Bombay High Court
2] The Manager vs Unknown on 22 October, 2012
Bench: M.N. Gilani
221012FA121.98+3 .odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
FIRT APPEAL NO.121/1998
APELLANT:
Gangaram s/o Krishnaji Hazare, aged about 60 years, occ :
agriculturist, r/o Naginbagh, Ward No.2, Chandrapur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Chandrapur.
2] The Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Wani Area,
Ghugus, District : Chandrapur.
==================================
Mr. K.R. Lambat, advocate for appellant
Mr. S.C. Mehadia, advocate for respondent no.2.
==================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.122/1998
APPELLANT:
Western Coalfields Ltd. Wani Area, Tadali, Tq & District :
Chandrapur
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/
1] Gangaram Krishnaji Hazare, aged about 66 years, occ:
agriculturist, Naginabagh, Ward No.2, Chandrapur.
2] State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Chandrapur.
==================================
Mr. S.C. Mehadia, advocate for appellant
Mr. K.R. Lambat, advocate for respondent no.1.
==================================
WITH
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:19:08 :::
221012FA121.98+3 .odt
2
FIRST APPEAL NO.431/1998
APPELLANT:
Bhaurao Dinkarrao Zade, aged about 66 years, occ :
agriculturist, r/o Ghughus, Ward No.1, Ghughus, Tq & Dist.
Chandrapur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] State of Maharashtra, through the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Chandrapur, Tq and Dist. Chandrapur.
2] The Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd., Wani Area, Ghughus,
Tq & District : Chandrapur.
==================================
Mr. K.R. Lambat, advocate for appellant
Mr. S.C. Mehadia, advocate for respondent no.2
==================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.445/1998
APPELLANT:
Western Coalfields Ltd. Wani Area, Tadali, Tq & District :
Chandrapur [original non applicant no.2/respondent]
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
1] Bhaurao Dinkarrao Zade, aged about 60 years, occ:
agriculturist, r/o Ghughus, Ward No.1, District:
Chandrapur.
2] State of Maharashtra, through its Special Land Acquisition
Officer, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chandrapur.
==================================
Mr. S.C. Mehadia, advocate for appellant
Mr. K.R. Lambat, advocate for respondent no.1.
==================================
CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.
DATE: 22.10.2012.
221012FA121.98+3 .odt
ORAL JUDGMENT:
All these four appeals are arising from the common
judgment and award dated 28.2.1997 passed in L.A.C.
No.97/1991 and 98/1991.
2] Lands bearing survey no.104 admeasuring 6.7 H.R.
and survey no.114 owned by Gangaram and Bhaurao,
respectively, were compulsorily acquired for construction of the
residential quarters for the officers of the Western Coalfields,
Ghughus, Chandrapur, vide notification dated 1.10.1987. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award on 20.12.1990.
Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, both the land owners sought
references. The learned Reference Court, after considering the
evidence brought on record held that the compensation awarded
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and
therefore fixed the market value of the land @ Rs.38,000/- P.H.
3] Western Coalfields Limited - acquiring body, has
preferred two separate appeals and the land owners dissatisfied
with the quantum of compensation, filed two separate cross
appeals. Hence these two appeals and two cross appeals are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
4] Mr. Mehadia, learned counsel for the W.C.L.
221012FA121.98+3 .odt
contended that there is no evidence to justify the enhancement
of the amount of compensation. On the contrary and in rebuttal
the appellants produced good deal of evidence to suggest that
market value of the land at no point of time was more than
Rs.7000-8000/- P.A. i.e. about Rs.20,000/- P.H. Despite this,
learned Reference Court fixed the market value @ Rs.38,000/-
P.H., he urged. He therefore, submits that the judgment and
award in both reference cases are liable to be set aside.
5] Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for the land owners
submitted that overwhelming evidence brought on record has
been ignored by the learned Reference Court. He took me
through the evidence, oral as well as documentary, produced on
record to support his contention that the market value of the
land was much-much higher than whatever has been fixed by
the learned Reference Court.
6] Point that arises for my consideration is :
A] Whether the compensation awarded by
the learned Reference Court is just and
fair?
