First Appeal No.1294 of 2004

6th January, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Mr.P. N. JOSHI, Mr. SACHIN GITE
Respondent Counsel: Mr. A.R. PATIL
Other Counsel: Mr. P. P. CHAVAN, Ms. SHYAMLI GADRE, Mr. S.A. RAJESHIRKE

Cases Cited:
SLAO Vs. L. Kamalamma, AIR 1988 S.C. 781 [Para 19]
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Pran Sukh & Ors, 2011(4) ALL MR 439 (S.C.) [Para 24]
Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa & Anr., 2010 DGLS (Soft.) 2357 : 2010 (13) Scale 524 [Para 25]
Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010 DGLS (Soft.) 570 [Para 26]
General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., 2008(6) ALL MR 491 (S.C.)=2008 (14) SCC 745 : 2008 DGLS (Soft.) 973 [Para 27]
Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti & Ors., 2008(1) ALL MR 475 (S.C.)=AIR 2008 SC 399 [Para 28]
State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Valu Yesu Suryavanshi (Nhavi) & Ors., 2008(2) ALL MR 490=2008 (3) Bom.C.R.181 [Para 29]
Trishala Jain and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2011 ALL SCR 1526=2011 (6) SCC 47 [Para 31,33]
Valliyammal and Another Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) & Another, 2011(5) ALL MR 933 (S.C.)=(2011) 8 SCC 91 [Para 31]

JUDGMENT

G. S. GODBOLE, J. :- All these Appeals are being heard and disposed of by a common Judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved and since all the Advocates appearing in the Appeals have specifically requested for deciding the Appeals by a common Judgment. All the Appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") read with the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "MID Act, 1961").

2. Initially all these Appeals were decided by the Division Bench (Swatanter Kumar, CJ as he then was and J.P. Devadhar, J.) by Judgment and Order dated 10th April, 2008 and it was held that the References made under Section 34 (1) of the MID Act, 1961 were barred by time except Appeal Nos. 1776, 1779, 1782, 1784, 1794, 1797, 1818, 1832, 1837, 1840, 1844 and 1847 of 2003 which Appeals were remanded to the Reference Court for deciding the question of limitation of the References and for determining the compensation afresh.

3. Aggrieved by these orders, the original claimants had filed Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of India being SLP Nos. 20689 and other connected SLPs, which were numbered as Civil Appeal Nos. 5693 of 2010 to 5828 of 2010 and were allowed by a common Judgment and Order dated 20th July, 2010 passed by the Supreme Court. The operative order of the Supreme Court Judgment reads thus :

"18. In view of the above, we allow these appeals as follows:

(a) The judgment of the High Court allowing the appeals of the State and dismissing the appeals of the claimants is set aside.

(b) The judgment and award of the Reference Court holding that the applications for reference were within time is upheld though for different reasons.

(c) All the appeals filed by the claimants and the State before the High Court shall now stand revived for determination of the market value and compensation payable.

(d) The respondents shall pay costs of rs.2500/- per case to the respective appellants in the 70 cases.

(e) As the matters relates to an acquisition of 1989, we request the High Court to dispose of the remanded appeals expeditiously.

	Sd/-
	[R.V. Raveendran,J.]
New Delhi,	Sd/-
July 20, 2010	[H.L. Gokhale,J.]”

4. In view of the aforesaid directions, all these Appeals have been placed before us by constituting a Special Bench and we have accordingly heard the submissions of the learned Advocates on 5th October, 2011 and 7th October, 2011 and the Judgment was reserved.

5. On behalf of the Appellants (original Claimants), Advocate P. N. Joshi, Advocate Sachin Gite, Advocate S.A. Rajeshirke and Advocate P. B. Shah advanced arguments; whereas on behalf of the Respondents Mr. Anand R. Patil, learned AGP had appeared for the State in all the Appeals and Mr. P. P. Chavan with Ms. Samali Gadre instructed by the Little and Company had appeared on behalf of the MIDC in all the Appeals.

6. Relevant sections 32 to 34 of the MID Act, 1961 provide for acquisition of the lands required by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC, for short) and the relevant provisions of Sections 32 to 34 reads thus :

"32. (1) If, at any time in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required Compulsory acquisition. for the purpose of development by the Corporation, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may acquire such land by publishing in the Official Gazette a notice specifying the particular purpose for which such land is required, and stating therein that the State Government has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section.

(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section(1), the State Government shall by another notice call upon, the owner of the land and any other person who in the opinion of the State Government may be interested therein, to show cause, within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. 3[The State Government shall also cause public notice to be given in the manner laid down in section 53 and in the Official Gazette.].

I[Provided that, if the land proposed to be acquired falls within a Scheduled Area then the State Government shall before such acquisition consult,-

(i) the Gram Sabha and the Panchayat concerned if the land is falling within the area of one Panchayat;

(ii) the concerned Gram Sabhas and the Panchayat Samiti if the land is falling within the area of more than one Panchayats in the Block concerned;

(iii) the concerned Gram Sabhas and the Zilla Parishad if the land is falling within the area of more than one Block in the district concerned; such consultation shall be carried out in the manner as may be laid down by the State Government, by issuing, a general or special order in this behalf:

Provided that the decision taken by the majority of the Gram Sabhas concerned by passing a resolution in above matters shall be binding on the concerned Panchayat Samiti or the Zilla Parishad as the case may be.

Explanation.-for the purposes of these provisos,

(i) the expressions "Gram Sabha" or "Panchayat" and "Scheduled Areas" shall have meanings, respetively, assigned to them in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958;

(ii) the expressions "Panchayat Samiti" and "Zilla Parishad " shall have the meanings, respectively, assigned to them in the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.]

(3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit.

(4) When a notice under sub-section (I) is published in the Official Gazette the land shall on and from the date of such publication vest absolutely in the State Government free from, all encumbrances:

[Provided that if before actual possession of such land is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, it appears for the State Government that the land is' no more required for the purposes of this Act, the State Government may, by like notice, withdraw the land from acquisition and on the publication of such notice in the Official Gazette, the land shall revest with retrospective effect in the person in whom it was vesting immediately before the publication, of the notice under sub-section (I), subject to such encumbrances, if any, as may be subsisting at that time. The owner and other persons interested shall be entitled to compensation for the damage, if any, suffered by them in consequence of the acquisition proceedings as determined in accordance with the provisions of section 33.).

(5) Where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (4), the State Government may by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.

(6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the State Government, may take possession of the land, and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.

3[7) Where the land has been acquired for the Corporation or any local authority, the State Government shall, after it has taken possession thereof, by notification published in the Official Gazette. transfer the land to the Corporation or that local authority; as the case may be, for the purpose for which it was acquired, and the provisions of section 43-lA shall apply to any land so transferred.).

33. (1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be determined in accordance with such 1igreement

(3) Where no,such agreement can be reached, the State Government shall refer the case the Collector for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid.

[Provided that, no compensation exceeding such amount as the State Government may by general order specify, to be paid for such acquisition shall be determined by the Collector without the previous approval of the State Government or such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.]

[(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3), if after the case is referred to the Collector under that sub-section but before he has finally determined the amount of compensation, such amount is determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, the compensation shall be determined by the Collector in accordance with such agreement].

(4) Before finally determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall give an opportunity to every person to be compensated to state his case as to the amount of compensation.

[(5) In determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in sections 23 and 24 and other relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, subject to the modifications that the references in the said sections 23 and 24 to the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), were references to the date 4(of the service or publication of the notice under sub-section (2) of section 32 of this Act in the manner for the time being laid down under this Act], and the references to the time or date of the publication of the declaration under section 6 were references to the date of the publication of the notice under. sub-section (1) of section 32 of this Act in the Official Gazette.].

[Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section the date of the service of a notice under subsection (2) of section 32 of this Act shall before the 8th day of June 1967 mean the date on which the notice is served in the manner laid down in section 52 of this Act; and on and after the 8th day of June 1967 the date of the publication of a notice under the said sub-section (2) of section 32 shall be the date on which the notice is published in the Official Gazette.].

