NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5475 OF  2007   

Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs.  … Appellant(s)  

Versus

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon … Respondent

  With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5477 OF  2007   

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5485 OF  2007   

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5484 OF  2007   

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5479 OF  2007   

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5482 OF  2007    

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5478 OF  2007   

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5481 OF  2007   

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5480 OF  2007   

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5476 OF  2007  

J U D G M E N T

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 9.11.2006 of the  

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the appeals preferred by  

the respondent  under  Section 54 of  the Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (for  

short, ‘the Act’)   were allowed and the amount of compensation determined  

by Civil  Judge,  Senior  Division,  Jalagaon,  (hereinafter  described as,  ‘the  

Reference Court’) was substantially reduced.   

2. By notification dated 14.3.1996 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act,  

the Government of Maharashtra initiated the proceedings for the acquisition  

of  various  parcels  of  land  including  those  belonging  to  the  appellants  

situated in villages Deoli Bhoras and Bilakhed, Taluka Chalisgaon, District  

Jalgaon for  Minor  Irrigation Tank, Deoli  Bhoras.   The declaration under  

Section 6 was issued sometime in April  1997.  Special Land Acquisition  

Officer,  Jalgaon  (respondent)  passed  award  dated  31.3.1999  and  fixed  

market value of the acquired land by dividing the same into three groups.  

For land falling in Group I, i.e.  Jirayat land, the respondent fixed market  

value at Rs.68,000/- per hectare.  For Group II and Group I lands he fixed  

market  value  at  the  rate  of  Rs.58,000/-  and  Rs.54,000/-  per  hectare  

2

respectively.  For pot kharab land, market value was fixed at Rs.15,00/- per  

hectare.       

3. The appellants accepted the compensation under protest and then filed  

applications  under  Section  18  of  the  Act  for  determination  of  the  

compensation  by the  Court.   On a  reference  made  by the  Collector,  the  

Reference  Court  examined  the  pleadings  of  the  parties  and  framed  the  

following issues:

1) What  is  the  market  price  of  the  land  on  the  date  of   notification u/Sec. 4 of L.A. Act?

2) Does the petitioner prove that he accepted the amount of  compensation under protest?

3) Does the petitioner prove that the market price of land   determined by the L.A.O. is inadequate?

4) Is the petitioner entitled to enhance compensation?

5) What order?  

4. The Reference Court then considered the evidence produced by the  

parties  including  sale  deed  Exhibit  28  by  which  92  ares  Jirayat  land  

comprised in Gat No. 97/1 was sold at the rate of Rs.2,76,041/- per hectare,  

7/12 extracts marked as Exhibits 13 to 27 and fixed market value of Jirayat  

land at the rate of Rs.3 lacs per hectare.  The Reference Court also referred  

to the statement of Arjun Sukdeo Patil who deposed that there were wells in  

3

the acquired land and fixed market value of such land at the rate of Rs.6 lacs  

per hectare by treating the same as Bagayat land.  The Reference Court then  

adverted  to  the  testimony  of  Shri  Ravindra  Ghanshyam  Chaudhari,  

Agriculture and Horticulture Consultant and accepted the valuation made by  

him in respect  of the trees standing on different  portions of the acquired  

land.   The Reference Court also held that for pot kharab, the land owners  

are entitled to 50% of the compensation determined for Jirayat land.   

5. While  dealing  with  the  appeals  filed  by  the  respondent,  the  High  

Court referred to the award passed by the respondent, the evidence produced  

by the parties and held that the Reference Court committed a serious error by  

recording a finding that the acquired land included Bagayat land.   The High  

Court refused to rely upon  Exhibit 28 by observing that there must be some  

special reasons for payment of higher price by the purchaser because various  

other  sale  instances  of  two  villages  indicated  that  the  cost  of  land  was  

between Rs.23,438/- and  Rs.1 lac per hectare.  As regards the trees, the  

High Court discarded the report of the valuer on the premise that the same  

had been submitted after the award was passed by the respondent.   

6.  Shri  Pallav  Shishodia,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the  

4

reasons assigned by the High Court for discarding Exhibit 28 are not only  

irrelevant  but  are  based on pure  conjectures.   He emphasized  that  while  

determining the amount of compensation, the Reference Court was entitled  

to take into consideration the sale instance which represented highest value  

paid for similar land and the High Court committed an error by basing its  

judgment on the average value of the sale instances referred to in the award  

passed by the respondent.  In support of this argument, Shri Shishodia relied  

upon the judgments of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v.  

Collector, (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC),  State of Punjab v.  Hans Raj, (1994) 5  

SCC 734 and Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa and another, (2010) 13  

SCC 710.  Learned senior counsel further argued that the finding recorded  

by the Reference Court on the issues of the nature of land and valuation of  

the trees was based on correct appreciation of the evidence produced by the  

parties and the High Court was not at all justified in reducing the amount of  

compensation by treating the entire land as Jirayat.   In the end, he submitted  

that  the  appellants  have  already  received  the  amount  of  enhanced  

compensation and keeping in view the fact  that  they have virtually been  

made landless, this Court may set aside the impugned judgment and restore  

the award passed by the Reference Court.   

