1 479-FA-171-06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 171/2006
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.370/2007
FIRST APPEAL NO. 171/2006
APPELLANT : Keshao Thaora Chavan,
Aged about : 72 years,
Occu : Agriculturist,
R/o Hanwatkhed, Tq. Sindhkhedraja,
District - Buldana.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Buldana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Amruta Gupta, Advocate with Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. M. A. Kadu, AGP for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 370/2007
APPELLANTS : 1. Shantabai w/o Ukanda Chavan,
Aged about : 64 years,
Occ : Cultivator.
2. Ukanda Somla Chavan,
Aged about : 65 years,
Occ : Retired.
Both R/o Hanwatkhed,
Tq. Sindhkhedraja, Dist. Buldana.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Buldana.
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:34:45 :::
2 479-FA-171-06.odt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Amruta Gupta, Advocate with Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. M. A. Kadu, AGP for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 02/03/2017. ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Both these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be decided by this common Judgment as the Land Acquisition Cases have been decided together by the Reference Court.
2. In First Appeal No.171/2006, land admeasuring 3 Hectare 41 R. from Gut No.59 and land admeasuring 5 Hectares 0.08 R. from Gut No.54 came to be acquired. The Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 30/06/1989 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 25/03/1991. He awarded sum of Rs.13,000/- per Hectare for the acquired land and also granted compensation for the wells. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation for the land at Rs.20,000/- per hectare. No enhancement was granted for the wells.
3. In First Appeal No.370/2007, land admeasuring 1 hectare 18 R from Gut No.44 and 1 Hectare 25 R from Gut No.42 came to be acquired by the ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:34:45 ::: 3 479-FA-171-06.odt same notification. Similar compensation also came to be granted and thereafter, enhanced by the Reference Court.
4. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought to have granted further compensation for the acquired lands as well as for the wells. It was submitted that sale instance dated 14/06/1991 was placed on record on the basis of which it was clear that the acquired land was entitled for higher compensation. Reference was made to various crops taken in said lands and the existence of wells in each land. It was submitted that though the sale instance dated 14/06/1991 was a post notification sale instance, the same could be relied upon and in that regard, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Chindha Vithal Sonawane Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 1975 Mh.L.J. 468. It was then submitted that the claimants had deposed about the amounts spent for construction of the wells and therefore, those amounts were also liable to be granted. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellants are entitled for further compensation.
5. Shri M A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the sale instance relied upon was of village Malkapur, while the acquired lands were ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:34:45 ::: 4 479-FA-171-06.odt from village Hanwatkhed. The distance between both the villages was about 4 kms. It was then submitted that there was no evidence placed on record to indicate the value of the wells. Therefore, there was no basis whatsoever for granting further enhancement. The Land Acquisition Officer had treated the acquired lands as irrigated and this fact was also taken into consideration by the Reference Court. He, therefore, submitted that the appeals were liable to be dismissed.
6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record of the case and I have given due consideration to their respective submissions. The following point arises for consideration :
i) Whether the appellants are entitled for higher compensation ?
Insofar as the lands are concerned, the appellants have relied upon sale instance dated 14/06/1991. Though, it is true that a post notification sale instance can be taken into consideration while determining fair compensation as observed in Chindha Vithal Sonawane (supra), it can be seen that said sale instance pertains to village Malkapur while the acquired land is from village Hanwatkhed. There is no map on record to indicate location of the acquired land in comparison with the lands which are the ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:34:45 ::: 5 479-FA-171-06.odt subject matter of the sale instance. The claimant in Land Acquisition Case No.5/1991 has admitted that distance between both villages was about 4 kms. Hence, said sale instance cannot be taken into consideration for absence of evidence with regard to its location.
7. The record indicates that the acquired lands were irrigated and each land had a Well therein. This finding is recorded by the Reference Court in Paragraph Nos.17 and 18. The Reference Court, however, has proceeded to treat the land as dry crop land on the ground that there was evidence with regard to crops irrigated in said land. This finding is recorded in paragraph 16 of the Judgment. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L. Rs. Vrs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2012 SC 481, said finding cannot be sustained. If the existence of Wells is not in dispute, then the acquired land would have to be treated at least as perennially irrigated land. Hence, an amount of Rs.30,000/- per hectare can be granted as fair compensation.
8. Insofar as compensation for the Wells is concerned, the same has been granted by the Land Acquisition Officer after perusing the valuation report prepared by him. There is no further evidence led by the claimants before the Reference Court to seek enhancement in the amount so awarded. Hence, the ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:34:45 ::: 6 479-FA-171-06.odt appellants would be entitled for compensation only for the land by treating the same as perennially irrigated land. The point as framed is answered by holding that the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation.
9. Accordingly, the following order is passed :
ORDER
i) The judgment of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case Nos.7/1991 and 5/1991 is partly modified. It is held that the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation for the land @ Rs.30,000/- per hectare alongwith all statutory benefits.
ii) Rest of the award stands confirmed.
Iii) Appeals are partly allowed in aforesaid terms. No
costs.
JUDGE
Choulwar
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:34:45 :::