(6) For the purpose of determining the amount of compensation-

(a) the Collector shall have power to require any person to deliver to him such returns and assessments as he considers necessary;

(b) the Collector shall also have power to require any person known or believed to be interested in the land to deliver to him a statement containing, as far as may be practicable, the name of every other person having any interest in the land as co-owner, mortgagee, tenant, or otherwise, and the nature of such interest, and of the rents and of profits (if any) received or receivable on account thereof for three years next preceding the date of the statement.

(7) Every person required to deliver a return, assessment or statement under sub-section (6) shall be deemed to be legally bound to do so within the meaning of section 175 and section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.

(8) The Collector may hear expert witnesses if it be necessary to do so in any particular case.

(9) The Collector or any officer authorised by him in this behalf shall be entitled to enter in and inspect any land which is subject to proceedings before him.

(10) The Collector shall dispose of every case referred to him under sub-section (3) for determination of compensation as expeditiously as possible and in any case within such time as may be prescribed by rules.

(11) The Collector shall determine the amount or cost incurred in any case disposed of by him under the section, and by what persons and in what proportions they are to be paid.

[(12) Where any case is referred to any Collector under sub-section (3), the State Government may, at any stage, by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded therein, transfer it to any other Collector, and upon such transfer, unless some special directions are given in the order, the Collector to whom the case is transferred may hear and dispose of the case from the stage at which it was transferred or the case may be heard and disposed of by him de novo.].

34. [(1) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector determining the amount of compensation may, within sixty days from the date of such decision, in so far as it affects him, by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by him for determination of the Court as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in its application to the State of Maharashtra, and when any such application is made the provisions of Part III of the said Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to further proceedings in respect thereof].

2) The decision of the Court [on such reference], and subject only to such decision, the decision of the Collector determining the amount of the compensation, shall be final."

7. Certain undisputed facts need to be noted as under :

i The lands in question are from two Revenue Villages in Sinnar taluka of Nasik district, namely, village Sinnar and Malegaon which are adjoining each other.

ii In so far as the land under acquisition is concerned, the same is abutting both the sides of the State High Way, leading from Pune to Nasik. A substantial part of revenue village-Sinnar is included within geographical limits of Sinnar Municipal Council, which is established under the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Town Ships Act, 1965 which was earlier known as Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. However, the lands under acquisition are not situated within the Municipal Limits of Sinnar.

iii Village Malegaon is situated at a distance of about 16 kilometers from Nasik Road Railway Station.

iv The lands under acquisition from the revenue village-Sinnar has a frontage of three kilometers on the Pune-Nasik State High Way, whereas the lands under acquisition from revenue village Malegaon are not abutting the Pune-Nasik State High Way but begin from a distance of around 150 meters from the Northern side of the State High Way. The land under acquisition from village Malegaon is however abutting on the both sides of road which leads from the Pune-Nasik High way to Malelgaon Gaothan which is at a distance of about 1.5 kilometers towards northern side of the High Way. This road is not a tar road and is W.B.M. road prepared by Z.P.

v Some of the lands under acquisition were irrigated land; whereas other lands were partially irrigated or un-irrigated.

vi In the sanctioned Regional Plan of Nasik Region prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Plaining Act, 1966, the lands under acquisition were included in the Industrial Zone.

vii Village Sinnar apart from being a Municipal Council is also the headquarter of Sinnar Taluka and is situated at a distance of about 25 kilo meters from Nasik. Prior to the acquisition, many lands in revenue village Sinnar had been converted for nonagricultural user. Sinnar was a developed place having all the amenities like, the Bus Station of MSRTC, Hospitals, Colleges, Schools, Cinema Theaters, Markets, Mandis and was already an important commercial town and industrial centre in Nasik District.

8. The provisions of MID Act, 1961 were made applicable to the land in question on 4.11.1988 and the lands were thus declared as lands having industrial user.

9. The notification under section 32(2) of the MID Act, 1961 was published on 9.2.1989. Considering the scheme of the said Act this first notification is equivalent to the Notification under section 4 of the L. A. Act, 1894. It is, therefore, an admitted position that for determining the market value of the lands in question, the date of the said Notification, namely, 9.2.1989 is the relevant date. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Uppar Godavari Project Karanjan and the Land Acquisition Officer, Nasik was appointed to exercise powers of the Collector under the L. A. Act, 1894. The possession of the said lands was taken from the Land owners in the month of March, 1989. Thereafter, the said Officer passed an Award on 26th April, 1994, which was approved on 26th June, 1994.

10. In the Award, SLAO divided the lands in three different groups based on the revenue assessment of the said land. Group No.1 comprised of lands, where the revenue assessment was Rs. 0.01 to Rs. 1.25 per Hectare. Group 2 comprised of lands having revenue assessment of Rs. 1.26 to 2.15 per Hectare. Group 3 comprised of lands having revenue assessment of Rs.2.51 and more. The SLAO has considered 9 sale instances; the first two from village Malegaon and the remaining from village Sinnar. All the sale instances from village Sinnar were prior to the relevant date i.e. prior to 09.02.1989 whereas the sale instances of village Malegaon were post the relevant date being dated 05.04.1989 and 11.09.1989. In paragraph 12 of the Award the SLAO has prepared a chart which can be conveniently reproduced :

Sr. No.	Gat No. /S.No	Area	Size	Class No.	Purchase date	Purchase price	10% increase per Hectare till valuation	Mauje Malegaon
1	150 ps.	1-76	1-75	1	5.4.89	71,000	40,340
2	137/1	3-58	7-60	2	11.9.89	125000	34916	Mauje Sinnar
3	1147/2p	0-41	0-74	2	3.11.87	54000	126219
4	1147/2/1	0-25	0-35	2	7.488	20000	88,000
5	1197/1/1	0-69	0-35	1	27.1.89	25000	3,66000
6	1197/1/1	1-26	0-81	1	12.1.89	40000	32,063
7	1376	0-41	0-54	2	12.12.88	15000	37,316
8	1377	0-45	0-47	2	13.9.88	25000	64,430
9	1201	4-85 1-70 Pokh	5-00	1	4.2.89	191250	39,362

Thereafter, the SLAO has arrived at the compensation for three different groups referred above based on the fact as to whether lands were irrigated (Bagayat) or un-irrigated (Jirayat) lands. For group-1 : un-irrigated lands were valued at Rs.40,000/- per Hectare, whereas irrigated lands were valued at Rs.60,000/- per Hectare. For group-2 : un-irrigated lands were valued at Rs.41,000/- per Hectare and irrigated lands were lands valued at Rs.61,000/- per Hectare. For group-3 : un-irrigated lands were valued at Rs.41,000/- per H and irrigated lands were valued at Rs.63,000/- per H.

11. In respect of the lands which were abutting national highway, an additional 10% value above the market price referred above was fixed. In respect of the houses and other structures in the lands different rates of valuation were adopted. However, in these Appeals there is virtually no dispute about the valuations for house and other structures and trees and the entire dispute reveals around the market price of the lands in question.

12. The SLAO had given all the statutory benefits, namely, the benefit under section 23(1)(A) of the L. A. Act, 1894 w.e.f. 09.02.1989 and till declaration of the Award, solatium at 30% and interest under section 34 of the L. A. Act at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years was offered.

13. Aggrieved by this Award, the land owners filed the Reference before the SLAO and compensation was demanded at Rs.2,50,000/- per H. in respect of the lands of which were abutting the high way and at the rate of Rs. 2,25,000/- per Hectare for lands which were not abutting the Highway. In all 88 lands References were registered. Land Reference No. 79/1996 was considered to be the lead Reference. Common evidence was recorded in all these References. In LR No. 79/1996, the land owners examined one of the land owners-Prakash Vaze as PW-1 and also examined Uttamrao Patil, Agro Horticultural Consultant as PW-2.

