fa1110.08+.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1110 OF 2008
Manoj Kisan Jadhao,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1108 OF 2008
Nandu Bandu Rathod (Jadhao),
Aged about 28 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 2
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1109 OF 2008
Subhash Kalu Jadhao,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 3
FIRST APPEAL NO.1111 OF 2008
Subhash Vishnu Rathod,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1112 OF 2008
Digambar Motiram Jadhao,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 4
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1113 OF 2008
Tulshiram Kesho Jadhao,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1128 OF 2008
1] Vijay Kisan Jadhao,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 5
2] Manohar Kisan Jadhao,
Aged about 22 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Mahagaon,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1129 OF 2008
Kisan Chanda Naik
Aged about 60 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 6
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1130 OF 2008
Motiram Keshao Naik,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1131 OF 2008
Sitaram Jairam Jadhao (since deceased
through his legal representatives)
1] Dattu s/o Sitaram Jadhao,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ: Cultivator.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 7
2] Ramesh s/o Sitaram Jadhao,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ: Cultivator.
3] Sau. Gangabai w/o Rohidas Rathod,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Household.
4] Sau. Jamunabai w/o Datta Rathod,
Aged about 27 years,
Occ: Household.
All are residents of Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1132 OF 2008
Pramod Kisan Jadhao,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 8
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2008
Raghunath Kalu Jadhav,
Aged about 34 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 9
CORAM: DR. (SMT.) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE: th
5 JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] As all these appeals are arising out of one and same
judgment of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad dated 27.08.2007, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2] Brief facts of the appeals are as follows:
Appellants herein are the original claimants whose lands came to be acquired in Land Acquisition Proceeding No.6/47/1996-1997, by virtue of notification dated 23.03.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and by common award dated 19.06.2000. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, appellants had earlier approached the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhanced amounts of compensation in respect of their acquired lands. The Reference Court, to some extent enhanced the compensation. However, being not satisfied with the said enhancement, they have approached before this Court, by filing various appeals under ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 ::: fa1110.08+.J.odt 10 Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3] As per the contention of the appellants, their lands were fertile, having black soil and high potentiality. They used to take crops like Cotton, Jowar, Tur, Mung, Sugarcane etc. and some of them had orange, so also, other valuable trees in their lands. It is their further case that these lands were situated in village Ghamapur, which is near the other developed villages like Gulsawangi and Dhanki. Vasant Co-operative Sugar Factory, Pushpavanti Sugar Factory and Babasheb Naik Spinning Mill were also adjacent to village Ghamapur. Therefore, these lands were having great potential and their market price was much higher than the one, which is awarded by the Reference Court. It is their contention that none of the material aspect, which has bearing on the market price of the acquired land, was considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Moreover L.A.O. has categorized these lands in five different categories depending on their land revenue and awarded different rates of compensation. It is submitted that such classification or the categorization of the lands, on the basis of land revenue is totally unjustified. The Reference Court has however, maintained the same categorization and awarded marginal increase in the amount of compensation. It is urged that ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 ::: fa1110.08+.J.odt 11 the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation for different categories of the land in the range of Rs.16,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, whereas the Reference Court has enhanced the same in the range of Rs.42,000/- to Rs.55,000/-. Reference Court has awarded the meagre amount of Rs.5000/- per hectare to the lands in all the groups, which had their independent source of irrigation namely the well. According to learned counsel for the appellants, considering the fact that for the acquisition of the land, situated at village Kurali, which is near to the village Ghamapur, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per hectare and as the lands of the appellants were also acquired for the same project at Amdapur, Tah. Umarkhed, they are also entitled to the same amount of compensation. 4] As against it, submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that both the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court has, after properly taking into consideration all the aspects, including the potentiality and the market value of the sale instances produced before them, had determined the amount of compensation, which is just and fair, hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 ::: fa1110.08+.J.odt 12 5] Hence the only issue arising for my consideration in these appeals is whether the compensation as enhanced by the Reference Court is just, adequate and fair?
6] The perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court goes to reveal that it has maintained the classification of the lands in five different groups, as was done by the L.A.O. and this classification was made on the basis of the land revenue of those lands. Needless to state that the land revenue alone cannot decide the market value of the land. The market value of the land depends upon several other factors like its fertility, potentiality, the location where they are situated, whether they are irrigated or not etc. The market value of the land also depends upon the prevailing market rate for which the sale instances are executed and produced before the Land Acquisition Officer and also before the Reference Court. Hence, it is now well settled that classification of lands on the basis of land revenue is not the correct and proper way to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to those lands. Especially in the present case, when all these lands are situated at the same village and more or less adjacent to each other or in the same vicinity and they are also acquired for the same project, then the categorization of these ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 ::: fa1110.08+.J.odt 13 lands on the basis of the land revenue is totally unwarranted and unjustified. Therefore, to that extent at the out set itself interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. As Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for these various categories of the land in the range of Rs.42,000/- to Rs.55,000/- per hectare, the highest compensation, which was awarded at the rate of Rs.55,000/- needs to be accepted now as base for determining the fair, adequate and reasonable amount of compensation. 7] In this respect, the Reference Court has considered various sale instances, the first and foremost being the sale instance of the land admeasuring 0.40 hectare out of Survey No.147 of village Narali executed on 31.12.1996 by one Rangrao Shankarrao Jadhao in favour of Santosh Jadhao for consideration of Rs.70,000/-.
