Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 297 Bom
Judgement Date : 31 October, 2012

Bombay High Court
Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown on 31 October, 2012
Bench: M.N. Gilani
311012FA1140.08+3.odt
                                    1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:




                                                                        
                        NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
                        FIRST APPEAL NO.1140/2008




                                                
      APPELLANT:
           State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Buldhana,
           District : Buldhana




                                               
                                  VERSUS
      RESPONDENT:
           Suresh Ambadas Wagh, aged about 24 years, r/o Pimpalgaon
           Devi, Tq. Motala, district : Buldhana



                                       
      ===============================================
                            
      Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for the appellants
      None for the respondents.
      ===============================================
                           
                                    WITH
                        FIRST APPEAL NO.811/2009
      APPELLANT:
           State of Maharashtra, thorugh the Collector, Buldhana,
             


           District : Buldhana
          



                                  VERSUS
      RESPONDENTS:
           Devidas Shamrao Wagh [side dead by L.Rs.]
      1] Smt. Jeejabai Devidas Wagh, aged 49 years





      2] Gajanan Devidas Wagh, aged 24 years
      3] Vijay devidas Wagh, aged 18 years
      4] Sau. Shobha Prakash Vyawahare, aged 20 years
           No.1 to 3 r/o Pimpalgaon -Devi, tq. Malkapur, district :





           Buldhana No.4 r/o Malkapur, Hanumannagar, Tq.
           Malkapur, district : Buldhana
      ===============================================
      Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for the appellants
      None for the respondents.
      ===============================================




                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:53 :::
 311012FA1140.08+3.odt
                                     2

                                 WITH
                        FIRST APPEAL NO.975/2009




                                                                          
      APPELLANT:
           State of Maharashtra, thorugh the Collector, Buldhana,




                                                  
           District : Buldhana
                                  VERSUS
      RESPONDENT:




                                                 
           Rambhau Rajaram Jawre, aged about 60 years, r/o
           Pimpalgaon Devi, Tq. Motala, district : Buldhana
      ===============================================
      Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for the appellants




                                        
      None for the respondents.
      ===============================================
                             ig     WITH
                        FIRST APPEAL NO.1326/2009
                           
      APPELLANT:
           State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Buldhana,
           District : Buldhana
                                  VERSUS
             


      RESPONDENT:
           Pralhad Baliram Patil, aged about 45 years, r/o Pimpalgaon
          



           Devi, Tq. Motala, district : Buldhana
      ===============================================
      Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for the appellants





      None for the respondents.
      ===============================================

                        CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.

DATE: 31.10.2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

All these four appeals are arising from the common judgment and award dated 29.11.2004 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.171/2002, 174/2002, 173/2002 and 179/2002, whereby ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:53 ::: 311012FA1140.08+3.odt 3 the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition officer for the lands compulsorily acquired for the project - percolation tank, was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The details of the lands acquired are as under: First Survey/ Total Area Name of owner Compensation Appeal Gat No. area acquired awarded by S.L.A.O.

                            H.R.     H.R. 
      1140/08 200           1.40     0.79      Suresh   Ambadas  Rs.  39,500/- P.H.
                                               Wagh (Respdt.)
      811/09    200         1.40     0.61      Smt.        Jeejabai  Rs. 39,500/- P.H.




                                                        
                                               Devidas   Wagh   & 
                                               Others (Respdt.)
      975/09    191

                199
                            6.94

                            1.76
                                      
                                     0.86

                                     1.05
                                               Rambhau   Rajaram  Rs. 39,500/- P.H.
                                               Jaware (Respdt.)
                                     
                201         1.41     1.09
      1326/09 255           9.55     1.30      Pralhad Baliram Patil  Rs. 35,000/- P.H. 
                                               (Respdt.)
             

      LAC No.   Date of Decision      Compensation by Reference court           Appell-ant
      171/02          29/11/04                Rs. 50,000/- P.H.                   STATE
          



      174/02          29/11/04                Rs, 50,000/- P.H.                   STATE
      173/02          29/11/04                Rs, 50,000/- P.H.                   STATE
      179/02          29/11/04                Rs, 50,000/- P.H.                   STATE

      2]               Mr. Yengal, learned A G P appearing for the state





contended that no evidence was placed before the Reference Court to justify enhancement in the amount of compensation to any extent. According to him, the sale deed relied upon being of the year 1980, is not relevant since it is not proximate from time angle.

3] None appeared for the respondents.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:53 :::

311012FA1140.08+3.odt 4 4] The point that arises for consideration is :

A] Whether the learned Reference Court was justified in awarding compensation @ Rs.50,000/-
i.e. about Rs.20,000/- per acre ?

5] Honestly speaking there was no reason for the state to file appeal when compensation awarded ex-facie appears very meager and on the lower side. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.35,000/- P.H.

was enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. It is pertinent to note that all these lands were under cultivation. Crop pattern suggest that crops like cotton, hybrid jwar, pulses were grown in the land. Evidence has been lead to the effect that the land acquired was having black cotton soil with basic facilities like hospital, bus stop, schools etc. The market places like Jamthi, Malkapur etc. are in close proximity. By adopting any method to determine the market value, in no circumstance the value of such fertile land and which is under cultivation, can be less than Rs.20,000/- per acre.

6] The claimants produced on record the sale instance Exhibit 25 in L.A.C. No.114/2002 which is of the year 1980. The land area 2 acre and 5 gunthas was sold for a consideration of Rs.20,000=00. The learned Reference Court was not inclined to consider the same because it was not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:53 ::: 311012FA1140.08+3.odt 5 proximate from time angle. The fact remains that the prices of the lands have increasing trend. This is a universal truth. In absence of any other evidence and particularly evidence in rebuttal, complete ignorance of such evidence, is not justified. 7] The Reference Court made mention of the sale instance relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while determining the amount of compensation. It seems that none of these sale instances were produced on record and therefore, ought not have been considered. The other piece of evidence relied upon by the learned Reference Court is a decision rendered in other land acquisition references. Those references were about the land of the same village acquired compulsorily. Although, I do not subscribe to the approach of the learned Reference Court in dwelling into the evidence considered by the Land Acquisition Officer in those cases, however, as has been stated earlier, the compensation awarded @ Rs.50,000/- per hectare i.e. about Rs.20,000/- per acre for the lands acquired in the year 1998 being very much on the lower side, no interference with the judgment and award is warranted.

8] All these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE SMP.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:53 :::