1 J-FA-362-12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 362 OF 2012
Haribhau s/o Wamanrao Thakare,
Aged about : 60 years,
Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Khadaksawanga,
Tq. Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal. ..... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector,
Yavatmal.
2. Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works, No.1 Yavatmal.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Corporation,
Bembla Project Division,
Near Gopal Mangal Karyalaya
Awadhootwadi, Yavatmal,
Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. V. Bhide, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2015
Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, Through Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division,
Near Gopal Mangal Karyalay,
Awadhootwadi, Yavatmal,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ..... APPELLANT
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:06 :::
2 J-FA-362-12
...V E R S U S...
1. Haribhau s/o Wamanrao Thakare,
Aged about : 45 years,
Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Khadaksawanga,
Tq. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Yavatmal.
3. The Collector, Yavatmal.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.1,
Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A. V. Bhide, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
29/06/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.) Since these appeals arise out of the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court dated 5 th September, 2011 directing the State Government to pay compensation @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare, for the acquired land to the claimant and rejecting the other claims made by the claimant, they are heard together and are decided by this common Judgment. First Appeal No.261/2015 filed by ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:06 ::: 3 J-FA-362-12 the VIDC, challenges the award enhancing the compensation for the acquired land and directing the VIDC to pay it @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. According to the VIDC, the grant of compensation for the land @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare is excessive. Whereas, the claimant has filed First Appeal No.362/2012 seeking further enhancement of compensation as per the prayer made in the reference application as also, compensation for the mango tree, well, etc. The land of the claimant was acquired for the construction of building and houses for the Project Affected Persons of village Khadaksawanga by the Section 4 Notification issued on 09/05/1996. After issuance of Section 6 Notification, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 10/10/1997. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.28,000/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied with the grant of meagre compensation, the claimant made an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for enhancement of compensation. The claimant sought compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.60/- per square meter. The claimant also sought compensation for the mango tree, the well and for the loss of occupation, etc. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, by the Judgment and Award dated 05/09/2011 directed the State and the VIDC to grant compensation for 12 hectares and 4 R of the acquired land of the ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:06 ::: 4 J-FA-362-12 claimant @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. The award of the Reference Court is challenged by the VIDC in First Appeal No.261/2015. The claimant has challenged the award and has sought higher compensation, in First Appeal No.362/2012.
Shri Bhide, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in granting compensation @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. It is submitted that the land had great non-agricultural potential and hence, it was necessary for the Reference Court to grant compensation @ Rs.60/- per square meter as claimed by the claimant. It is submitted that the Reference Court has however, by relying on the Judgments in two Land Acquisition Cases bearing Nos. 320/2000 and 280/2000 directed the State Government to pay compensation @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. It is stated that the land involved in the said Judgments was agricultural land and hence, higher compensation is liable to be paid to the claimant in this case, as his land is irrigated land. It is submitted that the Reference Court committed a serious error in not considering the evidence tendered by the claimant for grant of compensation for the mango tree and the well. It is stated that the claim of the claimant in this regard has been brushed aside with a single sentence in the Judgment / Award of the Reference Court that the claimant had not produced any cogent evidence in this regard. It is ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:06 ::: 5 J-FA-362-12 submitted that though a valuation report was not tendered, the Reference Court ought to have granted at least some compensation for the mango tree and the well.
Shri P. B. Patil, the learned counsel for the VIDC submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in granting compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. It is submitted that the grant of compensation by the Reference Court at the said rate is very excessive. It is submitted that since the claimant had not produced any cogent evidence in support of his claim for compensation for the well and the tree, the Reference Court has rightly denied the compensation for the said items. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had considered the sale transactions of similar lands to rightly determine the market value of the land of the claimant.
Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State Government has supported the case of the VIDC. It is submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation for the acquired land and granting it @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought for dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimant. ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:06 :::
6 J-FA-362-12 On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record and proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in these appeals:-
1) Whether the Reference Court was justified in granting compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare and/or whether the same is liable to be reduced or enhanced ?
2) Whether the claimant would be entitled to
compensation for the well and the mango tree ?
3) What order ?
To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the evidence tendered by the parties.
The claimant has tendered oral as well as documentary evidence. No evidence is specifically tendered on behalf of the State Government and the VIDC in defence. The claimant had mainly relied on the award passed by the Reference Court in two land acquisition cases of the year 2000 i.e. Land Acquisition Case Nos.320/2000 and 280/2000. The land in the nearby vicinity of the acquired land was acquired by the Section 4 Notification issued on 15/09/1994. Since no sale instances or awards ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:06 ::: 7 J-FA-362-12 pertaining to village Pratappur in which the acquired land of the claimant was located were filed, the Reference Court rightly relied on the awards passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos.320/2000 and 280/2000 on which reliance was also placed by the claimant. In those cases, the Section 4 Notification was issued on 15/09/1994 whereas in the present case, the Section 4 Notification was issued on 09/05/1996. There is no dispute about the fact that village Khadaksawanga is located in the nearby vicinity of village Pratappur where the acquired land is located. The Reference Court therefore gave much weightage to the award passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos.320/2000 and 280/2000 while determining the compensation in the case of the acquired land of the claimant. We find that the Reference Court was justified in giving much weightage to the awards passed in the two land acquisition cases as no other relevant material that could have determined the market value of the land was placed by the claimant before the Reference Court. Since in those cases, the compensation was awarded @ Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare, considering the fact that the Section 4 Notification in this case was issued more than one and half years later, the Reference Court rightly determined the compensation for the land of the claimant @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. While placing reliance on the Judgment and Awards in Land Acquisition Case Nos.320/2000 and 280/2000, the Reference Court rightly discarded the evidence in the form of the awards in Land Acquisition Case Nos.228/1999 and ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:06 ::: 8 J-FA-362-12 181/1999. In Land Acquisition Case Nos.228/1999 and 181/1999, the acquired lands were open plots of village Khadaksawanga and the acquired land in this case was dry crop agricultural land. We find that the Reference Court has appreciated the evidence tendered by the claimant in the right perspective while determining the compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare.
Though the Reference Court was justified in determining the compensation for the land @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare, the Reference Court was not justified in refusing to grant compensation for the well and the mango tree. It is apparent from the Schedule annexed to the Award on which reliance was placed by the claimant that a well was located in the acquired land and one mango tree was also standing on the same. If that be so, the Reference Court ought to have granted compensation for the well and the mango tree. In the circumstances of the case, by considering the Judgments in the other Land Acquisition Cases and by applying same guess work, it would be necessary to direct the State Government and the VIDC to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the well and Rs.5,000/- for the mango tree to the claimant.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, First Appeal No.261/2015 is dismissed. First Appeal No.362/2012 is partly allowed. ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:06 :::
9 J-FA-362-12 The Award of the Reference Court is modified. While confirming the award granting compensation for the acquired land at Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare, we direct the State Government and the VIDC to grant additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the claimant for the well and Rs.5,000/- for the mango tree with statutory benefits. Order accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:06 :::