Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown
2012 Latest Caselaw 323 Bom

021112fA169.07+2.odt
                                               1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :




                                                                                  
                               NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
                         FIRST APPEAL NO.169/2007




                                                          
           APPELLANTS:
           1] The State of Maharashtra, through its Collector,
               Yavatmal.




                                                         
           2] The Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition
               Officer, Kelapur, district : Yavatmal
           3] The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division,
               Yavatmal Tq & Distt. Yavatmal.




                                                   
                                     VERSUS
           RESPONDENT:             
               Smt. Radhabai Punaji Gedam, r/o Dabha Tq. Kelapur,
               Distt. Yavatmal
                                  
           ============================================
           Mr. C.N. Adgokar, A G P for appellant
           Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, advocate for respondent
           ============================================
                                       WITH
             


                          FIRST APPEAL NO.171/2007
          



           1] The State of Maharashtra through the Collector,
                Yavatmal.
           2] The Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition
                Officer, Kelapur, District : Yavatmal





           3] The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division,
                Yavatmal, Tq & District : Yavatmal.
                                     VERSUS
           REPSONDENT:





                Ramchandra Laxman Raut, aged about 68 years, r/o
                Dabha, Tq. Kelapur, distt. Yavatmal.
           ============================================
           Mr. A.D. Sonak, A G P for appellant
           Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, advocate for respondent
           ============================================




                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:18 :::
 021112fA169.07+2.odt
                                            2

                                        WITH
                               FIRST APPEAL NO.172/2007




                                                                                  
           APPELLANTS:
           1] The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector,




                                                          
                Yavatmal
           2] The Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition
                Officer, Kelapur, District : Yavatmal.




                                                         
           3] The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division,
                Yavatmal, Tq & Distt. Yavatmal.
                                     VERSUS
           RESPONDENT:




                                               
                Shri Dharma Bhima Pendore, r/o Dabha, Tq. Kalapur,
                District : Yavatmal.
                                 
           ============================================
           Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for appellants
                                
           Mrs. S. W. Deshpande, advocate for respondent
           ============================================
                                 CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.

DATE: 2/11/2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT.

These appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 11.2.2007 passed in L.A.C. No.216/2002 to

218/2002.

2] Lands situated in village Dabha, Tal Kelapur, district : Yavatmal were compulsorily acquired for

construction of canal of Khemkund Irrigation Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 31.3.1996 awarding compensation @ Rs.12,000/- P.H. and Rs.14,400/-P.H. Dissatisfied with this, the land owners /

021112fA169.07+2.odt

respondents herein sought separate references. They relied

upon the decisions rendered in earlier references which were sought in respect of the lands acquired for the same project.

The evidence about the income derived from the land was adduced. On that basis, the learned Reference Court fixed the

market value at Rs.50,000/- P.H. Aggrieved by this judgment and award State has preferred these appeals. 3] The learned A G P criticised the judgment and

award mainly on the ground that the enhancement to any

extent was not justified because of lack of evidence. According

to him, the onus which lies upon the land owners to seek enhancement, has not been discharged. 4] Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing

for the respondents supported the judgment and award. She

contends that the rate of compensation @ Rs.50,000/- P.H. or Rs.20,000/- per acre on its face is very much on lower side. In

that view of the matter, the appeals are liable to be dismissed with cost.

5] Point that arises for my consideration is :

Whether any interference with the judgment and award impugned is warranted?

6] In all these appeals respective land owner entered the witness box and deposed about the quality of the land and placed on record

021112fA169.07+2.odt

the 7/12 extracts at Exhibits 35, 36, 44, 45, 49 &50. All these

documents reveal that the lands were under cultivation and crops like cotton, toor (pulses) jwar were grown. Evidence was

led to the effect that per year profit from each acre of the land was Rs.5000/-. However, the learned Reference Court

assumed it at Rs.2,000/- per acre. This aspect of the matter has been discussed in paragraph 20 and 22 of the judgment and same is reproduced below:

"20- Now, we have to consider the claim of the

petitioners lands on the basis of income capitalisation method (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). The

petitioners stated on oath that they used to take crops of cotton, jowar, tur and used to get annual net income

worth Rs.5000/- per acre excluding expenses. The

petitioners also submitted on record the 7/12 extracts (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). On the basis of these 7/12 extracts, it reveals that the petitioners used to take

crops of cotton, tur and jowar in the acquired lands. It is matter of record that the petitioners failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of their annual

net income and various yield of crops. It is to be mentioned that the petitioners being an agriculturists it is not expected or desirable from them that they should submit the account about their annual net income and

021112fA169.07+2.odt

various yield of crops that too before 9/10 years.

Considering the crop statement shown in 7/12 extracts (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50), by memory of

petitioners and by guess work, it can certainly be said that the petitioners should have getting annual net

income worth Rs.2000/- per acre i.e. Rs.5000/- per hectare from the acquired land.

22- Thus, by applying the above said principles and

taking resources of the method of income

capitalisation, the then market value of the lands of the petitioners would be Rs.5000/- per hectare X 10 =

Rs.50,000/- per hectare on the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. "

7] These observations cannot be faulted with. Even by

considering all the minus factors, and considering the cost of

cultivation income from each acre of the land in any circumstance can not be less than Rs.2000 - 2500/-. Learned

Reference Court was right in choosing multiplier of 10. In that view of the matter there lies no scope for interference with the judgment and award. In the result appeals fail.

8] Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

In case there is any deposit made by the appellant, the Registry or the Reference Court, as the case may be, shall

021112fA169.07+2.odt

disburse forthwith the amount amongst claimants in terms of

award and in any event within 3 months from the date of this order. If required, intimation be given to them. In the event of

any withdrawal was permitted during the pendency of the appeal on furnishing undertaking or security, such undertaking

or security, as the case may be, shall stand discharged.

JUDGE SMP.