1 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1506 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T.I.T., Collector Office, Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Latur. ...APPELLANT
ig [Ori. Respondents]
VERSES
Rahim s/o. Abdul Bagwan,
Age-68 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Dighol, Tq. Shirur (A),
Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENT
[Ori. Claimant]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1507 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T.I.T., Collector Office, Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Latur. ...APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondents]
VERSES
Digambar s/o. Raghoba Wadkar,
Age-68 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Dighol, Tq. Shirur (A),
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:58 :::
2 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors.
Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENT
[Ori. Claimant]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1508 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T.I.T., Collector Office, Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Latur. ...APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondents]
VERSES
Mukinda s/o. Maruti Dasare,
Age-52 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Dighol, Tq. Shirur (A),
Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENT
[Ori. Claimant]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1509 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T.I.T., Collector Office, Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Latur. ...APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondents]
VERSES
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:58 :::
3 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors.
Kashinath s/o. Ambaji Bevnale,
Age-66 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Dighol, Tq. Shirur (A),
Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENT
[Ori. Claimant]
-----
Mr.SP Deshmukh, AGP for Appellant;
Mr.VD Gunale, Adv. h/for Mr. SB Madde, Adv. For
Respondent/s
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
ig DATE :
15 th September,2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. Admit. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final disposal.
2) All these four appeals are filed by the State in exception to the common Judgment and Award dated 29th October, 2013 passed in Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga in LAR No.96/2012 with connected LARs.
3) The lands, which are the subject matter of the present appeals, were acquired for ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:58 ::: 4 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors. construction of percolation tank No.2 at village Dighol, Tq. Shirur Anantpal, District Latur.
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) in that regard was published in the Government Gazette on 12th April, 2007. Award under Section 11 of the Act came to be passed on 22 nd September, 2010. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.619/-
per Are and accordingly offered the amount of compensation to the respective claimants.
Dissatisfied with the compensation so offered, the claimants preferred applications under Section 18 of the Act to Collector, Latur, which in turn, were forwarded for adjudication to the Civil court. The claimants had claimed the compensation @ Rs.17500/- per Are. In order to substantiate the claim so raised, the claimants had placed on record two sale-deeds at Exh.18 and Exh.19, wherein the price received was, in one matter @ Rs.8,177/- per Are; whereas in other, @ Rs.17,305/- per Are. The State has also placed ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:58 ::: 5 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors. on record two sale instances respectively at Exh.45 and Exh.46. The learned Reference Court, after having assessed the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, determined the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1804/- per Are and accordingly enhanced the amount of compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the State has filed the present appeals.
4) Shri Deshmukh, learned AGP, submitted that the Reference Court has erred in determining the market value at the higher rate without any cogent evidence therefor. The learned AGP further submitted that the sale instance at Exh.45, which was brought on record by the State, the consideration was received to the land, which was the subject matter of the said sale-deed, @ Rs.555/- per Are; whereas in the another sale instance at Exh.46, the consideration was received @ Rs.1203/- per Are.
. The learned AGP further submitted that even if the sale instance in which higher price ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:58 ::: 6 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors. was received, was to be considered for awarding the compensation to the claimants, the compensation could not have been awarded at the rate more than Rs.1203/- per Are. The learned AGP, therefore, submitted that the Award needs to be modified and the compensation amount needs to be re-determined @ Rs.1203/- per Are instead of Rs.1804/- as awarded by the Reference Court.
5) Shri Gunale, learned Counsel holding for Shri S.B.Madde, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has awarded the compensation relying on the evidence brought on record by the State. The learned counsel further submitted that in such circumstances, in fact, the State ought not to have preferred any appeal. The learned Counsel further submitted that the claimants had, in fact, placed on record the sale instances, wherein the consideration was received @ Rs.8166/- per Are in one matter and Rs.17,305/-
per Are in another matter and the claimants were ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:59 ::: 7 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors. entitled to receive the compensation at the said rate. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6) On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is revealed that the learned Reference Court has declined to rely upon the sale instance brought on record by the claimants at Exh.18 and Exh.19 and has preferred to rely upon the sale instance brought on record by the State, which is at Exh.6. From the material on record, it is quite clear that the acquired lands were semi-irrigated lands. The sale instance at Exh.46, which was relied upon by the State was pertaining to a dry land, i.e. non-irrigated land. The consideration in that transaction was received @ Rs.1203/- per Are. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the learned Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired lands, which, as stated hereinabove, were semi-irrigated lands @ Rs.
1804/- per Are, i.e. 1 ½ times more than the consideration which was received for the dry ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:59 ::: 8 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors. land. It does not appear to me that the Reference Court has committed any error in determining the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1804/- per Are. I reiterate that the Reference Court has in fact discarded the sale instances brought on record by the claimants and has considered and relied upon the sale instance at Exh.46, which was brought on record by the Respondent/State. Though it was sought to be canvassed that at the most the compensation ought to have been determined at the same rate, as was received to the land which was the subject matter of the sale instance at Exh.46, the submission is liable to be rejected for the reason that the land which was the subject matter of Exh.46 was a dry land and the lands, which are the subject matter of the present appeals, were admittedly semi-irrigated lands.
7) After having considered the material on record and on perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court, it does not appear ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:59 ::: 9 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors. to me that any interference is required in the impugned Judgment and Award. The Reference Court has not awarded any unreasonable compensation.
On the contrary, the market value determined by the Reference Court is based on the evidence brought on record by the State. The appeals are devoid of any substances and deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to the costs. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(P.R.BORA) JUDGE bdv/ ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:59 :::