8] There is one more sale-deed produced by the appellants herein which pertains to the land admeasuring 0.40 R out of Survey No.17 of village Jam. The said sale-deed was executed by Nilkanthrao Kondbarao Pandagale on 26.12.1996 for consideration of Rs.50,000/- in favour of Audhutrao Uttamrao ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 ::: fa1110.08+.J.odt 14 Naik.
9] The appellants had also placed on record the copy of the award dated 30.08.2005 in Land Acquisition Proceeding No.9/47/1999-2000 of village Amdapur, wherein the land bearing Gat No.27 and 98 of the said village were acquired for construction of houses for project affected persons. In the said Land Acquisition Case No.349/2002, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was Rs.1,18,000/- per hectare. The appellants had also relied on the certified copy of Index-II to show that the land bearing Survey No.101, area admeasuring 1.62 hectare situated at Kurali was sold by registered sale-deed dated 07.10.2005 for consideration of Rs.1,92,000/-. 10] Then the appellants have also relied upon the award passed on 19.06.2000 in Land Acquisition Case No.6/47/1996- 1997 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.82 of village Ghamapur.
11] Thus, it can be seen that all of these sale instances produced at Exh.30, 31 and 134 are of other villages and there was not a single sale instance of village Ghamapur produced by ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 ::: fa1110.08+.J.odt 15 the appellants. The Reference Court has therefore, relied upon the consolidated statement of sale instances considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Those sale instances were of the period five years prior to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and of the lands situate at Ghamapur only. As rightly held by the Reference Court, when sale instances of the same village were available, the sale instances of other adjoining villages need not be considered to ascertain the market price of the acquired lands.
12] If one has regard to those sale instances, which are quoted by the Reference Court in its judgment in para 23 then it can be seen that the sale instance at Sr. No.14 is the highest exemplar. It is of the land bearing Survey No.85 admeasuring 0.40 hectare out of Survey No.85. The land was belonging to one Malo Bhimrao Gadade and it was sold to Digambar Chunnilal Rathod on 27.01.1994 for a consideration of Rs.52,500/- at the rate of Rs.66,250/- per hectare. This sale instance being the highest exemplar, the Reference Court, in my considered opinion, should have considered the said sale instance and awarded the compensation, at least, at the rate of Rs.66,250/- per hectare, instead of accepting the categorization made by the Land ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 ::: fa1110.08+.J.odt 16 Acquisition Officer and granting compensation in the range of Rs.42,000/- to Rs.55,000/-, plus giving additional amount of Rs.5000/- per hectare to the lands having independent source of irrigation.
13] In these appeals learned counsel for appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.94/2004 dated 13.04.2016. It is in respect of the land bearing Survey No.65 situated at village Kurali. The Reference Court has in the said judgment awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per hectare. According to learned counsel for appellants, the respondent had not preferred any appeal against the said judgment, and therefore that judgment has attained finality.
14] It is not disputed that the village Kurali and Ghamapur are situated adjacent to each other and the land covered in Land Acquisition Case No.94/2004 was also acquired for the same project. In view thereof, in my considered opinion, the appellants also become entitled to get the same rate of compensation that of Rs.83,000/- per hectare. ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 ::: fa1110.08+.J.odt 17 15] According to learned counsel for appellants as the compensation at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per hectare was awarded in Land Acquisition Case No.94/2004 for a dry crop land and as in this case some of the acquired lands are irrigated lands, these appellants become entitled to get 1.5 times more for irrigated land.
16] However, considering that this Court is awarding substantially a fair rate of Rs.83,000/- per hectare, and as the appellants whose lands are irrigated i.e. having the well are also getting additional sum of Rs.5000/- per hectare as awarded by the Reference Court and also separate compensation for the orange trees standing therein, it is not necessary to enhance the amount of compensation at the rate of 1.5 times, but the amount of Rs.5000/- which is awarded by the Trial Court to the irrigated land can be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per hectare. 17] The appellants had also claimed compensation towards the well, pipeline, bore, pump etc. However, the Reference Court has, in the absence of any independent and convincing evidence produced on record to that effect, rejected their claims for enhanced compensation, and I do not find any ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 ::: fa1110.08+.J.odt 18 reason to interfere in that finding of the Reference Court. 18] As regards the compensation towards the orange trees, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.68/- per tree and as the Reference Court found that the age of those trees was only upto 4 years, the Reference Court has enhanced it to Rs.100/- per tree only, towards cultivation charges. However, needless to state that the said amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court to the orange trees is very meagre. Even if it is accepted that the Reference Court has rightly refused to place reliance on the evidence of the expert valuer examined by the appellants, as it was not convincing, the Reference Court should have taking note that some of the orange trees where of the age of four and half years and some of six years also, therefore, they were on the verge of fruit bearing, awarded just, fair and reasonable amount of compensation. Having regard to the evidence on record in respect of age of the orange trees, in my view the compensation at the rate of Rs.800/- per tree would be just and reasonable, though the appellant had claimed the compensation at a much higher and exorbitant rate.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 ::: fa1110.08+.J.odt 19 19] As a result, these appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgments and orders of the Reference Court are modified to the extent that the appellants are held entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per hectare for dry crop land, whereas in respect of the lands, which are having independent source of water namely the well, they will be entitled to get the additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per hectare.
20] The appellants by name Kisan Naik, Raghunath Jadhav, Motiram Naik and Subhash Rathod and Tulshiram Jadhao are also entitled to get compensation for Orange trees at the rate of Rs.800/- per tree.
21] Needless to state that the appellants are entitled to get this enhanced amount of compensation, along with all the statutory benefits thereon.
22] The appeals stand disposed of as partly allowed, in above terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::