SAJAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

[2020] 4 S.C.R.

SAJAN

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal Nos. 2170-2171 of 2020)

BMARCH 17, 2020

[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition:

Acquisition of land – Comprising of cultivable as well asCnon-agricultural land used for running sugar mill – Determinationof compensation – Reference court enhanced the compensationamount treating the entire land as land meant for non-agriculturaluse and deducting 10% towards development costs – High Courtin appeal reduced the compensation amount deducting 40%towards development costs – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: TheDvalue arrived at by Reference Court is fair and reasonable – Ruleof one-third deduction towards development is general rule – Butdeduction for development may vary from 20% to 75% dependingupon purpose of acquisition etc. — In the present case, in view ofpurpose of acquisition, 20% deduction for development cost wouldEbe reasonable – Valuation of the damages of Civil work andfoundation as assessed by the High Court is affirmed – Award ofamount towards depreciated market value of electrical installationby Reference Court is affirmed – Award of amount towardsdepreciated market value of machinery and mechanical installationas awarded by High court is affirmed – The concurrent findingFfor awarding compensation for loss of business is also affirmed –compensation amount accordingly modified.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The High Court has taken Exh. 23 datedG03.06.1976 as exemplar which is the sale deed for plotadmeasuring 30x32ft. (960 sq.ft.) for Rs. 3,000/- i.e. at the rateof Rs. 3.12 per sq.ft. The appellants have also placed furtherreliance on the sale deed dated 03.02.1982 Exh. 35 wherein, theplot of admeasuring 5023 sq.ft. was sold for Rs. 35,000/- i.e. Rs.6.90 per sq.ft. The High Court has taken Exh. 23 sale deed datedH

03.06.1976 and had taken 10% increase for every year andarrived at the value at Rs.6 per sq.ft. Even going by Exh. 35sale deed (03.02.1982) under which Rs.5023 sq.ft. was sold forRs. 35,000/- i.e. Rs. 6.90 per sq.ft., Exh. 35 sale deed(03.02.1982) is after possession of the land was taken by theState Government (21.11.1981) and Section 4 Notification dated10.02.1982. Since Exh. 35 sale deed dated 03.02.1982 isbetween two dates - date of taking possession of the land andthe date of Section 4 Notification, it is necessary to adopt areasonable valuation. Considering Exh. 23 and Exh. 35, the valueadopted by the Reference Court at Rs.6.90 per sq.ft., fixationof valuation at Rs.6.90 per sq.ft., the value adopted is fair andreasonable and the same is affirmed. [Para 14] [938-C-F]

1.2 Rule of one-third deduction towards development isthe general rule. But depending upon the purpose of acquisitionand taking note of well planned layouts, if any, the deduction fordevelopment cost may vary from 20% to 75%. In the presentcase, since the land was acquired for Dam project, much of thedevelopment like in the case of layout for housing colony isnot required. 40% deduction made by the High Court appearsto be on the higher side. Considering the purpose of theacquisition and the facts and circumstances of the case, 20%deduction for development cost would be reasonable. Taking theentire land 2,61,300 sq.ft. as non-agricultural and making 20%deduction for the development cost, the value of the land iscalculated at Rs.12,54,530/- [Paras 16 and 17] [939-D; 940-A-B]

Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another (2009) 15SCC 769 : [2009] 13 SCR 622 – relied on.

Major General Kapil Mehra and Others v. Union ofIndia and Another (2015) 2 SCC 262 : [2014] 10 SCR1153 – referred to.

2. After referring to the valuation of the civil work, theevidence of PW-2 and witness No.3 for the State-Sub-DivisionalEngineer, the High Court has assessed the valuation of thedismantling costs and damages of civil work and foundation tothe tune of Rs.4,09,565/- and Rs.17,325/- for transportation costsof good materials and arrived at the total amounting to

ARs. 4,26,890/-. There is no reason to take different view andthe amount of Rs. 4,26,890/- towards damages of civil work andfoundation and transportation of good materials is affirmed. [Para18] [940-H; 941-A-B]