7] Although cross-objectors/ respondents adduced
separate evidence, in nature it is common. A.W. no.1 Gangaram
deposed about the location of the land acquired. He then spoke
about the sale deed executed by one Manjulabai Dikshit in
221012FA121.98+3 .odt
favour of one Tatawar in respect of the plot area 1200 sq.ft.
which is adjoining to his land. It is transpired during his cross-
examination that the land acquired was being used by the
W.C.L./ appellant for stacking coal and because of that he had
sustained damages and for that he filed suit. Then there is
evidence of P.W.2 Jayant Jogi. He spoke about the execution of
the sale deed in favour of one Tatawar in respect of the land
which fetched Rs.90,000/- p.a. This sale instance is of the year
1990 i.e. much much after the notification in question. A.W.3
Mahadeo Bandurkar repeated the same evidence by deposing
that P.W.2 Jayant had sold land to one Tatawar in the year 1990
for a consideration of Rs.90,000/- per acre. P.W.4 Sudhakar Zade
deposed about the transaction of plot which took place in the
year 1994. Thus his evidence relates to the post notification
transaction and for that reason same cannot be attached any
importance. P.W.5 Dnaneshwar Lohe corroborated the evidence
of P.W.4 Sudhakar to the effect that the plot area of 150 sq.ft.
was purchased by him for a consideration of Rs.40,350/-.
Evidence of all these witnesses is of no value for the reason that
they spoke about post notification sale transactions. A.W. 6
Surendra Dikshit is an owner of the land adjoining to the
acquired land. According to him in the year 1987 he had sold
some plot admeasuring 1200 sq.ft. to one Tatawar for a
221012FA121.98+3 .odt
consideration of Rs.14,000/-. This is also post notification sale
instance. No evidence has been adduced to show that after the
lands were acquired, there was no sudden spurt in prices of the
adjoining land.
8] In rebuttal appellants examined N.A.W..1 Rajnikant
Tiwari. He was City Survey Officer at the relevant time. He
deposed about the acquisition of the lands for the similar
purpose through private negotiations. According to him the
appellants were required to be paid Rs.6500 - 10,000/- per
acre. Exhibit 68 is an agreement of sale between the appellant
and the respondent wherein he admitted of receiving Rs.8000/-
per acre towards field survey no.104. There was also assurance
that the respondent or his family member would get preference /
priority in the employment. This witness was subjected to a very
lengthy cross-examination. It was suggested to him that
adjoining land holders sold their lands in the year 1987-88 for a
consideration of Rs.90,000 - Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. He denied
the suggestion. He was then questioned about the agreement
exhibit 58. It was then brought in his cross-expatiation that
Respondent/Gangaram was required to file civil suit claiming
damages on account of using/damaging his land for stacking
coal. The purpose behind examining N.A.W.1 Rajnikant was to
prove agreements between appellant and land owners to the
221012FA121.98+3 .odt
effect that they had agreed to receive compensation at the rate
of Rs.8,000/- per acre
9] The other witness examined by the appellant/W.C.L.
is N.A.W.2 Samba Bawankar. He was serving as a clerk in the
office of the Sub Registrar. He had brought with him the records
of the sale transactions of the lands at village Ghughus took
place during relevant period. It is transpired from his evidence
that land sold during the said period fetched about Rs. 7,000/-
per acre. Copies of the sale transactions are at exhibit 74 to 77.
All these sale transactions are proximate from time angle and
situation angle. Thus what appears from the evidence is that the
lands similar to the acquired lands fetched value of Rs.7000-
8000/-per acre. Having regard to the fact that acquired land was
adjoining to the village Ghughus the learned Reference Court
observed thus:
"These lands near were Abadi, they had
potentiality of being converted to non-
agricultural use and thus in such circumstances,
looking to the proximity of these lands to the
abadi, the applicants are entitled to grant of
enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.
38,000/- per hectare and thus in such
circumstances, issue no.2 is accordingly,
221012FA121.98+3 .odt
answered and I find that aforesaid enhanced
compensation would be just and equitable to be
awarded looking to the facts and circumstances
of the present case."
10] Mr. Lambat, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/ cross/ objectors, relied upon the sale instance at
Exhibit 55. This is dated 28.12.1987 i.e. post notification period.
It relates to the small plot area of 1200 sq.ft. In cross
examination of the concerned witness i.e. P.W. 6 Surendra, he
admitted that whatever land which he had sold and covered
under exhibit 55 was Abadi land situated in ward no.1 of Gram
Panchayat Ghughus. In that view of the matter, no much
assistance can be derived from this piece of evidence.
11] As regards the land owned by the Bhaurao similar
nature of agreement was entered into between him and the
appellant at Exhibit 69. In substance evidence adduced by him
and the one adduced by Gangaram are same. So also the
witnesses examined by the appellants in rebuttal are also same.
12] Having regard to the evidence brought on record, the
learned Reference Court was justified in enhancing the amount
of compensation of Rs.38,000/- per hectare and mainly on
consideration that it was touching to abadi. However, there
cannot be any justification for enhancing the amount of
221012FA121.98+3 .odt
compensation more than whatsoever awarded by the learned
Reference Court. In the result appeals as well as cross - appeals
will have to be dismissed.
13] First Appeal Nos.121/1998, 122/1998 & 431/1998
445/1998, are dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
SMP.
