N.Santosh Hegde and B.P.Singh, JJ. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) LEAVE granted. The appellants are the owners of the land situated in Akola district, Maharashtra. The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) proposing to acquire the lands belonging to the appellants. A notice was also issued to the appellants under Section 9 of the Act for submitting their claim to compensation in respect of the area under acquisition. The appellants submitted their claim contending that the land under acquisition was converted to non-agricultural use by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola, dated 3.3.1983. The appellants also pointed out that by the said order, residential layouts were sanctioned in the lands sought to be acquired and plots were also demarcated. The appellants also pointed out that the lands in question were surrounded by developed colonies with residential quarters, industries, market-yards and other commercial complexes in the near vicinity. The appellants also contended that the land is close to national highway and State bus-stand. On the said basis, the appellants claimed a compensation @ Rs. 1.75 per sq. ft. Based on the claim of the appellants, the Collector who held an inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, called for information report from the Assistant Director of Town Planning for determination of the compensation payable. The said Assistant Director of Town Planning in turn referred the matter to the Director, Town Planning, Pune, who as per his letter dated 20.10.2000 taking into consideration the non-agricultural potentiality of the lands and other prevailing factors, directed that the lands in question should be valued taking into consideration the non-agricultural potentiality of the land. Based on the said recommendation of the Director of Town Planning, the Asstt. Director, Town Planning, evaluated the land and held that the total value of the land is Rs. 21,76,622 per hectare. The said finding was given also taking into consideration the sales transactions of the lands in the near vicinity. The Land Acquisition Officer (the Collector) on the basis of the said report, prepared a proposed award wherein he fixed the plot area as 53,991 sq. metres and fixed the valuation at Rs. 130 per sq. metre. From the said valuation, he deducted 8% towards the period of 2 years which would be required for selling of the plots by the appellants and after giving deduction to such de-ferred payment, he fixed the compensation payable to the appellant at Rs. 1,82,29,048. The said proposed award was sent to the Commissioner, Amravati Division, respondent No. 2 herein, as required under the proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Act for his approval. The said Commissioner as per his order dated 28.3.2001 after reappreciating the material on record, came to the conclusion that the lands in question remained to be agricultural lands, therefore, the value fixed by the Collector treating the same as po-tentially non-agricultural land, was erroneous and he came to the con-clusion that the value should be Rs. 72,400 per hectare. He also recon-sidered the additions and deductions made by the Collector and came to the conclusion that the valuation made by the Collector was improper, hence directed the Collector to refix the compensation as directed in his order dated 28.3.2001.
(3.) IT is against this order of the Commissioner made under the proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Act that the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Mumbai, Nagpur Bench, contending that the Commissioner acting under the proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Act had no jurisdiction to reappreciate the material found in the records of the Collector as an appellate authority. IT was also contended that the authority of the Commissioner acting under the said provision of law was only to approve or not to approve the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer (the Collector). The High Court rejected this contention holding that the Commissioner under the Act, when required to give prior approval for the award, can reappreciate the material relied on by the Collector, hence the High Court held that the order of the Commissioner did not call for interference, hence, dismissed the writ petition. The High Court also held that if the appellants were aggrieved by the reduction in the market value, they could approach the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel-lants, reiterated the contention of the appellants urged before the High Court and further contended that under the Scheme of the Act, the proceeding before the Collector under Section 11 is a quasi-judicial proceeding wherein the Land Acquisition Officer is statutorily required to make an award taking into consideration the factors enumerated in the said section after giving notice to the interested persons. In the said proceedings, the determination of the market value or the compensation payable to the claimants is to be done on the satisfaction of the Collector based on the material on record and not based on any of the authority's satisfaction. Learned counsel contended that the requirement of prior approval found in the proviso to Section 11 (1) is not an appellate power but only an administrative act of accepting or not accepting the proposed award made by the Collector, therefore, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence. While exercising the said authority of approval of the Collector's award the Commissioner at the most may not grant approval of the said award, but he cannot sit in appeal against the said award.;