3. As against the amount of Rs. 3,86,867/- awarded by theBReference Court, the High Court has awarded Rs.2,39,000/-towards depreciated market value of the electrical installation.As per the project report that was initially prepared for the year1976, cost of factory installation was given at Rs. 6,93,677/- andas per award, it has been given Rs. 5,78,100/-. Referring toExh.21 report and evidence of PW-2, the Reference Court hasCawarded Rs. 3,86,867/- towards dismantling charges in respectof electrical, mechanical and re-installation. During the courseof dismantling and re-installation, there is every possibility ofthe electrical installation being damaged. Considering thefindings of the Reference Court, the High Court was not justifiedDin reducing the amount of Rs. 3,86,867/- to Rs. 2,39,000/- onthe ground of depreciated market value of electrical installation.Therefore, the amount of Rs.3,86,867/- awarded by theReference Court is affirmed. [Para 19] [941-C-E]

4. Based on the report Exh.21 and the evidence of PW-2,Ethe High Court has awarded depreciated market value ofthe machinery and mechanical installation to the tune of Rs.6,62,000/- and the same is affirmed. [Para 20] [941-F]

5. perusal of the evidence of PW-2 examined on behalfof the appellants shows that in the year 1978-79, when theFwitness visited the factory of the appellants, he noticed that theproduction of the sugar had stopped. As pointed out by theReference Court as well as by the High Court, as regards income,no statement of income had been produced. During the period1981 till 1986, the sugar mill was idle. The balance sheet forthe years 1975-76 as per Exh.33 shows that the factory wasGrunning in loss initially during the year 1975-76. Though theappellants have claimed that they were making profit ofRs. 2,00,000/- per year, no statement had been filed to show thatthe sugar factory was making profit of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The courtsbelow have recorded the concurrent findings for awarding theHcompensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for loss of business from the year

1981, the time of taking possession of the property andcompensation paid in the year 1986. The compensation amountof Rs.5,00,000/- paid towards the loss of business is also affirmed.[Para 21] [941-G-H; 942-A-C]

6. The balance amount as per the modified amount ofcompensation be paid to the appellants/claimants with allBstatutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court. [Para 23][943-C]

Case Law Reference

[2014] 10 SCR 1153referred toPara 15[2009] 13 SCR 622referred toPara 15

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2170-2171 of 2020

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2017 of the HighCourt at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal Nos. 601 of1997 and Cross Objection ST. No. 22145 of 1997

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 2172-2173 of 2020.

Shirish K. Deshpande, Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, MohitGautam, Sagar N. Pahune Patil, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Rahul Chitnis,Aaditya A. Pande, Sachin Patil, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants assailing theimpugned judgment and final order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the HighCourt of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in First AppealNo.601 of 1997 along with Cross Objection St. No.22145 of 1997 inthe First Appeal in and by which the High Court partly allowed theappeal and inter-alia reduced the compensation for the land by giving40% deduction towards development cost.

3. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that land in GatNo.85 at village Mhasekota, Tehsil Soyegaon, District Aurangabad

Aadmeasuring 6 acres (2.40 hectares) owned by the partnership firm ofthe appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 was proposed for acquisitionfor the purpose of construction of Hiwra Dam project by the office ofthe Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project Division. Accordingly,on 29.03.1982, the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notificationunder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short, “LandBAcquisition Act”) and on 03.11.1983, notification under Section 6 waspublished. Out of this acquired land, land admeasuring 0.80 hectareswas non-agricultural land used for running the Sugar Mill by thepartnership firm and the remaining was cultivable land.

4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad passed anCaward dated 01.09.1986 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Actawarding compensation considering valuation of land @ Rs.29,712/-(Rs.20,000/- per hectare for 0.80 hectares non-agricultural land,Rs.9500/- per hectare in respect of 1.44 hectare cultivable land andRs.200 per hectare in respect of 0.16 hectare Potkharaba land). ApartDfrom the costs of the land, the S.L.A.O. has also fixed the valuation ofstructure under three heads i.e. (i) Civil part/Building valuationRs.3,67,100/-; (ii) Electrical installation (now to be demolished)Rs.1,06,000/-; and (iii) Mechanical machinery (dismantling andtransportation) Rs.1,05,000/-, total Rs.5,78,100/-. To this compensationamount, statutory entitlement of 30% solatium and 12% enhancementEof compensation value w.e.f. notification under Section 4 was added.The net amount payable was calculated at Rs.36,00,385.50/-.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant and also respondents No.2 and 3 filedreference application (Land Acquisition Reference No.299/94) underSection 18 of Land Acquisition Act on the ground that market valueFhas not been properly determined. The appellant and respondents No.2and 3 further claimed damages and loss of business @ Rs.5,00,000/-per year since 1981 till 1986 to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-. The appellantsclaimed market value @ Rs.10 per sq.ft and claimed total compensationat Rs.1,69,45,111/- along with other statutory benefits.G

