1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 627 of 2006
Appellant : State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Washim
Versus
Respondent: Vilasrao Digambar Ghuge, adult, Cultivator,
resident of Malegaon, District Washim
............
X-Objection No. 9 of 2006 Appellant : State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Washim Versus Respondent: Vilasrao Digambar Ghuge, adult, Cultivator, /X-Objector resident of Malegaon, District Washim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellant Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for respondent/x-objector Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 13th November 2017 Oral Judgment
1. This appeal filed by the State takes an exception to the higher determination of compensation made by the Reference Court in respect of the compulsory acquisition of land bearing Gat No. 414 situated at Malegaon, District Washim which land was acquired for the purpose of ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:24 ::: 2 Malegaon Irrigation Project.
2. The cross-objection filed by the land-owner Vilasrao Ghuge whose land has been compulsorily acquired, also similarly objects to the determination of the compensation made by the Reference Court with the difference in the fact that the land owner is desirous to get more compensation.
3. Parties to both the proceedings i.e. The State of Maharashtra and the land owner shall now be referred to as the "State" and the "land owner" respectively for the sake of convenience.
4. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 25.5.2000 while the Award under Section 11 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 24.5.2001. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired land to be of Rs. 42,500/- per hectare, which was enhanced to Rs. 55,2000/- per hectare by the Reference Court, which decided the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on its own merits by the judgment and order dated 28.4.2005 rendered in Land Acquisition Case No. 94 of 2004. ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:24 ::: 3
5. The land owner in his evidence before the Reference Court heavily relied upon the sale instances which were the sale deeds of the lands situated on Seloo Bazar to Malegaon Road. They were at Exhibits 42 and 43 and bear the dates 30.9.1997 and 14.1.2000 respectively. They were, however, rejected by the Reference Court. The Reference Court considered the two of the sale transactions, which had figured in the Award of the SLAO at Sr. Nos. 7 and 9 and by drawing a mean value of these two transactions and considering the acquired land to be a dry crop land, fixed the market value of the dry crop land at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per hectare for the sake of payment of compensation to the land owner. This approach of the Reference Court was not to the pleasure of both the rival parties, the State and the land owner and that is why both of them are before this Court in the present appeal and the cross-objection.
6. I have heard Shri M. A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for appellant State and Shri R. L. Khapre, learned counsel for the land owner. I have gone through the record of the case. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is :
Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and proper ?
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:24 ::: 4
7. According to learned counsel for the land owner, the Reference Court has already found that the land bearing Gat No. 414 was irrigated land and if that was so, there was no reason for the Reference Court to have determined the compensation for the acquired land by considering it to be a dry crop land. He also points out that a portion of Gat No. 414 admeasuring 1.20 hectare belonged to Jaisingrao Digambar Ghuge, real brother of this land owner and it was also compulsorily acquired for the same project for which this Court determined the rate of that land considering it to be the irrigated land @ Rs. 2,35,000/- per hectare. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the land acquired in the present case is different part of Gat No. 414 and, therefore, appropriate order be passed as regards the determination of rate of the acquired land.
8. Sofar as the grounds taken by Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the land owner for seeking equality of treatment is concerned, I do not see factual incorrectness in the same. Therefore, same treatment to the land involved in the present appeal would have to be given as was given to the land involved in First Appeal No. 628 of 2006 which was also another part of Gat No. 414 belonging to Jaisingrao Digambar Ghuge, real brother of cross-objector herein.
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:24 ::: 5
9. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the land owner is entitled to enhqanced compensation for his irrigated acquired land @ Rs. 2,35,000/- per hectare and I direct that the same be given to him by the acquiring body.
10. About the valuation of the orange trees, I must say, there is no dispute about number of orange trees, which is 200. I find that the valuation caried out by the Refrence Court is not consistent with the valuation made in other cases of the same area. In other cases from the same area, by and large, the valuation was revolving around Rs. 3500- Rs.4000 per orange trees. I see no reason to apply different rate for orange trees in this case which were nine years old at the relevant time. Therefore, instead of Rs. 3000/- per orange tree (the rate granted by the Reference Court), the land owner would be entitled to receive Rs. 3500/- per orange tree in the present case and I find the acquiring body must pay the same for 200 orange trees to the land owner. The land owner would also be entitled to same statutory benefits as have been granted by the Refrence Court, but on the enhanced compensation determined under this judgment and order.
11. In the result, appeal and cross-objection are partly allowed.
It is directed that the land owner be paid compensation for ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:24 ::: 6 his acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2,35,000/- per hectare and Rs. 3500/- per orange tree, which are 200 in number, together with all statutory benefits to be given at the same rate as granted by the Reference Court with slight modification as follows:
The balance outstanding amount of the compensation payable to the land owner shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of award which is 24.5.2001, for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till realization of the entire amount.
Liberty is granted to the land owner to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of rental compensation, in accordance with law.
Additional court fees be paid, if not paid.
The impugned Award stands modified in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs.
Appeal as well as Cross-objection stand disposed of.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:24 :::