\n    acquired        land        after deducting         some       development\n\n    charges,        smallness of plot and other                    facilities,\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>\n                                                31<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    except sale deeds at Exhibit 46, 48 and 49 because<\/p>\n
    in     these       sale      deeds      land sold         is     along       with<\/p>\n
    structure.            The average of these sale deeds comes<\/p>\n
    to     Rs.371.86 per sq.               meter.      [Exh.38 Rs.269.10 +<\/p>\n
    Exh.39        Rs.296.44       +       Exh.40      Rs.257.33        +     Exh.41<\/p>\n
    Rs.295.10          + Exh.42 Rs.361.66 + Exh.43 Rs.494.07 +<\/p>\n
    Exh.47         Rs.463.33          +     Exh.70      Rs.537.87;              Total<\/p>\n
    Rs.2974.90           \/ 8=371.86].          Though the land acquired<\/p>\n
    in     question was agricultural land on the date                               of<\/p>\n
    notification            under          Section      4     of      the        Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition           Act,
\n                               ig the       same       was     situated          near<\/p>\n
    developed          areas.     These facts are also considered<\/p>\n
    by     the        Special Land Acquisition Officer                     in     his<\/p>\n
    award        under      Section 11 of the               Land     Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Act.         It     is specifically stated by                   the    Special<\/p>\n
    Land     Acquisition Officer in his award dated                             12th<\/p>\n
    September,           1995    under         the     caption        “valuation<\/p>\n
    report”        that       though       the lands in            question       are<\/p>\n
    agricultural                lands          but      considering               the<\/p>\n
    potentiality of the acquired land, valuation to be<\/p>\n
    done     on       the     basis       of    non    agricultural             land.\n<\/p>\n
    Considering           these facts we can safely rely on the<\/p>\n
    sale deeds produced by the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
    17.       The        claimants examined following witnesses<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                              32<\/span><\/p>\n
    in     support           of their contention about                valuation.\n<\/p>\n
    At     Exhibit           78 Devisingh Dharamsingh Jadhav,                      the<\/p>\n
    chairman            of     Co-operative         Cotton         Ginning         and<\/p>\n
    Pressing Society Ltd., Kinwat.                    He was chairman of<\/p>\n
    said     society for the period 1992 to 1998.                             He has<\/p>\n
    stated        in his evidence that they have sold                          plots<\/p>\n
    of     the     society by auction on 13th                    April,        1993.\n<\/p>\n
    The     auction          took place on 20th April,                  1993       and<\/p>\n
    they sold plot Nos.               12, 5 and 13.          He stated that<\/p>\n
    Plot     No.12 was purchased by Dr.                   Vivek Shankarrao<\/p>\n
    Bhalerao<\/p>\n
                    for Rs.65,100\/- admeasuring 15 X 12                            sq.<\/p>\n
    meters        i.e.         180   sq.     meter,       Exhibit         42.        In<\/p>\n
    similar way he explained the other sale instances.\n<\/p>\n
    Those        sale        deeds are at Exhibit 46, 47, 48,                      49.\n<\/p>\n
    The      another           witness       Premkumar       Ramji            Jadhav<\/p>\n
    examined        at        Exhibit 93 stated that he                 purchased<\/p>\n
    plot         No.1         admeasuring      33     X    33        ft.         from<\/p>\n
    Municipality             Kinwat in auction for Rs.50,000\/- on<\/p>\n
    15th     July,           1993,   i.e.         Exhibit        43.        Another<\/p>\n
    witness        Pradip        Gajanan     Chadawar at             Exhibit         94<\/p>\n
    stated        that he purchased plot admeasuring 40 X 50<\/p>\n
    ft.      on     24\/4\/1992 for Rs.60,000\/- i.e.                          Exhibit<\/p>\n
    70.<\/p>\n
    18.       Considering            these    facts the valuation                    of<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                    33<\/span><\/p>\n
    the     acquired     land can be done by deducting         some<\/p>\n
    amount     towards    development    charges    and      other<\/p>\n
    expenses     including    smallness of the area of           the<\/p>\n
    land.     Our High Court in the matter of Goa Housing<\/p>\n
    Board    and another vs.     Attorney of Communidade of<\/p>\n
    Mapusa,     reported    in 2008(1) Bom.C.R.       356      held<\/p>\n
    that    considering     the situation of the      land       and<\/p>\n
    area    involved in the sale deed, deductions can be<\/p>\n
    done upto 45%.       Para 10 of the said Judgment reads<\/p>\n
    as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “10.     As noted by the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
             this Court in unreported decision dated
\n             15\/9\/2004 in First Appeal No.150 of 2003
\n             between the Managing Director, Goa IDC vs.
\n             Shri    Sadashiva S.    N.  Sardessai   and
\n             others, as far as standard deductions are
\n             concerned it is well established that about<\/p>\n
             30% deductions are found to be just and
\n             proper but at the same time deductions<\/p>\n
             could go even upto 60% depending upon the
\n             facts of each case. A deduction of 50% was
\n             taken in the case of (State of Goa vs.
\n             President of Our Lady of Piety Church,
\n             Mardol)<\/a>     (unreported    decision   dated<\/p>\n
             3\/11\/2004 in First Appeal No.132 of 2002.