6. The Reference Court-Civil Judge, Senior Division,Aurangabad, vide judgment and award dated 24.04.1996 awardedcompensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.6/- per sq. ft. for the entireacquired land by treating the entire land as land meant fornon-agricultural use and deducted 10% towards development costs,HRs.3,86,867/- towards demolishing and dismantling charges of electrical,

mechanical and machinery installation, Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded forloss of earning for the period from 1981 to 1986, Rs.91,000/- towardsdamages and dismantling charges and Rs.15,000/- towardstransportation, loading and unloading along with the statutorybenefits. Thus, total additional claim of the appellant to the extent ofRs.23,73,011/- was allowed.

7. Respondent-State filed First Appeal No.601 of 1997 assailingthe aforesaid order and the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 alsofiled Cross Objection bearing St. No.22145 of 1997. Initially this cross-objection was dismissed by the High Court for non-removal ofobjections. Restoration application was also dismissed on account ofinordinate delay and the appeal filed by the respondents was partlyallowed. Against this dismissal, the appellant and respondents No.2 and3 filed appeal No.2432 of 2005 before the Supreme Court which wasallowed vide judgment dated 20.04.2011 and the matter was remittedback to the High Court for fresh disposal taking into consideration thelaw laid down by this court in recent judgements.

8. Thereafter, by impugned Judgment dated 21.08.2017, the HighCourt partly allowed the appeal as well as cross-objections and passedthe following award:-

i.Cost of the land @ Rs.6/-….Rs.9,40,896/-Eper sq.ft. (Deduction at 10%)ii.Dismantling and damage of….Rs.4,26,890/-Civil work costsiii.Replacement of electrical….Rs.2,39,000/-installationFiv.Depreciated value of….Rs.6,62,000/-machineriesv.Loss of business….Rs.5,00,000/-Total….Rs.21,60,974/-G

9. Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, learned counsel for the appellantassailed the impugned judgment contending that the High Court failedto consider the valuation certificate (Exh.-21) duly proved by PW-2-Mukund Dharashivkar-Empanelled Government Valuer whose evidenceremained unrebutted by the State Government. Further, it has been

Asubmitted that Exh.-21 proves that the civil work comes to the tune ofRs.9,55,000/-, electrical installation Rs.3,21,000/- and mechanicalinstallation Rs.10,69,000/- which totally comes to Rs.23,45,000/- and thedepreciation value comes to Rs.14,28,000/-. Totally, the valuation of thecivil, mechanical and electrical structure comes to Rs.63,80,000/- andthe valuation done by PW-21-Valuer has not been considered by theBHigh Court. It was further submitted that the High Court has completelyignored the fact that the respondents had not adduced any documentaryevidence to show that the valuation certificate (Exh.-21) issued by PW-2 is not proper and lacks precision. It was further submitted thatcomputation of loss of business @ Rs.1,00,000/- per year is completelyCerroneous. It was submitted that the High Court erred in not taking intoconsideration that the appellant had to close the sugar factory and facefinancial crisis suffering decree of civil court for recovery of loanamount as the appellant had raised loan from the bank. It was furthersubmitted that the High Court erred in making deduction of 40% though

the lands were acquired for irrigation project which does not requireDdevelopment charges like providing basic amenities like roads, wateretc. and the Reference Court rightly made deduction of 10% which isa reasonable deduction and the High Court erred in reducing thecompensation amount.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, learned counselEappearing for the State of Maharashtra has submitted that theReference Court has committed an error by considering the marketvalue of fully developed plot and comparing the same with undevelopedland. It was submitted that village Mhasekota is very small villagehaving population of one thousand, situated in remote area withoutFany development potentials and there was no potential value of theacquired land as non-agricultural land. It was further contended thatno purchaser will come forward to purchase the large area of landadmeasuring 1.44 hectares on square feet basis and without consideringthis aspect, the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation @Rs. 6.90 per sq.ft. Drawing our attention to the evidence of the StateGwitness Dilip Gudwe, Sub-Divisional Officer, it was submitted that SDOhad visited the site and factory premises and submitted report (Exh.-54) mentioning that the factory was not in operation and the machinerywas lying idle and considering the same, the High Court has recordeda finding that the claimants had closed the sugar factory. The learnedHcounsel urged that the High Court rightly reduced the compensation

awarded by the First Appellate Court and there is no ground warrantinginterference with the impugned judgment.