14. In his deposition-Prakash Vaze, PW-1, stated that the acquired lands are 2.5 kilometers away from the S.T.Stand, Sinnar, at Sinnar is 25 kilometers awar from Nasik and 18 kilometers away from Nasik Road Railway Station; that the acquired lands are towards Nasik side from Sinnar; that in the year 1980 there was industrial development at Sinnar, there were handlooms and powerlooms and bidi industries at Sinnar; that there is Municipal Council at Sinnar since 1960; that NasikPune highway passes through Sinnar town; that there are MESB office, colleges, high-schools, petrolium pumps, ST Stand, Cinema Theatre at Sinnar. He deposed that the acquired lands were shown in the Industrial Zone since 1978; that beyond acquired land towards the Nasik side also there is development in the nature of hospitals, hotels, colleges etc. from last 15 years and that the acquired lands have Non-Agricultural potentiality. In his evidence the Sale Deeds at Exhs. 32 to 42 were produced. 7/12 extracts of the lands whose Sale Deeds were produced were also produced at Exhs. 44 to 55. In the cross examination of this witness, no questions are asked regarding his deposition that Sinnar is a developed industrial town. He admitted that there is alway water scarcity at Sinnar. The second witness Uttam Patil deposed only about valuation of plants which is not the relevant issue in so far as the value of the land is concerned. The value of plantation is not disputed in these group of appeals. No oral evidence whatsoever was led by the Respondents. However, the State produced two Sale Deeds dated 4th February, 1989 (Exh. 62) and 5th April, 1989 (Exh. 63). The lands which are subject matters of various Sale Deeds produced on record have been shown marked on two maps produced at Exhs. 68 & 69 so as to appreciate their proximity or otherwise from the lands under acquisition. These maps can be read in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

15. At this juncture, it is necessary to analyze the various Sale Deeds which have been produced by the Appellants and those produced by the Respondents. It is also necessary to analyze the sale instances with reference to the maps which are produced. The Appellants have produced the village map of village Sinnar at Exh. 69 and the village map of village Malegaon at Exh. 68.

(a) The first Sale Deed Exh.30 is dated 14.05.1985 executed by Madhukar Laxman Deshpande and another in favour of the Shankar Bhairu Shinde in respect of the land bearing survey no. 926 (old survey no. 1158) admeasuring 0.0 Acres, 27 gunthas plus barren land 0.0 Acre 16 gunthas, totally admeasuring 43 gunthas and Pune-Nasik road is adjoining this land. The total price of this land is Rs. 41,000/- and this would result in an area of admeasuring 43.52 Ares or 0.4352 Hectares. The effective rate per Hectare is Rs.94,253/-.This transaction is around three years nine months prior to the relevant date. The land in question appears to have been unirrigated land and unencumbered land. From the map Exh. 69, this land appears to be near to the acquired lands and away from the Sinnar Municipal Council and out side the Municipal limits.

(b) The next Sale Deed is Exh. 31 dated 11th September, 1986 executed by the Satuji Lonare and Ors. in favour of Shankar Lahange and another in respect of the land bearing old survey no. 1130/6B corresponding to new survey no.1091/1218/6. The area appears to be 0H.13Ares and the total price is Rs.15,000/-. Thus per hectare rate works out to Rs.1,15,385/-. This land is also unencumbered land. This Sale Deed is about two years and six months prior to the relevant date i.e. 09.02.1989. From perusal of the map Exh. 69, this land appears to be near the Sinnar Gaothan.

(c) The third Sale Deed Exh. 32 is dated 8th January, 1987 executed by Shankarrao Balaji Vaze in favour of Mohammed Malang Khan and Ors. This Sale Deed appears to be of N. A. Plot No.2, admeasuring 324.64 square metres from the sanctioned lay out of new survey no. 1069/A4A+B/2. This plot is within Municipal Limits of Sinnar Municipal Council and appears to have been converted into N.A.long back in the year 1956. This land is from sanctioned lay out of N.A. land and having approved residential user. From the map Exh. 69, this land also appears to be abutting the Pune-Nasik Road and the price is Rs.30,000/- for an area admeasuring 324.64 sq.metre. The total rate comes to Rs. 9,24,100/- per hectare. This Sale Deed is about two years prior to the relevant date 09.02.1989.

(d) The Sale Deed at Exh. 33 dated 29.10.1987 in respect of land within the Municipal limits of Sinnar Municipal Council for an area of 2 Ares from Survey No. 1063/3 for Rs.10,000/-. From the perusal of the map Exh.69 it is not seen that this land is near gaothan area of Sinnar. The per hectare rate appears to be Rs.5,00,000/- per hectare.

(e) The Sale Deed dated 4th September, 1986 Exh. 34 in respect of new Survey Nos. 1076/A/5A and 1076/A/5B out of which 2/3rd area on the eastern side, admeasuring 22 Ares is purchased for sum of Rs.31,000/-. The Sale Deed recites that the possession was handed over on 5th March, 1986 and the price was also fixed on that date. This Sale Deed is about 2.5 to 3 years prior to the cut off date of 09.02.1989. From the perusal of the map at Exh.69, it appears that the said land is on the north-eastern side of Pune-Nasik high way and away from the Sinnar Gaothan. The per hectare rate appears to be Rs.1,40,909/-.

(f) Sale Deed at Exh.35 is dated 14th January, 1988, for an area admeasuring 7 Ares from Survey no. 1076, hissa no. 5A/5B. From the map at Exh.69, this land is also away from Sinnar Gaothan and 7Ares land is sold for Rs.15,000/-. The per hectare rate comes to Rs.2,14,286/-.This Sale Deed is about one year prior to the cut off date 09.02.1989.

(g) The Sale Deed dated 06.06.1988 Exh. 36 is in respect of an area admeasuring 14 Ares from survey no. 1076 A.5A +5B for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. This Sale Deed is in respect of land which is away from Sinnar Gaothan. The Sale Deed is about 8 months prior to the cutoff date of 9.2.1989. The rate comes to Rs.3,57,143/per hectare. From a perusal of map at Exh. 69, the land which is subject matter of Exh. 36, appears to be away from Sinnar and not abutting the Pune-Nasik highway.

(h) The Sale Deed dated 5th September, 1988 Exh. 37 is for an area admeasuring 5 Ares from new Survey no.1078 within the Municipal Limits of Sinnar Municipal Council. The land appears to be adjoining the land bearing Survey No. 1076A/5A+5B but outside the Municipal limits and is sold for Rs. 31,000/-. The per hectare rate comes to Rs.6,20,000/-. This Sale Deed appears to have been executed 5 months prior to the cut off date 09.02.1989.

(i) Sale Deed Exh. 38 is dated 14th July, 1988 in respect of an area, admeasuring 4000 sq.metre from new Survey no. 851/3/2 executed by Smt. Leelabai Naik and Ors. in favour of M/s. Sable Waghire and Company Ltd.. The land in question is converted into N.A. user for the purpose of godown (commercial user). The area admeasures 43056 Sq.Ft.. From a perusal of map at Exh. 69, this land appears to be away from the Gaothan and does not appear to be included within the Municipal limits of Sinnar Municipal Council, as the layout plan appears to have been sanctioned by the Collector, Nasik as the Collector is a Planning Authority under section 18 of the MRTP Act, 1966 in respect of the areas outside the Municipal limits. From the perusal of the map at Exh. 69 it appears that this land is away from Gaothan and is not abutting the Pune-Nasik highway but a road appears to be abutting southern side of this land. Considering the price of Rs.1,15,4000/- for 4000 sq. metres, the per hectare price comes to Rs.2,87,500/-. This Sale Deed appears to have been executed around 7 months prior to the cutoff date 09.02.1989.

(j) Sale Deed Exh. 39 is dated 23rd November, 1987 in respect of area admeasuring 10 Ares from new Survey no. 1076/A/2 at Sinnar within the Sinnar Municipal limits. From a perusal of map Exh.69 it appears that this land is near the Nasik-Pune highway though not abutting the highway and not having access through high way and is situated outside Sinnar gaothan. The sale price is 15,000/- for 10 Ares, indicating the price of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. Subject matter of this land appears to be the same as the subject matter of the Sale Deeds at Exhs. 34 to 36. This Sale Deed appears to have been executed around one year three months prior to the cutoff date 9.2.1989.