\n             When large tract of land is developed, time
\n             is taken for formation of lay out, there is
\n             waiting period for which the money would
\n             remain blocked up in investment and the
\n             price is reduced when lumpsum payment is
\n             made.    The land in that case was much<\/p>\n
             larger than the case at hand. Considering
\n             the facts of this case, where the area
\n             acquired was comparatively large and which
\n             also required to be developed, the learned
\n             trial court ought to have taken a deduction
\n             of 45%. When such a deduction is taken the<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                             34<\/span><\/p>\n
                fair market value of the acquired land can
\n                be fixed at Rs.69 per sq. mt.      (rounder
\n                off from Rs.68.75). This market value is<\/p>\n
                very close to the very price paid for plots
\n                of land sold by Goa Housing Board, after
\n                developing the property, deducting the cost<\/p>\n
                of development and sold at the rate of
\n                Rs.61 per sq. mt. in the year 1983 and
\n                Rs. 68\/- per sq. mt. in the year 1985 as
\n                stated   by the     Board’s Engineer   Shri
\n                Radhakrishnan\/RW2.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    19.         In    another        case   our High   Court       in     the<\/p>\n
    matter       of    State       of    Maharashtra   vs.       Santaram<\/p>\n
    Mahadu Pingle and others<\/a>, reported in 2008 (5) Mh.\n<\/p>\n
    L.J.\n<\/p>\n
    of    the     land<\/p>\n
                Page 52 held that considering the smallness<\/p>\n
                             under      sale deed   produced       by     the<\/p>\n
    claimants,         30%    amount needs approximately to                 be<\/p>\n
    deducted         from    the     average rate of      sale       deeds.\n<\/p>\n
    Para 15 of the said Judgment reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “15.     The average of exhibits 13 and 46
\n             (after giving rise of 12%) would come to
\n             Rs.1,79,613.   Now, ancillary question that
\n             the Court is called upon to consider is
\n             whether the average value could be awarded<\/p>\n
             to the claimants on account of compensation
\n             per Hectare for acquisition of their land
\n             or certain reduction shall have to be made
\n             keeping in view that the sale instances
\n             produced by the Respondents or claimants
\n             relate to very small pieces of land.     We
\n             are of the considered      view that some<\/p>\n
             element of deduction would have to be
\n             applied.     Under    Exhibit    13,   land
\n             admeasuring only 0.055 Ares were sold while
\n             under Exhibit 46, area admeasuring 00.80
\n             Ares   was sold.     Certainly, the value
\n             indicated in the sale instances can be<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                         35<\/span><\/p>\n
     taken into consideration by the Court while
\n     determining the market value of the land in
\n     question but it is necessary to examine<\/p>\n
     that the acquisition was of a huge land and
\n     these sale instances would not be a fair
\n     indicator of the price relating to such<\/p>\n
     land.    The Supreme Court has consistently
\n     held that the Court should apply principle
\n     of deduction on the basis of the sale
\n     instances    of   small   piece of     lands.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Reference can be made to the Judgement of<\/p>\n
     the Supreme Court in the cases of (i)
\n     Krishi Utpadan Mandi      Samiti   Sahaswan,
\n     District    Badaun vs.      Bipinkumar    and
\n     another, (2004) 2 SCC 283 and (ii) Lucknow
\n     Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal
\n     Lahoti and others<\/a>, 2007 (12) SCALE 685.\n<\/p>\n
     Element of discretion has been vested in
\n     the Courts while determining the extent of<\/p>\n
     cases.\n<\/p>\n
     deduction that could be applied in such
\n               In the case of Atma Singh vs.
\n     State of Haryana, (2008) (2) SCC 568, the
\n     Supreme Court held that it is not mandatory<\/p>\n
     to apply deduction on the ground of sale
\n     instances being of small plots but it will
\n     have to be determined on the facts of each
\n     case.     In that    case, considering the
\n     special facts relating to the production of
\n     sugar from the land and profitable use of<\/p>\n
     the land for by-products like molasses,
\n     etc.; the Court reduced the deduction from<\/p>\n
     30% applied by the High Court to 10% to
\n     meet the ends of justice but the principle
\n     of deduction was accepted. Reference in
\n     this regard can also be made to           the
\n     Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case<\/p>\n
     of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan and
\n     Krishna Gopal Lahoti (supra). Of course,
\n     it would vary again as to what percentage
\n     of deduction should be applied in the facts
\n     of given case. In this case, the land has
\n     been   acquired not     for developing     in
\n     residential or commercial complexes but for<\/p>\n
     submerging as a result of Bhima Askhed
\n     Project.    Thus, it is an investment by the
\n     State Government for general public utility
\n     and good that is to generate electricity
\n     and \/ or to provide irrigation facilities
\n     to the agricultural land of the villages.\n<\/p>\n
                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                     36<\/span><\/p>\n
             Keeping in mind this fact are not even
\n             disputed before, they would have to be
\n             considered as relevant consideration in<\/p>\n
             applying the element of deduction to the
\n             average price of both the aforenoticed
\n             exhibits.    At least, the deduction of 30%<\/p>\n
             would be fair and proper in the facts of
\n             the case. The average of the exhibits 13
\n             and 46, we have calculated at Rs.1,79,613,
\n             30% of this amount comes to approximately
\n             Rs.53,884 and if this amount is deduced<\/p>\n
             from the average amount of Rs.1,79,613, the
\n             fair market value comes to Rs.1,25,729.
