Bombay High Court
Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown on 10 October, 2012
Bench: M.N. Gilani
101012FA808.07+5.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.808/2007
APPELLANTS:
1] The State of Maharashtra
2] The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Buldhana
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Motiram Sampat Kale, aged about 45 years, agriculturist, r/o
Sawangi Mali, Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
===============================================
Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for appellants
None for the respondent
===============================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.810/2007
APPELLANTS:
1] The State of Maharashtra
2] The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Buldhana
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Ashru Sampat Kale, aged about 54 years, r/o Sawangi Mali,
Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
===============================================
Mr. S.M. Bhagde, A G P for appellants
None for the respondent
===============================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.816/2007
APPELLANTS:
1] The State of Maharashtra
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:16:11 :::
101012FA808.07+5.odt
2
2] The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Buldhana
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Ashru Bhagwan Kale, aged about 44 years, cultivator, r/o Sawangi
Mali, Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
===============================================
Mr. C.N. Adgokar, A G P for appellants
None for the respondent
===============================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.831/2007
APPELLANTS:
1] The State of Maharashtra
2] The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Buldhana
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Sakhahari Sampat Kale, aged about 49 years, r/o Sawangi Mali,
Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
===============================================
Mr. A.D. Sonak, A G P for appellants
None for the respondent
===============================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.852/2007
APPELLANTS:
1] The State of Maharashtra
2] The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Buldhana
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Rajaram Devji Khandagale, aged about 54 years, r/o Sawangi
Mali, Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
===============================================
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:16:11 :::
101012FA808.07+5.odt
3
Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for appellants
None for the respondent
===============================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.853/2007
APPELLANTS:
1] The State of Maharashtra
2] The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Buldhana
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Shriram Barkuji Awchar, aged about 46 years, r/o Sawangi
Mali, Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
==============================================
Mr. S.M. Bhagde, A G P for appellants
None for the respondent
===============================================
CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.
DATE: 10/10/2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
These appeals are from the judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court - Buldhana in the references sought by the
land owners, whose lands were compulsorily acquired for Minor
Irrigation Tank, village Sawangi Mali, taluka Mehkar, district :
Buldhana.
2] The particulars of the survey number, land area
acquired, compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer and compensation enhanced by the learned Reference
Court Buldhana are reproduced below:
101012FA808.07+5.odt
F.A. Survey no Area Compensation by LAC Date of Compensation by
No acquired SLAO decision reference court
808/07 71 0.41 Rs. 17,000/- P.H. 50/92 16/02/05 Rs.35,000/- P.H.
810/07 70 0.43 Rs. 17,000/- P.H. 49/92 16/02/05 Rs. 52,619/- P.H.
816/07 72 3.78 Rs. 17,000/- P.H. 48/92 16/02/05 Rs. 52,619/- P.H.
0.10 P.K. Rs. 200/- P.H.
for P.K.
831/07 69 0.39 Rs. 17,000/- P.H. 52/92 16/02/05 Rs. 35,000/- P.H.
852/07 73 3.93 Rs. 17,000/- P.H. 51/92 16/02/05 Rs. 52,619/- P.H.
0.10 P.K. Rs. 200/- P.H.
for P.K.
853/07 67 1.45 Rs. 20,000/- P.H. 47/92 16/02/05 Rs. 52,619/- P.H.
3] Mr. Yengal, learned A G P appearing for the State -
acquiring body contended that the learned Reference Court
committed an error by enhancing the amount of compensation @
Rs.35,000/- for the dry-crop lands and Rs.56,619/- per hectare for
irrigated land. According to him the material placed on record
does not justify any enhancement.
4] None appeared for the respondents.
5] The point that arises for my consideration is as under:
Whether the compensation enhanced by the
learned Reference Court is just and fair?
6] Ex-facie, whatsoever the amount of compensation
awarded appears to be on lower side. The compensation awarded
@ Rs.35,000/- per hectare for dry-crop land and @ Rs.56,619/ per
hectare for irrigated land, for the land acquired vide notification of
the year 1990, in no circumstance can be said to be on higher side.
This is apart from the fact that the judgment and award
101012FA808.07+5.odt
enhancing the amount of compensation to the extent stated above
is supported by the evidence in the nature of sale transaction.
7] The land owners placed reliance upon the sale instance
between Eknath Trimbak and one Bhagabai Maroti which is dated
23.4.1987. The land admeasuring 0.42 R was sold for
consideration of Rs.17,000/-. In support of this there is evidence of
one Eknath. He deposed that he had sold 1 acre and 2 gunthas land
for consideration of Rs.17,000/- to one Bhagabai. The copy of the
sale deed at exhibit 44 was produced. There is nothing in his
cross-examination to suggest that the sale instance is not genuine.
The learned Reference Court rightly considered the same while
observing thus:
"In the instant group of claims the claimants have
placed their reliance on the sale instance dated 23rd
April 1987. Wherein the land bearing Gat No.95
admeasures 42 R was sold by P.W.2 Eknath Bhople
for valuable consideration of Rs.17,000/-. The
notification U/s 4 was published on 28.6.1990 and
the said sale instance occurred much prior to
notification U/s 4. The said sale instance is pertaining
to land at village Sawangi Vihir, it is adjacent to the
outskirt of village Sawangi Mali. The learned counsel
Shri G.D. Kavimandan, argued that no sale
101012FA808.07+5.odt
transaction occurred from village Sawangi Mali as
the suit lands were of superior quality having
perennial source of water. The LAO, while awarding
the compensation has also considered the sale
instance from village Sawangi Vihir and therefore, in
the set of circumstances the sale instance dated
23.4.1987 appears to be genuine and reliable."
8] Considering the fact that the sale instance was of the
year 1987, the learned Reference Court increased the value by
10% for every year and then arrived at the rate of Rs.52,619/-for
irrigated land and Rs.35,000/- for the dry crop land. Absolutely
there is no scope for interference with the judgment and award
passed by the learned Reference Court. Frankly speaking the
amount of compensation awarded is on lower side. Thus, there is
no merit in these appeals.
9] Appeals are dismissed accordingly. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE
SMP.