(k) Sale Deed dated 04.09.1987 is at Exh. 40 in respect of land outside the Municipal limits of Sinnar Municipal Council in respect of the land admeasuring 9 Ares from Survey no.1020/2. From the perusal of map at Exh. 69 this land appears to be away from Sinnar gaothan and abutting the land which is the subject matter of sale deed at Exh. 42. The land is sold for Rs.10,000/- at a rate of Rs. 1,11,111/- per Hectare. This Sale Deed is executed one year five months prior to the cutoff date 09.02.1989.

(l) Sale Deed dated 15th January, 1988 Exh. 42 in respect of the land admeasuring 7 Ares of uncultivable land from Survey no. 929/2/12 at a distance of around one kilo-metre from Sinnar municipal limits but near Nasik-Pune high way but not abutting the same. From a perusal of map Exh. 69, it is clear that this land is nearest land from the acquired land of village Sinnar followed by the land which is subject matter of Exh. 30 followed by the land which is the subject matter of Exh. 40 and the land which is the subject matter of Exh. 38. This land is sold for Rs. 15,000/- which translates into a rate of Rs. 2,14,286/- per hectare.

16. The Claimants had produced two Sale Deeds from village Malegaon which are as under :

(a) Sale Deed dated 16th March, 1991 Exh. 41 within the Malegaon Gram Panchayat to the extent of 50 Ares (1/2 H) from Gat no. 134/2/1 being unirrigated land. This Sale Deed is about 2 years after the cutoff date 09.02.1989 indicating that 0.5 H land was sold at Rs.1,56,000/- which gives a rate of Rs.3,12,000/- per hectare. From a perusal of map at Exh. 68, it is clear that this land is absolutely abutting the acquired land from village Malelgaon.

(b) Sale Deed dated 16th March, 1991 Exh. 43 for Rs.1,56,000/- in respect of the land admeasuring 50 Ares (1/2 H) from Gat no. 134/2/1 being unirrigated land. This Sale Deed is about 2 years after the cutoff dated indicating that 0.5 H land was sold at Rs.1,56,000/- which gives a rate of Rs.3,12,000/- per hectare. From a perusal of map at Exh. 68, it is clear that this land is absolutely abutting the acquired land from village Malegaon.

17. The Respondent state has produced two Sale Deeds at Exh. 62 and Exh.63. The Sale Deed Exh. 62 is executed on 4th February, 1989 in respect of the land admeasuring 6 H. 55 R. outside the Sinnar Municipal Limits in respect of the land bearing New Survey No. 938/2. From a perusal of map Exh. 69, it is clear that the said land is quite away from Nasik-Sinnar road. The total rate comes to Rs.29,198/- per hectare. This rate is even less than the rate awarded by the SLAO.

18. Sale Deed dated 5th April, 1989 Exh. 63 is in respect of the land ameasuring 1 H 80.05R from Gat No.150 at village Malegaon being unirrigated land within the limits of Malegaon Gram Panchayat. This land is abutting the acquired lands from village Malegaon. The rate comes to Rs.39,557/- per hectare, which is less than the rate offered by the SLAO. This Sale Deed recites that according to the Government valuation, for the stamp duty purpose, the price of the land was Rs. 1,32,000/- and hence, a stamp duty of Rs. 4,620/- was paid. This is the oral and documentary evidence which has been adduced by the parties.

19. The learned Joint District Judge, Nasik (Reference Court) delivered a common Judgment and Order dated 12th May, 2003, deciding all the References together. After holding that the References were within limitation, the learned Judge held that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. was inadequate. The learned Judge has considered the sale instances at Exh. 40 as a relevant sale instance and deducted 40% by following the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SLAO Vs. L. Kamalamma, AIR 1988 S.C. 781. By this method, the learned Judge arrived at a figure of Rs.74,000/- per hectare and accepted an increase of 14% thereby taking the price of Jirayat lands to Rs. 84,000/- per hectare. Therefore, in respect of the lands which were not abutting the Road, the learned Judge fixed Rs. 84,000/- per hectare for unirrigated/ Jirayat lands 1.5 times more i.e. Rs. 1,26,000/- per hectare of Bagayat Lands and 50 % of the Jirayat Lands price i.e. 42,000/- per hectare for un-cultivable lands (Pot Kharaba Lands). In so far as the lands having road front are concerned, the learned Judge considered the sale instances at Exhs. 30 and 42 and discarded the sale instance at Exh. 42 on the ground that it was a small portion admeasuring 7 Area and Exh. 30 was considered to be a comparable sale instance. Since it was 4 years prior to the relevant date, 40% increase was taken above the price of Rs. 95,000/- per hectare and the price of the land was arrived at Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare. From this amount, 25% amount was deducted since the area of the acquired land was big. By this method the price of the unirrigated /jirayat land was fixed at Rs.97,000/- per hectare and price of Bagayat /irrigated land was fixed at 1.5 times more at Rs. 1,45,000/- per hectare and the valuation of the uncultivable land (pot kharaba land) was fixed at 50% of the unirrigated lands at Rs. 48,000/- per hectare.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ADVOCATES:

20. Mr. P. N. Joshi, learned Advocate for the Claimants has taken us through the entire oral and documentary evidence on the record, the Award and the Judgment of the Reference Court. He pointed out that the total area under acquisition is 528 H 56R from Sinnar and Malegaon. He pointed out that the notices under section 32(2) of the MID Act, 1961 which is equivalent to Section 4 of the L. A. Act, 1894 were issued on 09.02.1989 which should be the relevant date for determining market value. He pointed out that the possession was taken in March, 1989, the Award was dated 26th April, 1994 and approved on 26.06.1994. He pointed out that the SLAO had fixed the rates only on the basis of the assessment of the lands which was not the proper method for arriving at market price. He brought to our notice that the statutory benefits under section 23(1)(A) have been given.

21. Mr. Joshi submitted that sale instances at Exh. 37 and 38 were the best instances which should be considered to be the bench mark for determining the compensation. He submitted that the Reference Court has rejected the sale instance at Exh. 42 without any justification; even though the sale instance was prior to the cut off date. He pointed out that the sale instance had been duly proved in the oral evidence of PW-1. He submitted that the sale instance at Exh. 37 was in respect of unirrigated land, admeasuring 5 Ares i.e. 500 sq.metre and the price works out to Rs. 6,20,000/- per hectare. He submitted that this sale instance is prior to the cut off date and considering the location of the acquired land, this sale instance can be safely relied upon. He submitted that since the entire area of Sinnar revenue village had acquired N.A. potentiality, it was essential to rely upon the sale instance at Exh.37 and Award the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare for lands abutting the Pune-Nasik high way and Rs. 2.25,000/- per hectare for lands which were not abutting the Pune-Nasik highway.

22. Relying on the Sale Deed at Exh. 38, he submitted that it was sufficiently large piece of 4,000 sq. metres equivalent to almost one Acre. He submitted that the said land was converted into N.A. for godown purpose for commercial use. He submitted that the purchaser was a limited company and hence, this Sale Deed indicated the correct figure of the market value. He submitted that the land had fetched a rate of Rs. 2,87,500/- per hectare and was reasonably near the land under acquisition. He submitted that this land was in fact not abutting the Pune-Nasik highway and hence, the land abutting PuneNasik highway should be given more market price. He also relied upon the Sale Deed Exh. 30 and pointed out that from the map Exh. 69 that this land is the nearest land from village Sinnar vis-a-vis the acquired lands and the area was 43R which was not small area being 4,300 sq. metres and more than one acre. He submitted that this Sale Deed is almost 4 years prior to the cutoff date and applying the principle of escalation of 15 % per year on cumulative basis, as on the cut off date, the rate will be Rs. 1,80,539/- per hectare.

23. He criticized the learned Judge of the Reference Court for ignoring the sale instance at Exh. 42 and pointed out that the land was barren land, admeasuring 7 Ares and had been sold prior to one year from the cut off date and was given effective rate of Rs. 2,14,285/- per hectare. He submitted that considering the annual increase of 15%, the rate as on cut off date will have to be taken as Rs.2,52,100/- per hectare. He also invited our attention to the Sale Deed at Exh. 40 and pointed out that the same was executed more than one and half years prior to the cut off date where a small portion of 9.31 Ares had fetched a price of Rs. 10,000/- giving an effective rate of Rs.1,07,411/- and will give a rate of Rs. 1,36,611/- with a 15% cumulative interest.