\n             The computation arrived at by us is quiet
\n             close to the compensation awarded by the
\n             learned Reference Court      for   different
\n             reasons.    There is no occasion for this<\/p>\n
             Court to grant to the claimants enhanced
\n             compensation or whatever marginal increase<\/p>\n
             found by us in the fair market value of the
\n             lands    acquired, as no Appeals\/
\n             objections have been
\n                                                    cross
\n                                       preferred by the
\n             claimants.”\n<\/p>\n
    20.      In    similar   way,   our High     Court         in     the<\/p>\n
    matter    of   Deputy    Collector     (Dev)      &    Land       vs.<\/p>\n
    Sitadevi      @ Jaya Raghuraj Deshprabhu, reported                  in<\/p>\n
    2009     (1)   Bom.C.R.    163       held   that       upto       40%<\/p>\n
    deductions     can be done for considering the market<\/p>\n
    value on the basis of the sale deeds in respect of<\/p>\n
    small plots of land.      Para 10 of the said Judgment<\/p>\n
    reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “10.   As already stated, with reference
\n             to the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs.
\n             Special Land Acquisition Officer<\/a> (supra)
\n             the percentage of deduction to be made is
\n             not a matter of a principle of law.    It
\n             varies from place to place, area to area<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                       37<\/span><\/p>\n
            and the amount of development which is
\n            required to be carried out and thus there
\n            cannot be any fixed amount of deduction<\/p>\n
            towards development charges.       The area
\n            acquired in this case is comparatively
\n            large than the area      acquired in     the<\/p>\n
            previous acquisition in L.A.C. No.77 \/86
\n            which   was   merely   5533 sq.      meters.
\n            Deductions were therefore required to be
\n            made not only towards development but also
\n            on account of the largeness of the area.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It is common knowledge that when several
\n            plots are made of a large area time is
\n            taken to sale the same and smaller plots
\n            always fetch a higher value than large
\n            areas of land. Although the subject land
\n            was closer to the market place than the<\/p>\n
            land acquired in     L.A.C.    No.77\/86, it
\n            appears that the subject land was more<\/p>\n
            sloppy and terraced then the other land and
\n            considering the same in order to make it
\n            developed land a considerable amount of
\n            expenditure would have      been   required.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Considering the facts and circumstances of
\n            the case, therefore, in our view 40% of
\n            deduction both towards development as well
\n            as largeness of area would be appropriate
\n            and if such a deduction is made, the fair
\n            market value of the acquired land works out<\/p>\n
            to Rs.78.00 per sq. meter. Therefore, we
\n            fix the fair market of the acquired land in<\/p>\n
            this case at Rs.78.00 per sq. meter and
\n            modify the impugned award accordingly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    21.     In     similar       way the Apex Court         also       held<\/p>\n
    that    development charges can be deducted upto 53%<\/p>\n
    depending      upon     the nature of the land and               other<\/p>\n
    material      things.    Reference can be safely made to<\/p>\n
    the    Apex    Court     Judgment      in the   case        of     K.S.\n<\/p>\n
    Shivadevamma           and      others      vs.           Assistant<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                             38<\/span><\/p>\n
    Commissioner            and   Land     Acquisition      Officer         and<\/p>\n
    another, reported in 1996 (2) Supreme Court Cases,<\/p>\n
    Page       62.    The Apex Court held that land                situated<\/p>\n
    in     a developing area but no development had taken<\/p>\n
    place as of the date of notification under Section<\/p>\n
    4(1)       then also development charges to be deducted<\/p>\n
    for     fixing        market value of land.          It is        further<\/p>\n
    held       that lands possessed of potential value                      for<\/p>\n
    building         purposes     but not capable of putting                  to<\/p>\n
    immediate         use for building purpose, in such                    case<\/p>\n
    extent          of<\/p>\n
                          deduction        for    development         charges<\/p>\n
    depends upon development needed in each case.                           The<\/p>\n
    Apex       court further held that in the circumstances<\/p>\n
    of     the case deduction of 53% under Building Rules<\/p>\n
    and     further deduction towards development charges<\/p>\n
    @     33    1\/3%      ordered      by the     High   Court        is    not<\/p>\n
    illegal.\n<\/p>\n
    22.        On     the      other     hand, the    learned        counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing         on behalf of the Respondents               Acquiring<\/p>\n
    Body       submitted that small plots of land cannot be<\/p>\n
    considered           for    fixing    market      value      of     large<\/p>\n
    acquired         land as in the above mentioned                Appeals.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned         senior counsel Mr.           Mandlik appearing            on<\/p>\n
    behalf of Acquiring Body relied on Judgment of the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                       39<\/span><\/p>\n
