NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1107 · Decided: 17-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
NAMDEO SHANKAR GOVERDHANE (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10217-10250 Of 2011 etc.)
JULY 17, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
s. 11 – Acquisition of land – Compensation – Determination
of, after classifying the land into three categories viz. ‘Jirayat’,
‘Bhagayat’ and ‘Pot Kharab’ lands –  Rate of compensation
enhanced by civil court in reference u/s. 18 –  In appeal by State,
High Court reduced the compensation as regards ‘Jirayat’ and
‘Bhagayat’ lands while enhancing the compensation as regards ‘Pot
Kharab’ land –  Appeal to Supreme Court by some of the landowners
challenging the order whereby compensation rate was reduced –
Held: High Court rightly appreciated the evidence i.e. three sale
deeds filed by the State and three sale deeds filed by the landowners
for determining the market value – The marginal reduction of rates
in two types of land cannot be faulted with.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The High Court rightly appreciated the evidence
and especially the 3 sale deeds filed by the State and 3 sale deeds
filed by the landowners for determining the market value of the
acquired land. [Para 21] [1111-F]
2. It is not correct to say that since the land in question was
an agricultural land and, therefore, price of small piece of land
can be taken into consideration for determining the large chunk
of land. [Para 28] [1113-B]
3. The relevant sale deed to determine the market value
of the suit land is (EX- 141). It is very near to the date of acquisition
(03.03.1994); and it is for a larger chunk of land. If relince is
placed only upon Ex-141, then perhaps the determination made
by the High Court in relation to two kinds of land can still be
reduced. Since the State has not filed any appeal against the order
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1107
1107
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
of the High Court and on the other hand has accepted the
determination made by the High Court,  the question of reducing
the rate determined by the High Court need not be examined. It
is not legally permissible. Exclusive reliance cannot be placed
on Ex-P-42 as was urged by the appellants neither for restoring
the rates determined by the Civil Court and nor for making any
further enhancement in the rates determined by the High Court.
Ex-P-42 is of the year 1989 and that too of a very small piece of
land. [Paras 24, 25, 26 and 27] [1112-D-H]
4. The High Court, therefore, rightly took into
consideration all the six sale deeds and then on appreciation of
entire evidence rightly came to a conclusion that the rates
determined by the Civil Court in relation to ‘Jirayat’ and ‘Bagayat’
lands appeared to be on higher side and hence need to be reduced.
The marginal reduction of the rates in two types of land, which is
based on cogent reasoning of the High Court, cannot, therefore,
be faulted with. [Para 29] [1113-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  Civil Appeal Nos. 10217-
10250 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2007 of the  High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal Nos. 2673, 2678-2695, 2697-
2708 and 2710-2712 of 2006.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 10305-10308, 10309 of 2011.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Ms. Gwen Kartika, Ms. Abha R.Sharma,
Shivaji M. Jadhav,  Advs. for the Appellants.
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Yogesh S.Kolte, Ms. Surabhi Guleria,
Mahesh P. Shinde, Ms. Deepa M.Kulkarni, Nishant Ramakantrao
Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orders
passed by the High Court of  Judicature at Bombay dated 11.10.2007  in
First Appeal Nos.2673, 2678-2695, 2697-2708, 2710-2712 and 2674-2677
of 2006 and order dated 23.08.2007 in First Appeal No.1241 of 2007.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1109
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these
appeals, which involve a short question.
3. The appellants are the landowners (claimants) whereas the
respondents are the State of Maharashtra and its authorities in the
proceedings before the Trial Court out of which these appeals arise.
4. In exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the State of Maharashtra
issued a notification on 03.03.1994 for acquiring land measuring 26,554.39
hectares situated in village Sanjegaon, Taluka Igatpuri District Nasik
(MH). The purpos
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.