24. Mr. Joshi relied upon paragraph 18 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Pran Sukh & Ors, 2011 (4) ALL MR 439(S.C.), which reads thus :

"18 However, we agree with the learned counsel for the land owners that the High Court should not have imposed cut of 1/4th in one batch of appeals and 20% cut in the other batch of appeals qua the average sale price reflected by Exhibit P-I only on the ground that the area of the land acquired by the State Government was too large as compared to 12 acres land for which sale deed Exhibit P-1 was executed. In a matter like the present one, it cannot be ignored that the land was acquired for setting up an Industrial Model Township at Manesar and after developing the land, the Corporation was bound to sell the plots at much higher price to the existing or prospective industrial entrepreneurs. In this scenario, the learned Single Judges committed an error by applying 1/4th or 20% cut on market value determined for the purpose of payment of compensation to the land owners. This approach is in consonance with the law laid down in Shubh Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:

"16. Therefore, when deduction is made from the value of a small residential plot towards the development cost, to arrive at the value of a large tract of agricultural or undeveloped land with development potential the deduction has nothing to do with the purpose for which the land is acquired. The deduction is with reference to the price of the small residential plot, to work back the value of the large tract of undeveloped land. On the other hand, where the value of acquired agricultural land is determined with reference to the sale price of a neighbouring agricultural land, no deduction need be made towards "development cost".

17. It is no doubt true that this Court in some decisions has observed that purpose of acquisition will also be relevant. But it is made in a different context. The Land Acquisition Collectors in some cases adopt belting methods for valuation of land, with reference to a focal point, that is, either with reference to the distance from the main road, or distance from a developed area. Lands that adjoin a developed area or a main road are given a higher value than a land farther away from the road or the developed area. The Land Acquisition Collectors also award different compensation depending upon whether the acquired land is a dry land or wet/irrigated land.

18. When different categories of lands (or lands with different situational advantages) are acquired for the same purpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notification."

25. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa & Anr., 2010 DGLS(Soft.) 2357 = 2010 (13) Scale 524 and particularly on the observations in paragraph 10 to 13 which read thus :

"10. The Land Acquisition Collector however committed a serious error in deducting 45% from the sale price disclosed by the Sale Deed dated 30.8.1989 towards the cost of development. It is well settled that deduction for development cost has to be made only where the value of a small residential/commercial/ industrial plot of land in a developed layout is made the basis for arriving at the market value of a nearly large tract of undeveloped agricultural land. Where the land sold under the relied upon sale deed and the acquired lands are both are of similar nature (as in this case where both are bharad lands) the question of making any deduction towards development cost to arrive at the cost of "undeveloped land' would not arise. Such a deduction would have been necessary if the sale deed relied upon related to a developed residential or commercial plot. Therefore, we are of the view that the Land Acquisition Collector was not justified in making 45% deduction from the price disclosed by the Sale Deed dated 30.8.1989.

11. The Sale Deed relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector was dated 30.8.1989. The relevant date for determination of compensation is 30.7.1991. Having regard to the fact that acquired lands were in an urbanisable area with readily available infrastructural facilities, we are of the view that the cumulative increase of 14.5% per annum adopted by the Collector in his award, would be appropriate. By providing such increase, for two years, we would be able to arrive at the market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of the preliminary notification. By providing such appreciation at 14.5% for two years on the base price of Rs.43.80 per sq.m. the market value as on 30.7.1991 for the acquired bharad lands would be Rs.57.42, rounded of to Rs.57.50 per sq.m.

12. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation should be determined only with reference to the said sale deed dated 30.8.1989 or whether the other Sale Deed dated 31.1.1990 relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector, whereby 7600 sq.m. of land in Sy. No. 77 at a distance of one kilometer was sold at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.m. should also be taken note of by averaging the two prices. As against the Sale Deed dated 30.8.1989 which was in regard to a land situated at a distance of 200 meters, the Sale Deed dated 31.1.1990 related to a land which was more than one kilometer away. There is nothing to show that it was similar bharad land. Further the very fact that the first Sale Deed which is relied upon and accepted by the Land Acquisition Collector as relating to a comparable land is at a price of Rs.43.80 per sq.m., would demonstrate that the second sale deed showing a very low sale price of Rs.3/- per sq.m. cannot be considered to be a comparable sale. When the second sale deed relied upon is at a rate which is only 1/15 th of the price disclosed by the first sale deed, obviously they are not comparable sales. Further the award of the Collector specifically states that the land sold under sale deed dated 30.8.1989 is a similar land, that is, a bharad land at a distance of 200 meter. Significantly there is no such finding that the subject matter of the second sale dated 31.1.1990 which was one kilometer away, was a similarly situated land. The sale deed dated 31.1.1990 should therefore be inferred to be either an undervalued sale or a distress sale or at all events not a comparable sale. The Land Acquisition Collector was not therefore justified in averaging the sale prices of the two sale deeds. Once it is found that the first sale deed was in regard to a comparable land and the second sale deed was not in regard to a comparable land, the second sale deed dated 31.1.1990 ought to have been excluded from consideration.

13. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging can not be resorted to. We may refer to two decisions of this Court in this behalf.

13.1) In Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmanna Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. The Collector of Madras, 1969 (1) MLJ 45, a three Judge Bench of this Court observed that the proper method for evaluation of market value is by taking the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sale transactions. This Court held:

"It seems to us that there is substance in the first contention of Mr.Ram Reddy. After all, when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to say that he should be given the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. It is not disputed that the transaction represented by Exhibit R-19 was a few months prior to the notification under section 4, that it was a bona fide transaction and that it was entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. The land comprised in the sale deed is 11 grounds and was sold at Rs.1,961/- per ground. The land covered by Exhibit-27 was also sold before the notification, but after the land comprised in Exhibit R-19 was sold. It is true that this land was sold at Rs. 1,096/- per ground. This, however, is apparently because of two circumstances. One is that betterment levy at Rs.500 per ground had to be paid by the vendee and the other that the land comprised in it is very much more extensive, that is about 93 grounds or so. Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deed, pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case."

13.2) In State of Punjab Vs. Hans Raj (1994) 5 SCC 734, this court held:

"Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge of the High Court committed a grave error in working out average price paid under the sale transactions to determine the market value of the acquired land on that basis. As the method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times, for fixing the market value of the acquired land, if followed, could bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched by sale of acquired land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value."

Therefore, we are of the view that the averaging of the prices under the two Sale Deeds was not justified. The Sale Deed dated 31.1.1990 ought to have been excluded for the reasons stated above. That means compensation for the acquired lands had to be fixed only with reference to the Sale Deed dated 30.8.1989 relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector which will be Rs.57.50 per sq.m. As the said market value has been fixed with reference to comparable bharad land with fruit trees, the question of again separately awarding any compensation for the trees situated in the acquired land does not arise."

He submitted that the 14% cumulative increase was found to be justified.

26. Mr.Joshi next relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.2010 DGLS (Soft.) 570, and the observations in paragraphs 10 to 14 which read thus :

"10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The location of the land in order to appreciate its potential for the purpose of compensation has first to be understood.. Admittedly, the land is situated within the municipal limits of Sonepat which is a district headquarter adjoining Delhi and within the National Capital Region. The distance between Bahalgarh, a small township on the Grand Trunk Road, National Highway No.1, built five centuries ago by Sher Shah Suri (and arguably India's most important and strategic highway and the lifeline between the rest of India and the north and northwest), and Sonepat is 7 km., as per the indication on the National Highway itself. The acquired land is situated on both sides of the road leading from Bahalgarh to Sonepat with some portions touching the road side and some portion slightly away and situated behind the ECE factory. It is, however, the admitted position and (we have seen the location on the maps that have been produced before us) that the land behind the ECE factory adjoins the area of village Jamalpur Kalan which had been acquired in the year 1992 and which the appellants claim should be made the basis for determining compensation in the present matter as well. It must also be noticed that the enormous development from the Delhi border alongside the Grand Trunk Road and well beyond the Bahalgarh- Sonepat bifurcation is now a matter for all to see and we have seen this on the maps produced in Court as well, as huge residential and commercial areas have been developed with a mind boggling increase in the price of agricultural land in the last 15 or 20 years. While dealing with the question of the potential value of the land acquired this Court in P. Rama Reddy's case (supra) observed that several matters had to keep in mind; they being (and we quote),

"(i) the situation of the acquired land visavis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using th acquired land for building purposes;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages or educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land;

(vii) and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.