    Apex     Court     in the matter of (i) Pitambar                Hemlal<\/p>\n
    Badgujar         (Dead)    by    LRs   vs.       Sub-Divisional<\/p>\n
    Officer,        Dhule    and another reported in (1996)                 7<\/p>\n
    Supreme        Court Cases 554, (ii) State of M.P.                 etc.<\/p>\n
    vs.      Harishankar       Goel and another,         reported          in<\/p>\n
    A.I.R.         1996   Supreme Court 3478, (iii) State                  of<\/p>\n
    Himachal        Pradesh    and   others    vs.       Dharam        Das,<\/a><\/p>\n
    reported        in 1995 A.I.R.    S.C.W.     3817, (iv) State<\/p>\n
    of Maharasshtra vs.          Fulyabai Kisan Govardhane and<\/p>\n
    others<\/a>     reported       in 2008 (3) Mh.     L.J.        278,       (v)<\/p>\n
    Executive        Engineer
\n                             ig  P.W.D.    VI    (R      and      B)     vs.<\/p>\n
    Antonio        Almeida and others<\/a>, reported in 2008                  (2)<\/p>\n
    Mh.      L.J.      815    for supporting     his       submissions<\/p>\n
    about     deductions towards development charges                     and<\/p>\n
    also     towards small plot of lands involved in                     the<\/p>\n
    sale     deeds.       We have carefully gone through                 all<\/p>\n
    these     Authorities.       In all these Authorities                the<\/p>\n
    Apex     Court as well as our High Court held that if<\/p>\n
    Courts     are relying for fixing market value of the<\/p>\n
    acquired       land on the basis of the small piece                    of<\/p>\n
    land,     in     that case deduction are required to                   be<\/p>\n
    made     for     arriving market value of          the      acquired<\/p>\n
    land.      In     all these matters referred above,                  the<\/p>\n
    Apex     Court     as well as our High       Court        suggested<\/p>\n
    deduction        ranging from 20% to 65%.          In the matter<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                          40<\/span><\/p>\n
    of Executive Engineer P.W.D.               vs.    Antonio Almeida<\/a><\/p>\n
    (supra) Bombay High Court, Bench at Goa, held that<\/p>\n
    65%     deductions       in relation to the price of                land<\/p>\n
    under     sale deed before taking market value can be<\/p>\n
    done     considering the potentiality of the acquired<\/p>\n
    land.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n    23.       The     Reference     Court      for    coming       to     the\n\n    conclusion        that Appellant\/ original claimants are\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    not     entitled any enhanced compensation in respect\n\n    of     acquired     land,\n                             ig   relied on sale           instances        at\n\n    Exhibit       107 and 108.      Both Sale deeds at              Exhibit\n                           \n<\/pre>\n
    107     and     Exhibit     108 are       dated   5\/3\/1993.           The<\/p>\n
    Reference        Court     mainly relied on these two               sale<\/p>\n
    instances at Exhibit 107 and 108.                 The lands under<\/p>\n
    these     sale deeds are situated within the vicinity<\/p>\n
    of     the lands acquired.           Reference Court failed to<\/p>\n
    appreciate        that     lands involved under sale              deeds<\/p>\n
    Exhibit       107 and 108 are agricultural lands having<\/p>\n
    no     “NA”     potentiality;         whereas     in     respect        of<\/p>\n
    acquired        land,     S.L.A.O.        himself in      his       award<\/p>\n
    dated 12th September, 1995 held that acquired land<\/p>\n
    is     situated within the vicinity of developed area<\/p>\n
    and     having     “NA”     potentiality.         Therefore,          the<\/p>\n
    Reference        Court erred in coming to the conclusion<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                         41<\/span><\/p>\n
    that     market value determined by the S.L.A.O.                    as<\/p>\n
    on     the date of issuing notification under Section<\/p>\n
    4 of the Land Acquisition Act is true market value<\/p>\n
    on     the basis of sale instances at Exhibit 107 and<\/p>\n
    108.     Sale instances Exhibit 107 and 108 placed on<\/p>\n
    record     by   witness No.1 for Respondent            No.3       Mr.<\/p>\n
    Ganpat      Sambhiya        Samshettiwar.      But     in     cross<\/p>\n
    examination         in      para    8    the   said         witness<\/p>\n
    specifically stated that:\n<\/p>\n
             “I was not present at the time of execution<\/p>\n
             and    registration of the sale deed              Exhibit<\/p>\n
             107    and      108 and I am having      no     personal<\/p>\n
             knowledge          about        the      sale          sale<\/p>\n
             transactions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .        This    itself      shows that witness        No.1       for<\/p>\n
    Respondent      No.3      had no personal knowledge           about<\/p>\n
    the sale transaction pertaining to Exhibit 107 and<\/p>\n
    108.      Inspite of that the Reference Court                relied<\/p>\n
    on these two sale instances at Exhibit 107 and 108<\/p>\n
    for     rejecting        the original    claimants     Reference<\/p>\n
    under     Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act                  for<\/p>\n
    enhanced compensation.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                               42<\/span><\/p>\n
    24.       In    the        above facts and circumstances,                        we<\/p>\n
    hold     that the Reference Court erred in coming                                to<\/p>\n
    the     conclusion that the claimants have failed                                to<\/p>\n
    discharge       the        burden        that        they    are      entitled<\/p>\n
    compensation          in     respect of acquired land at                       the<\/p>\n
