Summary
Farmers whose land near Jintur was acquired in the 1990s for an MIDC industrial area challenged the compensation fixed by the Reference Court, which had averaged lower sale instances while ignoring, without reasons, the highest exemplar of Rs. 72,900 per acre (sale deed dated 31.03.1990); the High Court dismissed their first appeal on a self-contradictory finding that the exemplar had been considered. The Court held that when several exemplars of similar land exist the highest bona fide exemplar is ordinarily to be adopted, averaging is permissible only where prices fall within a narrow band, and certified copies of sale deeds carry presumptive value under Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act; applying a 20 per cent deduction for the small size of the exemplar plots, it enhanced compensation to Rs. 58,320 per acre.
Issues
- Whether the High Court's finding that the Reference Court had considered the sale instance at Serial No. 4 (deed dated 31.03.1990) was sustainable.
- Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation on the basis of the highest exemplar sale deed rather than an average of lower sale instances.
- Whether the exemplar at Serial No. 4 could be excluded as abnormally high or as not proved to be a bona fide transaction.
- What deduction should be applied to exemplars of small plots when valuing a large acquired area.
Provisions considered
- Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The claimants accepted compensation under protest and sought a reference for enhancement, which the Reference Court partly allowed; the present appeals arose from the first appeal against that award. (¶¶ 4.5, 4.6, 14)
- Section 51A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894A certified copy of a registered sale deed may be accepted as evidence of the transaction it records. The claimants filed certified copies of the ten sale deeds and the State led no rebuttal evidence, so the objection that the exemplar at Serial No. 4 was not shown to be bona fide was rejected. (¶¶ 20, 43, 44)
- Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28, Land Acquisition Act, 1894On enhancing the market value, the Court directed that all consequential benefits of solatium and interest under these provisions be granted on the enhanced compensation. (¶ 51)
- Section 32(2), Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961The acquisition proceeded by notice under Section 32(2); the market value was to be determined as on the date of that notice, so pre-notification sale instances were treated as relevant and post-notification instances were used only to show the trend in prices. (¶¶ 4.3, 19, 41, 42)
Held
- The High Court recorded in paragraph 49 that the Reference Court had not considered the sale instance at Serial No. 4 and in paragraph 50 took the diametrically opposite view that it had; the finding in paragraph 50 was erroneous and the impugned judgment was not sustainable. Rather than remit, the Court decided the claim itself because the claimants are farmers whose land was taken in the early 1990s. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Having found the sale instances reliable, that the certified copies had presumptive value under Section 51A and that no rebuttal evidence was led, the Reference Court nevertheless completely overlooked the highest exemplar of Rs. 72,900 per acre while fixing the market value; it could have excluded that instance only for recorded reasons showing it to be sham or not bona fide. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- It is settled that where there are several exemplars of similar land, usually the highest exemplar which is a bona fide transaction is to be considered; averaging may be resorted to only where several sales of similar land have prices in a narrow bandwidth, and markedly different values indicate dissimilar lands or undervaluation, in which case averaging is impermissible. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 46, 47)
- The contention that the exemplar at Serial No. 4 was abnormally high was rejected: the acquired lands lie about two kilometres from Jintur, a taluka town with market facilities, near the T-point of the Nashik-Nirmal State Highway, have non-agricultural potential and a percolation tank opposite; the deed of 31.03.1990 was the sale most proximate to the notice under Section 32(2); and post-notification sales at Rs. 61,500 and Rs. 60,000 per acre were closer to Rs. 72,900 than to the Rs. 40,000 instances relied on by the Reference Court. The land was in a prime location and the claimants deserved the benefit of the highest exemplar. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42)
- The sale exemplars considered by the Reference Court (Serial Nos. 1 to 6) ranged from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 72,900 per acre, so averaging was clearly not permissible; the Reference Court could not, by omitting Serial No. 4 without reasons, confine itself to the four instances of about Rs. 40,000 and then average them. (¶¶ 48, 49)
- Since all ten exemplars were of small plots under one hectare in Jintur town while the acquired area was much larger, the Reference Court's 20 per cent deduction was approved and applied to the highest exemplar: Rs. 72,900 less Rs. 14,580, giving Rs. 58,320 per acre. (¶ 50)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's judgment dated 21.04.2022 and the Reference Court's award dated 07.06.2007 quashed and set aside; compensation enhanced from Rs. 32,000 to Rs. 58,320 per acre, with all consequential benefits of solatium and interest under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; pending applications disposed of.