11. The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentary value for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."

12. As already indicated above, these are the broad factors that we too have kept in mind.

13. Although, in the present matter, sale instances around or near abouts the date of Notification of the present acquisition are available yet these cannot justify or explain the potential of a particular piece of land on the date of acquisition as the potential can be recognized only some time in the future and it is open to a landowner claimant to contend that the potential can be examined first at the time of the Section 18 Reference, the first Appeal in the High Court or in the Supreme Court in appeal as well. We must also highlight that Collectors, as agents of the State Government, are extraordinarily chary in awarding compensation and the land owners have to fight for decades before they are able to get their due. We take the present case as an example. The land was notified for acquisition in May 1990. The collector rendered his award in May 1993 awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court by its award dated January 2001 increased the compensation to Rs.125 per square yard for the land of the road behind the ECE factory and Rs.150 per square yard for the land abutting the road which would come to Rs.6,05,000/- and Rs.7,26,000/- respectively for the two pieces of land. This itself is a huge increase visavis the Collector's award. The High Court in First Appeal by its judgment of 24th September 2007 enhanced the compensation for the two categories to Rs.135 and 160 respectively making it Rs.6,53,400/- and Rs.7,74,400/-. In other words, this is the compensation which ought to have been awarded by the Collector at the time of his award on 12th May 1993. This has, however, come to the land owner for the first time as a result of the judgment of the High Court which is under challenge in this appeal; in other words, a full 17 years from the date of Notification under Section 4 and 14 years from the date of the award of the Collector on which date the possession of the land must have been taken from the landowner. Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these payments do not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum increase which Courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case. Be that as it may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the award of the Collector and had this amount been made available to the landowners on that date, it would have been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in some other place. This exercise has been defeated for the simple reason that the payment of compensation has been spread over almost two decades. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a landowner is entitled to say that if the compensation proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the potential of the land acquired from him must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near future alone. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and emphasize that this broad principle would be applicable where the possession of the land has been taken pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land is already in possession of the Government and is subsequently acquired.

14. There is another unfortunate aspect which is for all to see and to which the Courts turn a Nelson's eye and pretend as if the problem does not exist. This is a factor which creates an extremely grim situation in a case of compensation based exclusively on sale instances. This is the wide spread tendency to under value sale prices. The provision of Collector's rates has only marginally corrected the anomaly, as these rates are also abnormally low and do not reflect the true value. Where does all this leave a landowner whose land is being compulsorily acquired as he has no control over the price on which some other landowner sells his property which is often the basis for compensation?. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the above sale instances relied upon by the parties do not accurately reflect the potential of the acquired land and the award of the High Court in the case of Jamalpur Kalan granting a sum of Rs. 250/- per square yard as compensation is the minimal proper base. Mr. Goyal has, however, submitted that the belting system ordered by the reference and the High Court was the proper one in the circumstances, more particularly as it was well known that land alongside the road had more value vis.a.vis. the land away therefrom. He has, accordingly, submitted that the land behind the ECE factory which was not abutting the road needed to be given lower compensation. Mr. Goyal's reliance on Sarat Chandra's case for this argument is however to no avail. In this matter, agricultural land which had no potential for urbanization and commercialization had been acquired and it was on that basis, this Court held that the belting system was permissible. In the case before us, admittedly the land was acquired in the year 1990, had great potential value, and has been completely urbanized as huge residential complexes, industrial areas and estates and a huge education city have come up in the last ten or fifteen years. Moreover, insofar land which is to be used for residential purposes is concerned, a plot away from the main road is often of more value, as the noise and the air pollution alongside the arterial roads is almost unbearable. It is also significant that the land of Jamalpur Kalan was touching the rear side of the ECE factory and the High Court had granted compensation of Rs.250/- per square yard for the acquisition of the year 1992. We have also seen the site plan to satisfy ourselves and find that the land acquired from Jamalpur Kalan and the present land share a common boundary behind the ECE factory. The belting system in the facts of the present case would thus not be permissible."

27. Mr. Joshi next relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager,Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., 2008 (14) SCC 745 : 2008 DGLS (Soft.) 973 : [2008(6) ALL MR 491 (S.C.)] and the observations in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said Judgment which read thus :

"11. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semiurban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.

12. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase."

On that basis he submitted that Sinnar was an urban area and even 15% escalation can be considered.

28. Mr. Joshi next relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti & Ors., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 399 : [2008(1) ALL MR 475 (S.C.)] and particularly the observations in paragraph 16. He submitted that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. He relied on the observations from paragraphs 16 and 18 of the said Judgment which read thus :

"16. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices.

18. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made:

(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1);

(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;

(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and

(iv) it should possess similar advantages."

29. Mr. Joshi lastly relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Valu Yesu Suryavanshi (Nhavi) & Ors., 2008 (3) Bom. C.R.181 : [2008(2) ALL MR 490] and particularly the following observations in paragraph-6 :

"6. ..... ..... Furthermore, 32 ares is very close to an acre as 40 ares make an acre. Thus, it cannot be treated such a small piece of land that it would justify application of principle of deduction on the basis of smallness of land subject matter of sale. Even otherwise, the Court has to keep in mind that the value of the land increases and the claimants in fact had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 4 lakhs per hectare. The extent of land, which is subject matter of Exhibit-23, thus cannot be termed as such a small piece of land, that deduction at the rate of 25 per cent should be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ..... ........".

30. Mr. Joshi, therefore, prayed that in respect of the lands which were abutting the Pune-Nasik Road, the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare should be awarded whereas in respect of the lands which were inside a 10% deduction can be made and rate at Rs.2,25,000/- per hectare should be awarded.

31. On the other hand, Mr. Anand Patil, learned AGP appearing for the State in support of the Appeals filed by the State Government advanced the following submissions :

(i) That the Reference Court ought to have considered Sale Deeds at Exh. 62 and 63 which has resulted into granting more than adequate price as compensation. He submitted that the Sale Deed Exh. 63 was dated 05.04.1989 and was from Malegaon village. He submitted that the consideration under the Sale Deed was Rs. 71,400/- for 1H. 80.5R which gives an effective price at Rs. 39,666/- per hectare.

(ii) That no partition was effected and two brothers had already consented as consenting parties.

(iii) He submitted that the Sale Deed Exh. 62 is dated 4.2.1989 which is closest to the relevant date.

(iv) He relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Trishala Jain and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. 2011 (6) Supreme Court Cases 47 : [2011 ALL SCR 1526] and particularly the observations in paragraphs 39, 41 and 44 which read thus :

"39. The law with regard to applying the principle of deduction to the determined market value of the acquired land is quite consistent, though, of course, the extent of deduction has varied very widely depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. In other words, it is not possible to state precisely the exact deduction which could be made uniformly applicable to all the cases. Normally the rule stated by this Court consistently, in its different judgments, is that deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects. It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate to smaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land. In addition thereto, deduction can also be applied on account of wastage of land.

41. The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities, before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of 'no deduction'. Furthermore, where the evidence led by the parties is of such instances where the compensation paid is comparable, i.e. exemplar lands have all the features comparable to the proposed acquired land, including that of size, is another category of cases where principle of 'no deduction' may be applied. These may be the cases where least or no deduction could be made. Such cases are exceptional and/or rare as normally the lands which are proposed to be acquired for development purposes would be agricultural lands and/or semi or haphazardly developed lands at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which is the relevant time to be taken into consideration for all purposes and intents for determining the market value of the land in question.

44. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction. Similarly the sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its own merits.".

(v) Mr. Patil relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Valliyammal and Another Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) & Another,(2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 91 : [2011(5) ALL MR 933 (S.C.)] and particularly the observations in paragraphs 14 and 16 which read thus :

"14. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court laid down the following principles for determination of market value of the acquired land: (SCC pp.796-97, paras 17-21)

"17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4.

18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.

19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.

20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:

Positive factors	Negative factors
-------------------	--------------------
(i) smallness of size	(i) largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road	(ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road
(iii) frontage on a road	(iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth
(iv) nearness to developed area	(iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up
(v) regular shape	(v) remoteness from developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land under acquisition	(vi) some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser
(vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage

21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price."

16. In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana the Court held : SCC pp. 35960, para 7)

"7............It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose." (emphasis supplied)

32. Mr. Patil submitted that considering the large area of more than 500 acres which was acquired from lands abutting the Pune-Nasik highway and away from it and therefore, all lands cannot be given the same price. He submitted that the methodology adopted by the SLAO was correct and the Reference Court could not have granted any enhancement in compensation.

33. Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate appearing for the MIDC supported the submissions of Mr.Patil, learned AGP and additionally submitted that the land in question was in an undeveloped area and that it was around 2.5 kilometers from the Sinnar ST. Stand and 18 kilometers from Nasik-Road Railway station. He submitted that the acquired lands are not exactly in urban area and that though Sinnar is a Municipal Council, the acquired lands are outside the Municipal Limits. He submitted that in the regional plan though Sinnar was in industrial zone, village Malegaon was not included in the industrial zone. He submitted that the area was not fully developed; at the highest the same can be considered to be semi-urban area in respect of the land in village Sinnar only. He submitted that the MIDC has to lay down roads, drainages, electrical infrastructure and proper deduction on account of development cost has to be made. Relying on the observations in paragraph 41 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Trishala Jain, [2011 ALL SCR 1526] (supra), he submitted that making the deduction towards development costs and on account of largeness of the area vis-a-vis the area under acquisition, a substantial deduction has to be made and only in rarest of rare case, as an exception, the deductions are not made. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Appeals filed by the Claimants and allowing the Appeals filed by the State Government.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS :

34. In so far as the sale instances are concerned, a comparative chart of the said Sale Deeds, location of the lands which are subject matter of the said Sale Deeds, the date of the Sale Deeds and the per hectare rate will be useful for appreciating the evidence on record.

 

Sr. No.	Exh. Nos.	Date of Sale Deed	Area of Land.	Location of the Land	Price per Hectare.
1	30	14.05.1985 3yrs. 9 months prior to the relevant date	0H. 43.52 Ares	Adjoining Pune-Nasik Road, outside Sinnar Municipal Limits and near the acquired lands.	Rs. 94,253/-
2	31	11.09.1986 2yrs. 6 months prior to the relevant date.	13Ares	Near Sinnar Gaothan	Rs.1,15,385/-
3	32	08.01.1987 2 yrs. prior to relevant date	0H. 3.2464 Ares	Within Municipal Limits of Sinnar, having sanctioned N.A.user.	Rs.9,24,100/-
4	33	29.10.1987 1 ½ yrs. prior to effective date	0H. 2Ares	Within Sinnar Municipal Limits,near Gaothan area.	Rs.5,00,000/-
5	34	04.09.1986 2yrs. 6 months prior to the relevant date	22Ares	Away from Sinnar Gaothan, on the Northern Eastern side of Pune-Nasik High way.	Rs.1,40,909/-
6	35	14.01.1988 1 year prior to relevant date.	7Ares	Away from Sinnar Gaothan.	Rs.2,14,286/-
7	36	06.06.1988 8 months prior to the relevant date.	14Ares	Away from Sinnar Gaothan and not abutting Pune-Nasik Highway.	Rs.3,57,143/-
8	37	05.09.1988 6 months prior to	5Ares	Within the Sinnar Municipal Limits.	Rs.6,20,000/-
9	38	14.07.1988 8 months prior to relevant date	0H. 40Ares	N.A. Plot for godown, for commercial user, away from Gaothan and outside Sinnar Municipal Limits and not abutting Pune-Nasik High way.	Rs.2,87,500/-
10	39	23.11.1987 1 yr. 3 months prior to the relevant date	0H. 10Ares	Within Municipal Limits, near Nasik-Pune High way though not abutting the highway, situated outside Sinnar Gaothan	Rs.1,50,000/-
11	40	04.09.1987 1 yr. 6 months prior to the relevant date	9Ares	Outside Sinnar Municipal limits.	Rs.1,11,111/-
12	42	15.01.1988 1 year prior to the relevant date.	0H. 7Ares	un-cultivable land 1 Km. away from Sinnar Municipal Limits near Nasik-Pune highway, which is nearest land from acq- uired land from village Sinnar.	Rs.2,14,286/-
		Two Sale Deeds From village Malegaon :
1	41	16.03.1991 2 years after relevant date.	0H. 50 Ares	Within Malegaon Gram Panchat limits un-irrigated land, abutting acquired lands.	Rs.3,12,000/-
2	43	16.03.1991 2 years after relevant date.	0H. 50Ares	Within Malegaon Gram Panchat limits un-irrigated land, abutting acquired lands.	Rs.3,12,000/-

35. It must be borne in mind that Sinnar was already a Taluka place and there was an existing Municipal Council at Sinnar established under the aforesaid 1965 Act. The claimants have proved that Sinnar had a well established infrastructure like internal tar roads, ST.Stand, Cinema theatre, Hospitals, Schools, Colleges and various industries. We, therefore, find force in the submissions of Mr. Joshi that all the lands under acquisition had already achieved Non-Agricltural (N.A.) potentiality. Once it is held that the lands in question had achieved N.A. potentiality, then the different valuation of the said lands based on the fact as to whether they were irrigated, unirrigated or uncultivable does not stand to reason. Considering the fact that the lands in question are abutting both sides of Pune-Nasik State Highway and further considering the fact that the deposition of PW-1 Prakash Vaze to the effect that Sinnar was having all infrastructure facilities has gone unchallenged in the oral evidence as there is virtually no crossexamination on this aspect, we have no hesitation to hold that lands in question had already acquired N.A. potentiality much prior to the relevant date. Once the lands are held to be having N.A. potentiality and once it is observed that a major chunk of the acquired land was already abutting the Pune-Nasik Highway it becomes obvious that the development cost will be substantially reduced as compared to the development of a completely undeveloped tract of lands.

36. Mr. Joshi is also justified in his criticism of the Judgment of the Trial Court to the extent that the learned Judge has completely overlooked the sale instance Exh. 38 which is dated 14.07.1988 of a substantially bigger piece of land admeasuring 40 Ares or 4,000 square metre. We have carefully perused the said Sale Deed. The purchaser under the said Sale Deed is a limited company. The said Sale Deed appears to be in respect of the plot outside Sinnar Municipal Limits. The plot had been converted into N.A. user as a godown and from the location of the said land on the map Exh. 68 and from the recitals showing the boundaries of the land it is clear that the said land is not abutting the Nasik-Pune Highway but some internal road is providing access to the said land. The Sale Deed is executed about 8 months prior to the relevant date. This appears to be a genuine transaction giving complete market value between willing buyer and willing seller and we see no justification as to why the Trial Court ignored the said sale instance though it was a very relevant sale instance.

37. The Trial Court has considered the sale instance at Exh. 30 to be relevant for the purpose of arriving at the compensation. The said sale instance at Exh. 30 is of an area admeasuring 43.52 Ares. The time gap between the said Sale Deed Exh. 38 and Exh. 30 is around three years. This clearly shows that there was a phenominal increase in the prices of the lands having N.A. potentiality at the relevant time. The rate as per Exh.30 comes to Rs.94,253/- per hectare; whereas according to the Sale Deed Exh. 38 the rate is Rs.2,87,500/- per hectare.