    rate of enhanced rate.\n<\/p>\n
    25.       Considering            the     Authorities cited by                  the<\/p>\n
    Appellant as well as Respondents we have to decide<\/p>\n
    the     percentage
\n                            ig  of        deduction for coming              to     the<\/p>\n
    conclusion of market value of the acquired land on<\/p>\n
    the     basis     of       the        sale deeds       produced         by     the<\/p>\n
    Appellant       which are in respect of small plots                              of<\/p>\n
    land.      Considering                the area of land involved                  in<\/p>\n
    sale deeds produced by the claimants we can safely<\/p>\n
    deduct 40% towards development charges as the land<\/p>\n
    acquired        in the present case is agricultural land<\/p>\n
    and     further       40% deductions towards smallness                           of<\/p>\n
    the     lands involved in sale deeds produced by                               the<\/p>\n
    claimants       for        determining          market value            of     the<\/p>\n
    acquired land.             Therefore, for arriving the market<\/p>\n
    value     of     the       acquired land as on               the      date       of<\/p>\n
    issuing        notification under Section 4 of the                           Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition       Act,           we     have    to     deduct       80%      from<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                              43<\/span><\/p>\n
    average        price of sale deeds i.e.              from         Rs.371.86<\/p>\n
    (as     per        Para    16 above).         The average         of    above<\/p>\n
    mentioned          sale deeds comes to Rs.371.86 and after<\/p>\n
    deducting          80%     of     the    said    comes      to     Rs.74.37<\/p>\n
    (371.86        –     297.49       i.e.   80% =74.37         i.e.        20%).\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore          the market value of acquired land as on<\/p>\n
    the     date of issuing notification under Section                             4<\/p>\n
    of the Land Acquisition Act comes to Rs.75 per sq.<\/p>\n
    meter.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    26.       The\n                              \n                            learned      counsel       Mr.           Deshpande\n\n    appearing          on     behalf of the         claimants         submitted\n                             \n    that     the        Reference       Court       failed      to     consider\n\n    awarding        of component at the rate of 12%                      payable\n\n    under     Section          23 (1-A) of the         Land       Acquisition\n      \n\n\n    Act.     Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act\n   \n\n\n\n    reads as under:\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
              [(1A) In addition to the market value of
\n              the land, as above provided, the Court
\n              shall in every case      award an    amount
\n              calculated at the rate of twelve per centum
\n              per annum on such market value for the
\n              period commencing on and from the date of
\n              the publication of the notification under<\/p>\n
              Section 4, sub section (1) in respect of
\n              such land to the date of the award of the
\n              Collector or the date of taking possession
\n              of the land, whichever is earlier;\n<\/p>\n
              Explanation-             In    computing          the        period<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                               44<\/span><\/p>\n
              referred to in this sub section any period
\n              or periods during which the proceedings for
\n              the acquisition of the land were held up on<\/p>\n
              account of any stay or injunction by the
\n              order of any Court shall be excluded.]<\/p>\n
    27.       Mr.        Deshpande, Learned counsel                 appearing<\/p>\n
    on    behalf         of        the claimants submitted          that       the<\/p>\n
    claimants are entitled 12% component payable under<\/p>\n
    Section        23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act from<\/p>\n
    the     date of possession i.e.                   1st April, 1985 till<\/p>\n
    the     date<\/p>\n
    Acquisition          Act<\/p>\n
                       of award under Section 11 of<\/p>\n
                                    i.e.    12th September, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    the      Land\n\n                                                                                 On\n                              \n    the     other        hand,       learned       senior    counsel           Mr.\n\n    Mandlik        and counsel Mr.             B.A.     Darak on behalf of\n\n    the     Respondent Acquiring Body submitted that                           the\n      \n\n\n    claimants          are not entitled 12% component                   payable\n   \n\n\n\n    under       Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act\n\n    because        the        possession of the acquired land                  was\n\n    taken       prior         to    issuance of        notification        under\n\n\n\n\n\n    Section        4     of        the     Land    Acquisition      Act.         He\n\n    submitted          that it is clear from Section 23                    (1-A)\n\n    of    the      Land        Acquisition Act that          the      starting\n\n\n\n\n\n    point       for the purposes of calculating the                       amount\n\n<\/pre>\n
    for additional component to be awarded thereunder,<\/p>\n
    at the rate of 12 % per annum on the market value,<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                               45<\/span><\/p>\n
    is     the     date        of     publication of       the    Section         4<\/p>\n
    notification.              The terminal point for the purpose<\/p>\n