11. We have heard Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande and Mr. Sagar N.Pahune Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants andMr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent-State. We have carefully considered the contentions andperused the impugned judgment and materials on record.

12. The land Gat No.85 admeasuring 6 acres, situated atMhasekota in Soygaon Tahsil of Aurangabad district, owned by theappellants-claimants came to be acquired by the Government forconstruction of Hiwra medium project. The land Gat No.85 admeasuring2 hectares 40 R came to be acquired including 0.16 hectare Potkharabaland. Out of this area, land admeasuring 0.80 hectare has beenconverted into non-agriculture (N.A) purpose for installation ofKhandsari factory (sugar factory). Rest of the area admeasuring 1.44hectare is appellants claim that they have been using for non-agricultural purpose. Though the claimants had asked for non-agricultural permission for the land admeasuing 1.44 hectare out of theland Gat No.85, the same was not granted by the concerned authority.The S.L.A.O. on 29.03.1982 has published the notification under Section4 of the Land Acquisition Act and on 01.09.1986 awarded thecompensation for the acquired land admeasuring 0.80 R, since convertedinto the non-agriculture land, at the rate of Rs.2.00 per sq. meter i.e.Rs.20,000/- per hectare. The S.L.A.O. has awarded the compensationto the agricultural land admeasuring 1.44 R at the rate of Rs.9500/-per hectare. So far as Potkharaba land, which is 0.16 hectare isconcerned, the S.L.A.O. has awarded the compensation at the rate ofRs.200/- per hectare. The S.L.A.O. has awarded total compensationat Rs.29,712/- as the costs of the land, as stated above.

13. So far as the use of the entire land for non-agriculturalpurpose is concerned, the High Court found that the Reference Courtis justified in treating the entire land having the potential fornon-agricultural purpose of the remaining area – 1.44 hectare. Referringto the Project report – Exh.42 - scheme of the factory approved bythe Small Scale industries, Aurangabad, the High Court found that themain raw material required for the sugar factory is sugarcane and partof the building is used for keeping the raw materials. The High Courtfurther found that besides flow sheet, certain part of the land would be

Autilised for office building, workshop, staff quarters, etc. and also usedfor parking and various other purposes. The High Court also pointedout that the State has not adduced any evidence to the effect that theland admeasuring 1 hectare 44 R out of the acquired land was mainlyused for agricultural purpose and not for the non-agricultural purpose.In view of the concurrent findings by the Reference Court and by theBHigh Court that apart from 0.80 hectare, the land measuring 1 hectare44 R be taken as having the potential for non-agricultural purpose, wedo not find any reason to take different view.

Market value and deduction for development

C14. The High Court has taken Exh.23 dated 03.06.1976 asexemplar which is the sale deed for plot admeasuring 30x32 ft. (960sq.ft.) for Rs.3,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.3.12 per sq.ft. The appellantshave also placed further reliance on the sale deed dated 03.02.1982Exh.35 wherein, the plot of admeasuring 5023 sq.ft. was sold forRs.35,000/- i.e. Rs.6.90 per sq.ft. The High Court has taken Exh.23Dsale deed dated 03.06.1976 and had taken 10% increase for every yearand arrived at the value at Rs.6 per sq.ft. Even going by Exh.35sale deed (03.02.1982) under which Rs.5023 sq.ft. was sold forRs.35,000/- i.e. Rs.6.90 per sq.ft., Exh.35 sale deed (03.02.1982) is afterpossession of the land was taken by the State Government (21.11.1981)Eand Section 4 Notification dated 10.02.1982. Since Exh.35 sale deeddated 03.02.1982 is between two dates - date of taking possession ofthe land and the date of Section 4 Notification, it is necessary to adopta reasonable valuation. Considering Exh.23 and Exh.35, the valueadopted by the Reference Court at Rs.6.90 per sq.ft., in our view,fixation of valuation at Rs.6.90 per sq.ft., the value adopted is fair andFreasonable and the same is affirmed.

