fa640.08.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 640 OF 2008
1] Smt. Sumanbai Maruti Wihire,
Aged about 69 years. Occ-Household.,
R/o-Thalegaon, Tah-Babhulgaon,
District - Yavatmal.
2] Suresh Maruti Wihire,
Aged about 48 years. Occ-Service.
R/o-Taluka and Dist-Chandrapur.
3] Ramesh Maruti Wihire,
Aged about 46 years, Occ-Service,
R/o-Ghadchandur, Tq. & Distt.-Chandrapur.
4] Bhimrao Maruti Wihire,
Aged about 42 years, Occ-Agricultirst,
R/o-Thalegaon, Tq. Babhulgaon,
District - Yavatmal.
5] Sau. Lalita Arun Bhagat,
Aged about 36 years,, Occ-Household,
R/o-Mohada, Tq. & Dist-Nagpur.
(Applicants No.1 to 5 through their
General Power of Attorney Vinod
Maruti Wihire)
6] Ku. Vanita Maruti Wihire,
Aged about 31 years, Occ-Household,
R/o-Thalelgaon, Tq.-Babhulgaon,
Distt. - Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:23:06 :::
fa640.08.J.odt 2
7] Vinod Maruti Wihire,
Aged about 32 years, Occ-Agriculturist,
R/o-Thalegaon, Tq.-Babhulgaon,
District - Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANTS.
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal,
Tq. & Distt. - Yavatmal.
2] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bembala Project,
Yavatmal, Tq. and Distt-Yavatmal.
3] The Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project, Yavatmal ....... RESPONDENTS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri. D. A. Sonwane, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
th DATE: 15 JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT 1] This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2006 passed by 4th Adhoc Addl. District Judge, Yavatmal in L.A.C. No.06/2003. The appellants are the original claimants and they are not satisfied with the amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court to the tune of Rs.70,000/- per hectare. Hence, they have ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:23:06 ::: fa640.08.J.odt 3 approached this Court.
2] Brief facts of the appeal are as follows:
In pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land bearing Gat No.5 admeasuring 5 H situated at village Mitnapur and belonging to the appellants came to be acquired for Bembla Project by initiating L. A. Case No.17/47/1997-98. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.55,300/- per hectare to the appellants by his Award dated 31.03.2001. Being dissatisfied with the quantum awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants approached the Reference Court Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In support of the case, one Viniod Wihire examined himself as Power of Attorney Holder for the appellants and produced copies of three sale-deeds vide Exh.32 to 34, maps Exh.36 to 38 and 7/12 extract Exh.35.
3] On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Reference Court was pleased to hold that appellants have failed to produce on record any evidence like sale receipts, ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:23:06 ::: fa640.08.J.odt 4 weight slips or even the accounts to prove that appellants were getting net income of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre per annum from the acquired land. The Reference Court also found from 7/12 extract (Exh.35) showed that acquired land was dry crop land. No evidence was laid by the appellants to show that it was a land of black soil and highly fertile. The Reference Court, therefore, refused to believe the evidence of the appellants' witnesses that income of the acquired land is of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre per annum. Thus, having found that the capitalization method for assessing the income of the acquired land is not useful, the learned Reference Court considered the comparable sale method, in view of the said three sale instances produced on record by the appellants. As regards the first sale instance, the copy of which was produced at Exh.32, it was found to be of land situated at village Kolhi and thus, not of the same village or adjacent village. Therefore, though the price of the land sold under the said sale-deed was at the rate of Rs.1,22,600/- per hectare, it has to be held that the Reference Court has rightly refused to take into consideration the same for assessing market value of the acquired land. ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:23:06 ::: fa640.08.J.odt 5 4] The second sale-deed (Exh.34) is of the village Kopra Barad. It can be seen from the map produced on record that the said village is also away from the village Mitnapur. Therefore, sale consideration of the said sale-deed that of Rs.1,24,000/- per hectare also came be rightly refused to be accepted by the Reference Court.
5] The Reference Court has, in this respect properly and rightly considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its various decisions to the effect that if the lands are from different villages, unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the lands in those two different village is same, the sale instances of those village cannot be considered as satisfactory comparable evidence. 6] The third sale instance on which the appellants placed reliance is of the village Thalegaon. The sale-deed thereof is produced at Exh.33 and it shows that one Gajanan Kulkarni and others sold their 1 H 21 R out of Gat No.133 to Pramod Mankar for Rs.99,000/-. From the sale-deed, it can be seen that the said land is also dry crops land and the ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:23:06 ::: fa640.08.J.odt 6 market value of that as per this sale-deed comes Rs.81,000/- per hectare. The perusal of the map produced in the case shows that village Thalegaon is adjacent to village Mitnapur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that village Thalegaon is at the distance of only 1 km from village Mitnapur. In view thereof, this sale instance can be relied upon as evidence of comparable sale instance. If in the year 1994, the land in the said village was sold at the rate of Rs.81,000/- per hectare, then it follows that in the year 1998 when the notification was issued, at the rate of 7.5% future growth per year, the approximate valuation of the acquired land comes to Rs.1,05,000/-. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also pointed out that in respect of the land at village Thalegaon, this Court has, in First Appeal No.342 of 2005 awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per hectare. Considering the said compensation and also the evidence which is produced in this case, in the instant case, the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per hectare would be just and reasonable amount. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Therefore, the order. ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:23:06 ::: fa640.08.J.odt 7
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court is modified to the extent that appellants are held entitled for the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per hectare.
(iii) Rest of the Award stands confirmed.
(iv) Appeal is allowed in above terms with no order as to the costs.
JUDGE PBP ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:23:06 :::