    is     either        the date of the award or the                 date       of<\/p>\n
    taking        possession,          whichever      is   earlier.            Mr.<\/p>\n
    Mandlik,        learned senior counsel submitted that in<\/p>\n
    the present case the possession of the land having<\/p>\n
    been taken prior to the publication of the Section<\/p>\n
    4     notification          i.e.         on 1st    April,     1985,        the<\/p>\n
    starting        point       is     not      available.        The         only<\/p>\n
    available           starting       point       is date of     award        and<\/p>\n
    therefore when possession of the land was taken on<\/p>\n
    1st     April, 1985 and notification under Section                            4<\/p>\n
    of     the     Land Acquisition Act in relation                     to     the<\/p>\n
    said     land        was        issued thereafter on         10th        July,<\/p>\n
    1993,        the claimants are not entitled component at<\/p>\n
    the rate of 12 % payable under Section 23 (1-A) of<\/p>\n
    the Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
    28.       The       submission made by the learned                    senior<\/p>\n
    counsel        is     not justifiable in view of                the       Apex<\/p>\n
    Court        decision       in the matter of Sidappa                Vasappa<\/p>\n
    Kuri    and     another vs.           Special      Land      Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Officer       and another, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2951.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      2951<\/span><\/p>\n
    The    Apex     Court           in this case held        that       if     the<\/p>\n
    possession          of     the acquired land is taken                 before<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                     46<\/span><\/p>\n
    the   issuance       of notification under Section 4               of<\/p>\n
    the   Land      Acquisition    Act,    the    claimants          are<\/p>\n
    entitled     12 % component under Section 23 (1-A) of<\/p>\n
    the      Land    Acquisition    Act    from    the      date       of<\/p>\n
    notification        under   Section   4 till the        date       of<\/p>\n
    award.       Para    5 and 6 of this Judgment         reads        as<\/p>\n
    under:\n<\/p>\n
             “5 It is, as we see it, clear from Section<\/p>\n
             23 (1-A) that the starting point for the
\n             purposes of calculating the amount to be<\/p>\n
             awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12 % per
\n             centum per annum on the market value, is
\n             the date of publication of the Section 4
\n             notification.    The terminal point for the<\/p>\n
             purpose is either the date of the award or
\n             the date of taking possession, whichever is
\n             earlier.    In the present case, possession
\n             of the land having been taken prior to the
\n             publication of the Section 4 notification,
\n             that terminal is not available. The only<\/p>\n
             available terminal is the date of the
\n             award.    The High Court, therefore, was in<\/p>\n
             no error in holding that the Appellants
\n             were     entitled   to     the    additional
\n             compensation under Section 23 (1-A) for the
\n             period 8th March, 1991 to 6th February,
\n             1993.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6.    Section 23 (1-A) admits of no meaning
\n             other than the meaning that we have placed
\n             upon it.     There is no room here for any
\n             construction other than than given above.
\n             It is only where a provision is ambiguous
\n             that a construction that leads to a result<\/p>\n
             that is more just can be adopted.     Having
\n             regard to its clear terms, Section 23 (1-A)
\n             must receive the only construction it can
\n             bear.    We are of the view, therefore, that
\n             the law has been correctly laid down in the
\n             decision in Special Tahasildar (LA) PWD<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                      47<\/span><\/p>\n
             Schemes vs.    M.A. Jabbar<\/a> (1995) (2) SCC\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             142) and that it has not been correctly
\n             laid down in Assistant Commissioner, Gadag<\/p>\n
             sub Division vs. Mathapati Basavannewwa<\/a>
\n             (1995 (6) SCC 355) and , for that matter in
\n             State of H.P. vs. Dharam Das<\/a> (1995 (5)<\/p>\n
             SCC 683).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    29.      Reference     can     be made to the Judgment             of<\/p>\n
    the Apex Court in the matter of Special Tahasildar<\/p>\n
    (LA)     P.W.D.     Schemes,    Vijayawada,      reported          in<\/p>\n
    (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 142 wherein the Apex<\/p>\n
    Court<\/p>\n
    amount<\/p>\n
             held that claimants are entitled additional<\/p>\n
               under     Section    23    (1-A)    of     the      Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition       Act for the period between Section                4<\/p>\n
    notification      till the date of award and not               from<\/p>\n
    the date of taking possession.         Para 3 of the said<\/p>\n
    Judgment reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “3.    On   a   true   interpretation   of
\n             sub-section (1-A) of Section 23, we are of
\n             the considered view that the High Court is<\/p>\n
             right in concluding that the claimants are
\n             entitled to the additional amount at the
\n             rate of 12 % per annum from 6-3-1980, the
\n             date of publication of the notification
\n             till the date of award, namely, 30-9-1983.
