1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 124 of 2009
Appellant : Sangita Govindrao Dukare, aged Major,
Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Shivni Armal,
Tahsil Deolgaon Raja, Dist. Buldana
versus
Respondents : The State of Maharashtra, through the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Buldhana
Shri S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant
Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent
------
First Appeal No. 126 of 2009 Appellant : Parashram Vithoba Nagre, aged about 54 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Shivni Armal, Tahsil Deolgaon Raja, District Buldhana ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 01:58:54 ::: 2 versus Respondents : 1) The State of Maharashtra, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Collector Office, Buldhana
2) The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana Shri S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 14th August 2017 Oral Judgment
1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment after hearing them together, for the reason that the appellants have relied upon the same sale instance vide index entry no. II dated 26.9.1989 in order to prove their claim for enhanced compensation in respect of their respective lands acquired for the purpose of Chikhli Small Irrigation Project covered by one and the same notification.
2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellants and learned ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 01:58:54 ::: 3 Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents and on going through the record of the case, following point arises for my determination:
Whether the respective cases of the appellant deserve to be remitted back to the Reference Court for deciding them afresh ?
3. It is seen from the record that the Reference Court did not place any reliance upon the sale instance dated 26.9.1989 vide index entry no. II and it could not find sufficient material to make comparison of the acquired land with the land involved in the sale instance. In fact, what was produced by these appellants, was only a sheet containing index entry no. II in respect of sale instance dated 26.9.1989 which made a reference to existence of two wells on the land covered by the sale instance which was admeasuring 20 R and which fetched a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. This sale instance vide Index No. II was also relied upon by other claimants who had filed three appeals viz. FA No. 858 of 2008; FA No. 854 of 2008 and FA No. 861 of 2008 wherein the Reference Court similarly discarded the said sale instance. While deciding those three appeals vide common judgment delivered on 25 th May 2017, this Court in paragraph 18 observed thus : ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 01:58:54 ::: 4
"18. The appellants before this Court are struggling for receiving just compensation for their acquired lands since long. Material produced by them demonstrates that they are entitled to some increase. Reference Court has accordingly granted it to them. However, whether that increase is just or not, cannot be looked into at this stage for want of completed document of sale deed i.e. sale obtained by P. W. Pundlik. I am, therefore, inclined to give an opportunity to appellants to produce that document on record. If the said document comes on record, recitals therein can definitely help the Reference Court in finding out why rate of Rs. 1000/- per R or Rs. 1 lakh per hectare was paid by Pundlik."
4. The facts discussed earlier would show that even these two appeals are covered by the judgment of this Court delivered in afore- stated group of appeals on 25th May 2017 and, therefore, even these two appeals would deserve their remittance to the Reference Court for decision afresh in their respective Reference Applications, in accordance with law. The point is answered as in the affirmative.
5. In the result, both these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order are quashed and set aside. The cases of the ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 01:58:54 ::: 5 appellants are remitted back to the Reference Court for decisions afresh on their respective Reference Applications, in accordance with law. The Reference Court shall finally dispose of these cases in accordance with law at the earliest and in any case within nine months from the date of receipt of this order by it. Both sides shall be at liberty to adduce additional evidence in the matter. Parties to bear their own costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 01:58:54 :::