5

7. Shri  Sanjay  Kharde,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent  

supported the impugned judgment and argued that the High Court rightly  

reduced the compensation determined by the Reference Court  by taking into  

consideration average of various sale instances produced on behalf of the  

acquiring  authority  and  in  exercise  of  power  under  Article  136  of  the  

Constitution, this Court may not interfere with the finding of fact recorded  

by the High Court that the entire acquired land was Jirayat and no portion  

thereof was Bagayat.   

8. We have considered the respective arguments and carefully perused  

the record.  Admittedly, the appellants had produced and proved Exhibit 28  

vide which 90 ares of Jirayat land of village Bilakhed was sold on 2.2.1995,  

i.e.  prior  to  the  acquisition  in  question  at  the  rate  of  Rs.2,76,041/-  per  

hectare.  The Reference Court applied the rule of 10% annual increase in the  

prices of land and concluded that the appellants would be entitled to market  

value at the rate of Rs.3 lacs for Jirayat land.  The Reference Court also  

referred to the statement of Arjun Sukdeo Patil who was examined on behalf  

of the appellants, 7/12 extracts marked Exhibits 13 to 27 and held that they  

have been able to prove that parts of their land were Bagayat and for such  

land they are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6 lacs per hectare.  

6

As regards valuation of trees, the Reference Court referred to the testimony  

of Shri Ravindra Ghanshyam Choudhari and observed:

“So far  as the valuation of  trees are concerned,  the claimant  have examined valuer Shri Ravindra Gahnshyam Chaudhari at  Exh. 33.  He passed M. Sc. (Agri.) in the year 1978.   He is  working as Agri. & Horticulture consultant since 1993.  He has  produced attested certified copy of certificate at Exh. 34 and 35.  It  is  in his  evidence that  on 16.5.1996 to 21st May 1996, he  visited the acquired lands and identified with the help of 7/12  extract, village Sarpanch and claimants.  The reports placed on  record at Exh. 36 to 41 respectively.  He has given the details of  number  of  trees,  present  and  future  age,  general  condition,  height, width, spread, annual fruit production capacity.  From  the wholesale market and fuel value in details in the report, and  calculated the value on the basis of Miram’s table laid down by  the  Agri.   And  Horticulture  Deptt.   Govt.  of  Maharashtra.  Nothing  much  damaging  to  the  evidence  of  this  valuer  is  disclosed in the cross-examination.  Considering all the factors  and  further  considering  the  valuation  of  Shri  Ravindra  G.  Chaudhari,  which  is  supported  by  the  claimants  evidence  to  who the market rates of fruits value and other factors. I hold  that  the  valuation  made  by  the  claimant’s  valuer  is  more  effective.   Hence,  considering  these  factors  on  record  and  assessing the valuation made by the calimant’s valuer.  I fixed  the market value of the respective fruit trees as follows.   

Serial. Gat Nos. Types of  Trees Valuation of trees @ 80%  Nos. of valuation made by

claimant’s Valuer.     

01) 87/B 7-Jujubee Rs. 53,620.00 7 x 7660

02) 42/A/2 5-Jujubee Rs. 35,375.00 5x7075

7

03) 9/2 10-Jujubee Rs. 76,560.00 10 x 7656

01 Lime Rs. 13,469.00

04) 151/1 21-Jujubee Rs. 1,35,030.00 21 x 6430

07-Tambrine Rs. 1,06,897.00 7 x 6430

03-Mango Rs. 77,007.00 3 x 35669

05) 57 08-Jujubee Rs. 52,920.00 8 x 6615

06-Custard Apple Rs. 36,258.00 6 x 6615

02 Mango Rs. 45, 224.00 2 x 22612

61 184-Pomegranate Rs 10,27,456.00 184 x 5584

60- Pomegranate Rs. 2,66, 820.00 60 x 4447

25- Pomegranate Rs.  82,750.00 25 x 3310

10-Jujubee Rs. 54,150.00” 10x 5415

8

9. The  Reference  Court  then  briefly  referred  to  the  award  of  the  

respondent and held that the classification made by him solely on the basis  

of the revenue assessment was totally arbitrary and unjustified.   