\n             Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 adumbrates
\n             that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       “In addition to the market value of
\n                       the land, the Court shall in every
\n                       case award an amount calculated at
\n                       the rate of twelve per centum per
\n                       annum on such market value for the<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                  48<\/span><\/p>\n
                      period commencing on and from the
\n                      date of the publication of the
\n                      notification under Section 4 (1),<\/p>\n
                      in respect of such land to the date
\n                      of the award of the Collector or
\n                      the date of taking possession of<\/p>\n
                      the land, whichever is earlier.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           In other words, the owner of the land who
\n           has been deprived of the enjoyment of the
\n           land by having been parted with possession,<\/p>\n
           the   Act intended that     the owner     be
\n           compensated by awarding     an    additional
\n           amount calculated at the rate of 12 per
\n           centum per annum on the enhanced market
\n           value for the period between the date of
\n           notification and the date of award or date<\/p>\n
           of taking possession of the land whichever
\n           is earlier. Admittedly, possession having<\/p>\n
           already been taken on 15-2-1965, before
\n           publication of the     notification
\n           Section 4 (1) on 6-3-1980, the award of
\n                                                  under<\/p>\n
           additional amount for     the period from<\/p>\n
           6-3-1980 to 30-9-1983, i.e. the date of
\n           making the award under      Section 11 is
\n           perfectly correct.    In addition to other
\n           statutory benefits, the     owner also is
\n           entitled to the additional amount but to
\n           give   in award    additional amount from<\/p>\n
           15-2-1965, i.e.    from the date of taking
\n           possession, though apparently earlier in<\/p>\n
           point of time mentioned in Section 23
\n           (1-A), in effect it amounts to giving
\n           retrospective effect to sub-section (1-A)
\n           to Section 23 under the Amendment Act 68 of
\n           1984, even though the Amendment Act was<\/p>\n
           prospective and the transitory provision
\n           had only retro-limited activity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    30.    In   view    of   these    facts   we    hold       that<\/p>\n
    claimants   are    entitled to 12% component          payable<\/p>\n
    under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act<\/p>\n
    from the date of notification under Section 4 i.e.<\/p>\n
    10th   July, 1993 till the date of award passed                by<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                               49<\/span><\/p>\n
    the Land Acquisition Officer i.e.                      12th September,<\/p>\n
    1995.\n<\/p>\n
    31.       Mr.         Mandlik,        learned senior counsel               and<\/p>\n
    counsel        Mr.         B.A.     Darak appearing on behalf                of<\/p>\n
    Respondent           Acquiring        Body      submitted         that     the<\/p>\n
    Reference        Court erred in awarding interest at the<\/p>\n
    rate     of     9% per annum from 1st April,                   1985      i.e.<\/p>\n
    from     the date of possession till 30\/3\/1986 and at<\/p>\n
    the     rate     of 15% per annum from 1st                 April,        1986<\/p>\n
    till     1st<\/p>\n
                     October, 1988.              Learned senior         counsel<\/p>\n
    submitted        that the claimants are not entitled                         to<\/p>\n
    interest        under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Act     because           the     Respondents     already         paid     the<\/p>\n
    amount     of        compensation         to     the    claimants            as<\/p>\n
    determined           by     previous draft award.            It     is     not<\/p>\n
    possible        to accept the submission made by learned<\/p>\n
    senior counsel Mr.                Mandlik appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
    Respondent           Acquiring        Body      because      payment         of<\/p>\n
    interest        under           Section   28 and 34       of      the    Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition Act is a statutory benefit provided to<\/p>\n
    the claimants under certain circumstances.                            Though<\/p>\n
    in the present case the possession of the acquired<\/p>\n
    land     was taken on 1st April, 1985 pursuant to the<\/p>\n
    draft         award        prepared       by    the     Special          Land<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             50<\/span><\/p>\n
    Acquisition         Officer but subsequently the same was<\/p>\n
    dropped        and fresh notification under Section 4 of<\/p>\n
    the Land Acquisition Act issued on 10th July, 1993<\/p>\n
    for acquiring the land of the claimants, claimants<\/p>\n
    are     entitled interest under Section 28 and 34                             of<\/p>\n
    the     Land Acquisition Act.                Therefore, in any case<\/p>\n
    the     proceedings adopted by the Respondents                          prior<\/p>\n
    to     10th     July,      1993 were          vitiated.          Therefore,<\/p>\n
    though        the possession is taken by Acquiring                        Body<\/p>\n
    on     1st     April, 1985 before             issuing       notification<\/p>\n
    under<\/p>\n
                 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated<\/p>\n
    10th     July,      1993, the claimants are                 entitled          to<\/p>\n
    interest       under       Section      28 and 34         of      the     Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition         Act.     It is well settled principle of<\/p>\n
    law that if the amount is paid and\/or deposited in<\/p>\n
    the      Court        by    Acquiring           Body      and\/or          Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition             Officer         in        that         case         the<\/p>\n
    responsibility to pay further interest comes to an<\/p>\n
    end     there itself.         In the present case as we held<\/p>\n
    that     the     claimants        are         entitled      to     enhanced<\/p>\n
    compensation         in     respect of acquired land at                     the<\/p>\n
    rate     of     Rs.75\/-      per sq.          meter,     claimants          are<\/p>\n
    entitled       to    interest under Section 28 and 34                         of<\/p>\n
    the      Land       Acquisition         Act      from     the      date       of<\/p>\n
    possession i.e.            1st April, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                               51<\/span><\/p>\n
    32.       The       Apex Court in the matter of Prem                     Nath<\/p>\n
    Kapur         and       another       vs.      National      Fertilizers<\/p>\n
    Corporation of India Ltd.                   and others, reported in<\/p>\n