38. In so far as the sale instances from village Malegaon which are at Exhs. 41 and 43 are concerned, they are almost two years after the relevant date and hence, the said sale instances will have to be ignored. Similarly, in so far as the sale instance of lands at Exhs. 32 and 33 are concerned, they are of a very small pieces of 3.24 Ares and 2 Ares and hence, it will not be safe to rely on the said sale instances. In so far as the sale instance at Exh. 34 is concerned, it is of a reasonably large area of 22 Ares. Similarly, the sale instance at Exh. 36 is also of a reasonably large area of 14 Ares and the said sale instances are prior to the relevant date.

39. It is now necessary to deal with the two sale instances relied upon by the Respondents. A perusal of the Sale Deed at Exh. 62 shows that the same is executed just 5 days before the cutoff date on the 4th February, 1989. However, it will be unsafe to rely upon said Sale Deed for various reasons. The Sale Deed shows that a large area admeasuring 6 Hectare, 55 Ares was shown to have been sold for a relatively smaller amount of Rs.91,250/-. The recitals in the Sale Deed shows that an Agreement For Sale was executed on 01.10.1986 by Sakharam Davkhare, father of the vendors who was thereafter not found. It is further found that without knowing about the death of said Sakharam Davkhare, his two sons had entered into execution of advance receipt on 15.06.1987 and in Agreement For Sale dated 01.11.1988. The said Sale Deed therefore, clearly shows that it was a Sale Deed in respect of the land which cannot be held to be a land with a clear title. Apart from this, the effective rate under the said Sale Deed comes to Rs. 29,198/- per hectare which is even less than the amount offered by the SLAO. Hence, it would be unsafe to rely on the said sale instance.

40. In so far as the sale instance at Exh. 63 is concerned, the same is dated 5th April, 1989 and the effective rate comes to Rs. 39,557/- per hectare which is less than the rate offered in the Award. The said Sale Deed itself recites that according to the Government valuation for stamp duty purpose the price of the land was Rs. 1,32,000/- whereas under the Sale Deed only Rs.71,400/- was being paid. Moreover, from the recitals in the said Sale Deed it is clear that the real sisters of the vendors under the said Sale Deed were also having rights in the lands. There were also encumbrances on the land and the real sisters who were co-owners of the land had not joined in the execution of the Sale Deed. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the said Sale Deed Exh. 63 can also not to be relied upon for determining the market value of the lands in question. Even the Trial Court has rightly not relied upon the said Sale Deeds.

41. It is now necessary to consider the sale instances of relatively smaller lands. The sale instance at Exh. 31 is in respect of the land admeasuring 13 Areas which is equivalent to 13,988 sq.ft. and the said sale instance is around 2 ½ years prior to the relevant date. Since Sinnar is an entirely developed area, if the cumulative increase of 15% is taken, the value of the said sale instance is Rs. 1,72,651/- per hectare. If the same exercise of 15% cumulative increase is done in respect of the sale instance at Exh. 30 that gives a figure of Rs.1,73,909/- per hectare. If the same exercise is done in respect of the sale instance at Exh.34, the effective rate is Rs.2,10,843/- per hectare. If this exercise is done in respect of the sale instance at Exh.35, the effective per hectare rate comes to Rs.2,52,101/-. The sale instance at Exh. 36 is also of a reasonably bigger piece of land admeasuring 14 Ares equivalent to 15,064 sq.ft.. and the effective rate 8 months prior to the relevant date is Rs. 3,57,143/-. The sale instance at Exh. 37 is of 5 Ares within the Sinnar Municipal Limits and the effective rate is Rs.6,20,000/- per hectare. However, if 50% deduction is done on account of large area of acquired land, still the effective rate is around Rs. 3,10,000/- per hectare. As stated above, the sale instance at Exh. 38 of a reasonably large area of 40 Ares is equivalent to 43,040 sq.ft. where the purchaser is a limited company and the land is outside Municipal Limits. The Sale Deed Exh. 39 is of 10 Ares and executed one year three months prior to the relevant date and applying the criteria of 15% increase the effective rate per hectare comes to Rs.1,83,346/-.The Sale Deed Exh. 40 is of 9 Ares of the land outside the Sinnar Municipal Limits and by applying the principle of 15% cumulative increase gives a rate of Rs.1,41,317/- per hectare. The Sale Deed Exh. 42 is dated 15.01.1988 for an area admeasuring 7 Ares which is equivalent to 7,532 sq.ft. and the actual rate is Rs.2,14,286/- per hectare. This land is the nearest land and applying criteria of 15% yearly increase, the effective rate comes to Rs. 2,52,101/-.

42. In our opinion, therefore, the sale instances at Exhs. 34 to 40 and 42 and Exhs. 30 and 31 can be considered to be relevant. We are of the opinion that sale instance of the land at Exh. 38 can be safely relied upon for various reasons. In the first place this land is not abutting the Pune Nasik Highway and is relatively inside and away from the Highway. Secondly the purchaser is a limited company and the entire consideration is shown to have been paid in cheques and thirdly the Sale Deed is in respect of the N.A. Land for a reasonably large area. If we look at the areas of acquired lands, some of the acquired lands are as large as 27.41 hectare whereas some lands are as small as 0Hectare 13.5 Ares. Even after considering the Sale Deed at Exh. 38 as a Bench Mark, appropriate deductions will have to be considered for making appropriate reduction on account of a large area of the acquired lands. In our opinion, since the Sale Deed is 8 months prior to the relevant date, around 8% addition deserves to be made on account of escalation which gives the effective rate of Rs.3,12,500/-. From this rate after a 30% deductions is made on account of largeness of the area of the acquired lands and for development costs, the effective rate comes to Rs.2,18,750/- per hectare. In our opinion, therefore, in respect of the acquired lands from village Sinnar which are abutting the Highway Rs. 2,18,750/- per hectare can be assumed to be the correct market value. In respect of the acquired lands in the village Sinnar which are not abutting the PuneNasik Highway and all the acquired lands from village Malegaon are concerned further deductions of 10% will have to be made. In our opinion, the said lands which are not abutting the Highway can be reasonably valued at Rs.1,96,875/- per hectare. The claimants will be entitled to get all the statutory benefits like special component, interest and solatium on the aforesaid values.

43. Accordingly, we partly allow all the Appeals filed by the Claimants and dismiss all the Appeals filed by the State.

44. Civil Application No. 874 of 2008 in Cross Objection (St.) No. 27195 of 2005 for condoning the delay in filing the said Cross Objection is allowed and the delay is condoned.

45. The Cross Objection (St.) No. 27195 of 2005 filed in the First Appeal No. 1860 of 2003 will also stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.

46. The Claimants will be entitled to recover proportionate costs.

47. Hence, the following order is passed :

ORDER

(a) First Appeal Nos.1773 of 2003 to 1860 of 2003 are dismissed with no orders as to costs.

(b) Civil Application No. 874 of 2008 in Cross Objection (St.) No. 27195 of 2005 for condoning the delay in filing the said Cross Objection is allowed and the delay is condoned.

(c) First Appeal Nos.1282 of 2004 to 1359 of 2004 and 1386 of 2004 and F.A. No. 644 of 2006 and the Cross Objection Stamp No.27195 of 2005 are partly allowed. The total market value of the lands from Village Sinnar which are abutting Highway is fixed at Rs.2,18,750/- Per Hectare. In respect of the acquired lands from the Village Sinnar and the Village Malegaon which are not abutting the Pune-Nashik Highway, the total market value is fixed at Rs.1,96,875/- per Hectare. In addition, the Claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Claimants shall be entitled to proportionate costs of the Land Acquisition References, First Appeals and the Cross objection filed by them from the State Government. The Impugned Judgments and Awards are modified accordingly.

(d) The exercise of determining the compensation payable as per the modified awards shall be carried out and completed by the Reference Court within a period of four months from the date on which the writ of this judgment is received by the said Court.

(e) Enhanced amounts shall be deposited by the State Government within a period of three months from the date on which determination of the amount is made by the Reference Court.

Ordered accordingly.