15. Taking the value at Rs.6.90 per sq.ft, the High Court deducted40% towards the development cost and calculated the value of the landat Rs.2,61,300 sq.ft. at Rs.9,40,896.00. While determining the marketvalue of the acquired land, normally one-third deduction i.e. 33 1/3%Gtowards development charges is allowed. After referring to number ofjudgments, in Major General Kapil Mehra and Others vs. Unionof India and Another (2015) 2 SCC 262, the Supreme Court heldas under:-“36. While determining the market value of the acquired land,Hnormally one-third deduction i.e. 33 1/3% towards development

charges is allowed. One-third deduction towards developmentwas allowed in Tehsildar (LA) v. A. Mangala Gowri (1991) 4SCC 218, Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab (1993) 4 SCC 245,Santosh Kumari v. State of Haryana (1996) 10 SCC 631,Revenue Divl. Officer and LAO v. Sk. Azam Saheb (2009) 4SCC 395, A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy (2010)12 SCC 707, Ashrafi v. State of Haryana (2013) 5 SCC 527and Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana (2014) 2 SCC 165.

37. Depending on the nature and location of the acquired land,extent of land required to be set apart and expenses involvedfor development, 30% to 50% deduction towards developmentwas allowed in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v.Krishan Kumar (2011) 15 SCC 297, Director, Land Acquisitionv. Malla Atchinaid (2006) 12 SCC 87, Mummidi Apparao v.Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (2009) 4 SCC 402 andLal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769.”

16. Rule of one-third deduction towards development is thegeneral rule. But depending upon the purpose of acquisition and takingnote of well planned layouts, if any, the deduction for development costmay vary from 20% to 75%. Observing that deduction towardsdevelopment can range from 20% to 75% of the price of the plot, inLal Chand vs. Union of India and Another (2009) 15 SCC 769,the Supreme Court held as under:-

“19. If the acquired land is in semi-developed urban area, andnot an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for developmentmay be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as somebasic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: Thepercentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subjectto proof to the contrary.)

22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory developmentauthorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewagetreatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. inaddition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks,playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of theaforesaid examples is only to show that the “deduction fordevelopment” factor is variable percentage and the range ofpercentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%.”

ABC

A17. In the present case, since the land was acquired for theconstruction of Hiwra Dam project, much of the development like inthe case of layout for housing colony is not required. In our view,40% deduction made by the High Court appears to be on the higherside. Considering the purpose of the acquisition and the facts andBcircumstances of the case, 20% deduction for development cost wouldbe reasonable. Taking the entire land 2,61,300 sq.ft. as non-agriculturaland making 20% deduction for the development cost, the value of theland is calculated at Rs.12,54,530/- as under:-

Value of the land

Valuation of the construction/civil works

18. PW-2-Mukund Dharashivkar in his valuation report Exh.21has considered the valuation of the civil work and foundation under fourheads:- (i) reproduction costs; (ii) market value as on today;E(iii) dismantling costs and damages; and (iv) transportation costs of goodmaterials. The reproduction costs has been shown as Rs.9,55,020/-whereas, the market value as on the date of report has been shown atRs.5,26,575/- and Rs.4,09,565/- has been shown under the head ofdismantling costs and damages and further Rs.17,325/- has been shownas transportation costs of good materials. PW-2-Mukund DharashivkarFhas deposed that the valuation of the civil work is Rs.5,26,575/- andthat it includes the valuation of foundation embedded in the earth. Asreferred to by the High Court in its judgment in Para (28), PW-2-MukundDharashivkar has considered the civil work and foundation with regardto power house, office and workshop, staff quarter, water storage tankGand other infrastructure/constructions with size, specifications and thenumber of items. Per contra, witness No.3 for the State,Sub-Divisional Engineer, Mr. Dilip Gudwe has assessed the valuationof civil work amounting to Rs.3,67,100/-. After extracting the relevantportion of the judgment of the Reference Court as to the valuation ofthe civil work, the evidence of PW-2 and witness No.3 for the State-HSub-Divisional Engineer, the High Court has assessed the valuation of

the dismantling costs and damages of civil work and foundation to thetune of Rs.4,09,565/- and Rs.17,325/- for transportation costs of goodmaterials and arrived at the total amounting to Rs.4,26,890/-. We donot find any reason to take different view and we affirm the amountof Rs.4,26,890/- towards damages of civil work and foundation andtransportation of good materials.