    (1996)         2    Supreme       Court        Cases    71    held       that<\/p>\n
    liability          of     State to pay interest            ceases        when<\/p>\n
    amount        of compensation is paid to the claimant or<\/p>\n
    deposited          in     the Court.        The Apex Court            further<\/p>\n
    held      that          the    claimant      is   not    entitled            to<\/p>\n
    appropriate          from       the   amount      deposited         towards<\/p>\n
    costs,<\/p>\n
                  interest, additional amount under                     Section<\/p>\n
    23     (1A)     with interest and then claim                    the     total<\/p>\n
    balance        amount         with interest.      Considering            this<\/p>\n
    principle the amount already paid to the claimants<\/p>\n
    will not carry any further interest at the time of<\/p>\n
    adjusting          the     total compensation payable to                   the<\/p>\n
    claimants.              Therefore, we hold that the claimants<\/p>\n
    are     entitled to interest under Section 28 of                           the<\/p>\n
    Land     Acquisition Act from the date of                       possession<\/p>\n
    i.e.      1st       April,1985        onwards      on    the      enhanced<\/p>\n
    compensation.             The     Reference Court          is     required<\/p>\n
    calculate           the       exact   amount       payable        to       the<\/p>\n
    claimants          considering the principles laid down by<\/p>\n
    the     Apex       Court in the matter of Prem Nath                    Kapur<\/p>\n
    (supra).\n<\/p>\n
    (supra)<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                               52<\/span><\/p>\n
    33.       In       view      of the above mentioned facts                    and<\/p>\n
    circumstances               the    Appeals        preferred         by        the<\/p>\n
    claimants          i.e.       First Appeal No.           188      of        2000,<\/p>\n
    First        Appeal       No.213     of 1999       and        First      Appeal<\/p>\n
    No.245 of 1999 are partly allowed holding that the<\/p>\n
    claimants          are entitled to compensation in respect<\/p>\n
    of     acquired        land at the rate of Rs.75\/- per                       sq.<\/p>\n
    meter        along     with       12%     component      payable         under<\/p>\n
    Section        23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act from<\/p>\n
    10th July, 1993 i.e.
\n                               ig      from the date of issuance of<\/p>\n
    notification              under         Section    4     of      the         Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition           Act     till 12th September,              1995        i.e.<\/p>\n
    the     date of award passed by the Land                       Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Officer        under Section 11 of the Land                    Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Act     and 30% solatium payable under Section 23 (2)<\/p>\n
    of     the     Act.       We further hold that the                claimants<\/p>\n
    are     entitled to interest under Section 28 of                             the<\/p>\n
    Land     Acquisition Act on excess of the sum awarded<\/p>\n
    by us from the date of possession i.e.                          1st April,<\/p>\n
    1985.         The     Appeals preferred by             Acquiring            Body<\/p>\n
    i.e.     First Appeal No.218 of 1999 and First Appeal<\/p>\n
    No.219        of     1999     are dismissed.           In view         of     the<\/p>\n
    above        mentioned facts and circumstances we modify<\/p>\n
    the     Judgment          and award passed by            the      Reference<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             53<\/span><\/p>\n
    Court as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    (i)       Claimants          are      entitled     compensation              in<\/p>\n
    respect     of        acquired land at the rate of                  Rs.75\/-\n<\/p>\n
    per sq.     meter.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    (ii)      The claimants are entitled to 12% component\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    payable     under           Section     23     (1-A)     of     the      Land\n\n    Acquisition           Act\n                                igfrom 10th July, 1993 i.e.                  from\n\n    issuance        of     the notification under Section 4                      of\n                              \n<\/pre>\n
    the Land Acquisition Act till 12th September, 1995<\/p>\n
    i.e.      the        date     of   award      passed     by     the      Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition Officer and 30% solatium payable under<\/p>\n
    Section 23 (2) of Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
    (iii)     The        claimants     are       entitled      to     interest<\/p>\n
    under     Section           28 of the Land Acquisition Act                   on<\/p>\n
    excess     of        the     sum   awarded       from    the      date       of<\/p>\n
    possession           i.e.     1st April, 1985 for first year @<\/p>\n
    9% and thereafter @ 15% from the date of expiry of<\/p>\n
    the said period of one year till payment.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                  54<\/span><\/p>\n
    (iv)   Appeals   preferred    by the   Acquiring         Body<\/p>\n
    i.e.   First Appeal No.218 of 1999 and First Appeal<\/p>\n
    No.219 of 1999 are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    (v).   No order as to the costs.\n<\/p>\n
    [K.K. TATED]                           [P.V. HARDAS]\n\n       JUDGE.\n                      ig                         JUDGE.\n                    \n    asb\/u\/fa188.00\n      \n\n\n                                      AUTHENTICATED COPY\n   \n\n\n\n                                      (A.S. Bhagwat),\n\n\n\n\n\n                                  Personal Assistant to\n\n                                  the Honourable Judge.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:16 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009 Bench: P.V. Hardas, K. K. Tated (1) FIRST APPEAL NO.188 OF 2000 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.219 OF 1999 AND FIRST APPEAL NO.213 OF 1999 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.218 OF 1999 AND FIRST APPEAL NO.245 OF 1999 Date of decision: 24TH […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-26T23:42:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"50 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-26T23:42:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":8318,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-26T23:42:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-26T23:42:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"50 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-26T23:42:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009"},"wordCount":8318,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009","name":"Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-26T23:42:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jafarali-mithabhai-hirani-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205246","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=205246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}