10. The High Court reversed the findings of the Reference Court on all  

the counts.  The High Court discarded Exhibit 28 by observing that there  

may be some special reasons for which the purchaser may be willing to offer  

Rs.3  lacs per  hectare  for  such land.   This  is  evident  from the following  

observations made in the impugned judgment:

“If  we take these  details  into account,  it  is  evident  that  sale  instance relied upon by claimant, which shows market price @  Rs.3,00,000/- for jirayat land, is not safe to rely upon.  This is  because,  that  being  price  offered  by willing  purchaser,  there  may  be  some  special  reasons  for  which  the  purchaser  was  willing to offer Rs.3.00 lacs per hectare of jirayat land, when  trend of the transactions shows that bagayat lands were being  sold @ Rs.1 lakh per hectare or so.  In order to rely upon that  instance,  it  was incumbent  upon the claimants  to show what  was special about that jirayat land and not only that, but also to  establish  on  record  that  acquired  lands  also  enjoy  same  speciality.”

11. In our  view,  the  approach adopted  by the  High Court  was  clearly  

erroneous.  There is no basis for the assumption that the purchaser of the  

land must  have  offered  higher  price  for  special  reasons.  Exhibit  28  was  

proved by Shri Arjun Sukdeo Patil, who had appeared as witness on behalf  

9

of the appellants.  It was open to the counsel for the respondent to cross-

examine the witness and elicit the special reasons, if any, for sale of land  

allegedly at a higher price.  However, the fact of the matter is that no such  

question was put to the witness.  As a matter of fact, it is neither the pleaded  

case of the respondent nor it has been argued before us that the sale deed  

Exhibit 28 had not been proved or that the price mentioned therein was not  

the highest price paid for Jirayat land in the area.  Therefore, we have no  

hesitation to hold that the High Court was not right in interfering with the  

fixation of market value by the Reference Court for Jirayat land at the rate of  

Rs.3 lacs and for Bagayat land at the rate of Rs.6 lacs per hectare.  The mere  

fact that average sale price of the transactions relied upon by the respondent  

was substantially less could not be made a ground for discarding Exhibit 28.  

In  M.  Vijayalakshmamma  Rao  Bahadur  v.  Collector  (supra),  this  Court  

considered a question similar to the one raised in this appeal and observed:

“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  Ext.  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 `1961 per  

10

ground.  The  land  covered  by  Ext.  R-27  was  also  sold  before the notification but after the land comprised in Ext.  R-19 was sold. It is true that this land was sold at `1096 per  ground.  This,  however,  is  apparently  because  of  two  circumstances.  One  is  that  betterment  levy  at  `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  deeds  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.”

In State of Punjab v. Hans Raj (supra), this Court held as under:

“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  

11

acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to  determine the market value.”

In Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa and another (supra), the Court  

again considered the same issue and held:

“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  `57.50  per  square  metre.  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.”

12. In view of the law laid down in the above noted three judgments, it  

must  be held that the High Court committed an error by refusing to rely  

upon Exhibit 28 on the ground that the average sale price of the transactions  

relied upon by the respondent was far less than the price for which land was  

sold vide Exhibit 28.   

13. The High Court  was  also  not  right  in  upsetting  the finding of  the  

Reference Court on the issue of nature of land.    In his deposition, Arjun  

Sukdeo Patil categorically stated that there were wells in the lands of the  

appellants  and there were Jujubee,  Tambrine,  Mango,  Pomegranate  trees.  

12

This was supported by the entries  contained in 7/12 extracts.   The High  

Court discarded the evidence of the appellants by observing that they had  

not cultivated sugarcane and wheat.   When it was not in dispute that there  

were wells in the acquired land, the mere fact that the appellants had not  

cultivated sugarcane or wheat cannot lead to an inference that the land was  

not irrigated and, in our view, there was no valid reason for the High Court  

to interfere with the finding recorded by the Reference Court that parts of the  

lands were Bagayat and for such land they were entitled to compensation @  

Rs. 6 lacs per hectare.   

14. The  High  Court  also  committed  error  by  rejecting  the  reports  

submitted by Shri Ravindra Ghanshyam Choudhari, who was examined by  

the appellants.  This witness is a consultant in Agriculture and Horticulture.  

He personally  visited the acquired land and gave the details  of  the trees  

standing  on  different  parts  of  the  land,  their  present  and  future  age,  

condition, height, width, spread and annual fruit production capacity.  The  

valuation made by him was amply supported by the market rates of fruits  

fixed  by  Agriculture  and  Horticulture  Department  of  Government  of  

Maharashtra.   In  the  cross-examination,  the  witness  stood  by  reports  

Exhibits 36 to 41 given by him.  This being the position, the High Court had  

13

no reason to overturn the finding recorded by the Reference Court on the  

issue of existence of trees on the acquired land and their valuation.

15. Learned counsel for the parties did not address any argument on the  

fixation of market value of pot kharab land.  Therefore, we do not consider it  

necessary to delve into that issue.

16. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment is set  

aside and the award passed by the Reference Court is restored.  The parties  

are left to bear their own costs.   

…………………………………J.  [G. S. Singhvi]

………………………………….J. [H. L. Dattu]

New Delhi, November 01, 2011

14