Electrical installation and re-installation

19. As against the amount of Rs.3,86,867/- awarded by theReference Court, the High Court has awarded Rs.2,39,000/- towardsdepreciated market value of the electrical installation. As per the projectreport that was initially prepared for the year 1976, cost of factoryinstallation was given at Rs.6,93,677/- and as per award, it has beengiven Rs.5,78,100/-. Referring to Exh.21 report and evidence ofPW-2-Mukund Dharashivkar, the Reference Court has awardedRs.3,86,867/- towards dismantling charges in respect of electrical,mechanical and re-installation. During the course of dismantling andre-installation, there is every possibility of the electrical installationbeing damaged. Considering the findings of the Reference Court, in ourview, the High Court was not justified in reducing the amount ofRs.3,86,867/- to Rs.2,39,000/- on the ground of depreciated market valueof electrical installation. Therefore, the amount of Rs.3,86,867/- awardedby the Reference Court is affirmed. For the dismantling of theelectrical installation and re-installation of the same, the amountof Rs.2,39,000/- awarded by the High Court is enhanced toRs.3,86,867/- as awarded by the Reference Court.

Replacement cost of machinery and mechanical installation

20. Based on the report Exh.21 and the evidence of PW-2, theHigh Court has awarded depreciated market value of the machineryand mechanical installation to the tune of Rs.6,62,000/- and the sameis affirmed.

Loss of business

21. perusal of the evidence of PW-2-Mukund Dharashivkarexamined on behalf of the appellants shows that in the year 1978-79,when the witness has visited the factory of the appellants, he noticedthat the production of the sugar was stopped. As pointed out by theReference Court as well as by the High Court, as regards income, nostatement of income had been produced. During the period 1981 till

A1986, the sugar mill was idle. The balance sheet for the years 1975-76as per Exh.33 shows that the factory was running in loss initially duringthe year 1975-76. Though the appellants have claimed that they weremaking profit of Rs.2,00,000/- per year, as pointed out by the courtsbelow, no statement had been filed to show that the sugar factory wasmaking profit of Rs.2,00,000/-. The courts below have recorded theBconcurrent findings for awarding the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- forloss of business from the year 1981, the time of taking possession ofthe property and compensation paid in the year 1986. The compensationamount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid towards the loss of business is alsoaffirmed.

22. The compensation awarded to the appellants under variousheads is modified as under:-

Sr.Description ofBy the HighBy theNo.ItemsCourtSupreme CourtDi.Land valueRs.9,40,896/-Rs.14,42,707/-ii.Civil workRs.4,26,890/-Amountconfirmediii.Replacement ofRs.2,39,000/-Rs.3,86,867/- aselectrical installationawarded by theEReference Courtiv.Depreciated valueRs.6,62,000/-Amountof the machinery andconfirmedmechanical installationv.Loss of business fromRs.5,00,000/-Fthe year 1981 to 1986Amountconfirmed

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State, it is statedthat the office of the Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium ProjectDivision-1 has deposited the decreetal amount of Rs.72,02,224/- by wayGof cheque deposited in the Civil court. Further the amount ofRs.10,00,000/- has been paid to the appellant on 21.09.2018 by way ofcheque bearing No.000081 vide receipt No.0114362 and the amountof Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid to the appellants on 02.11.2018 by wayof the cheque bearing No.000094 (receipt No.0114663). It is stated thatHthe appellant has also executed the receipt of the above said amount

and has also executed an acknowledgement to the effect that, his entireclaim has been settled. As per the modified amount of compensation,the appellants are entitled to the balance amount.

23. In the result, the impugned judgment and final order dated21.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Benchat Aurangabad in First Appeal No.601 of 1997 along with CrossObjection St. No.22145 of 1997 in the First Appeal, is modified as statedabove in Para (22) and these appeals are partly allowed. The balanceamount as per the modified amount of compensation be paid to theappellants/claimants with all statutory benefits as awarded by theReference Court.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals partly allowed.