Bombay High Court
Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown on 2 November, 2012
Bench: M.N. Gilani
021112fA594.06+4.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 594/2006
APPELLANT:
The State of Maharashtra through the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Upper Painganga Project Benefited
Zone No.1, Yavatmal Tahsil and District : Yavatmal
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Bablaji s/o Jagobaji Yede [dead] through L.Rs.
1] Kamlabai wd/o Jagobaji Yede,
2] Uttamrao s/o Jagobaji Yede,
Applicants Nos. 1 & 2 r/o Rajur, Tq. Kalamb, dist.
Yavatmal.
============================================
Mr. C.N. Adgokar, A G P for appellant
============================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 595/2006
APELLANT:
The State of Maharashtra through the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Upper Painganga Project,
Benefitted Zone No.1, Yavatmal Tah & Dist. Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Smt. Godawari w/o Narayanrao Narnaware, aged about
40 years, r/o Rajur, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal
============================================
Mr. A.D. Sonak, A G P for appellant
============================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.596/2006
APPELLANT
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:21 :::
021112fA594.06+4.odt
2
The State of Maharashtra through the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Upper Painganga Project, Benefited
Zone No.1, Yavatmal, Tah & Distt. Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Uttam s/o Bablaji Yede, aged about 60 years, r/o Rajur,
Tq. Kalamb, Distt. Yavatmal.
============================================
Mr. D.B. Yengal, A G P for appellant
============================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 173/2007
APPELLANT:
The State of Maharashtra through the Special Land
Acquisition Oficer, Upper Painganga Project, Benefited
Zone No.1, Yavatmal, Tah & District : Yavatmal
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Manik s/o Laxman Shiwankar, aged about 28
years, r/o Rajur, Tq. Kalamb, District : Yavatmal
============================================
Mr. C.N. Adgokar, A G P for appellant
============================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 218/2008
APPELLANT:
The State of Maharashtra through the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Upper Panganga Project, Benefited
Zone No.1, Yavatmal, Tah and District : Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Vithoba s/o Sitaram Shirode, aged about 50 years, r/o
Rajur, Tq. Kalamb, District : Yavatmal [Dead - through
L.Rs.]
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:21 :::
021112fA594.06+4.odt
3
1-A] Smt. Kasabai Vithoba Shirode, aged 65 years, r/o at
Rajur, Post Dhotra, Tahsil Kalamb district ; Yavatmal.
1-B] Maroti Vithoba Shirode, aged 40 years, r/o at Rajur, Post
Dhotra, Tahsil - Kalamb, District : Yavatmal.
1-C] Shalik Vithoba Shirode, aged 38 years, r/o At Post Jalka,
Tahsil - Ralegaon, District ; Yavatmal.
1-D] Sulochana Vithoba Shirode, aged 36 years, r/o At Rajur,
Post Dhotra, Tahsil - Kalamb, District : Yavatmal
1-E] Smt. Shanta Devdas Pharkade, aged 34 years, at post
Pandharna, tahsil Ghatanji, District : Yavatmal.
1-F] Vijay Vithoba Shirode, aged 32 years, r/o at Rajur, Post
Dhotra, tahsil Kalamb, district ; Yavatmal.
============================================
Mr. A.D. Sonak, A G P for appellant
============================================
CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.
DATE: 2/11/2012:
ORAL JUDGMENT:
These five appeals have been preferred by the State of
Maharashtra / acquiring body against the common judgment
and award dated 30.1.2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Yavatmal in L.A.C. No.46/1992, 47/1992, 48/1992,
50/1992, 52/1992 enhancing the quantum of compensation
from Rs.7500/- P.H. to Rs.15,000/- P.H.
2] Lands situated in village Rajur were compulsorily
acquired for the public purposes i.e. for Rajur Irrigation Tank
Project at village Rajur, taluka Kalamb, district Yavatmal vide
notification dated 4.9.1988. On 6.10.1988 award was declared
021112fA594.06+4.odt
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied with the
inadequate compensation awarded by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer the land owners sought references.
Evidence in the nature of previous sale instances and also
income derived from land was adduced. Considering the same,
the learned Reference Court fixed market value of the lands
acquired @ Rs.15,000/- P.H. i.e. less than Rs.6000/- per acre.
This is being objected to in these appeals.
3] Learned A G P criticised the judgment and award
mainly on the ground that enhancement was awarded without
any evidence.
4] None appeared for the land owners / respondents.
5] Point that arises for my determination is :
Whether the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court calls for any interference?
6] The learned Reference Court relied upon the sale
instances produced at Exhibit 26, 27, 41. All these sale
instances are proximate from time angle and situation angle
and were rightly relied upon by the learned Reference Court. It
would be suffice to quote below the reasons recorded by the
learned Reference Court in paragraph 30 of the judgment:
"30- At the cost of repetition I would like to
state that if the sale instances Ex. 26 & 27 is
021112fA594.06+4.odt
accepted to be true then it become crystal clear
that land under sale instance Ex. 41 was sold at
the rate of Rs.5000/- per acres which is equivalent
to 12500/- per hectare. However, this sale
instance is pertaining to the year 1984 i.e. it is
dated 2.5.1984. However, the date of notification
U/s 4 in the instant case before us is 4.8.86, thus
there is time gap of 2 ½ years between the sale
transactions Ex.41 and the date of notification U/s
4 which took place on 4.8.86. Therefore, if the
increase in price rate of Rs.1000/- per hectare per
year is taken into consideration then certainly the
market price would have increased at the rate of
Rs.2500/- per hectare, during the time gap of this
2 ½ years. If it is so then the market value of the
acquired land of the claimants on the date of
notification on 4.8.86 can be calculated at the
rate of Rs.15,000/- per hectare."
7] Even otherwise, also, awarding compensation just
@ Rs.6000/- per acre for the land compulsorily acquired in the
year 1988, which is not far away from the District & Taluqa
Headquarters in no circumstance appear on higher side.
8] Accordingly appeals are dismissed with costs.
021112fA594.06+4.odt
9] In case there is any deposit made by the appellant,
the Registry or the Reference Court, as the case may be, shall
disburse the amount forthwith and in any event within 3
months from the date of this order. If required, intimation be
given. In the event of any withdrawal was permitted during the
pendency of the appeal on furnishing undertaking or security,
undertaking or security, as the case may be, shall stand
discharged.
ig JUDGE
SMP.
