Bombay High Court
Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown on 25 October, 2012
Bench: M.N. Gilani
231012FA762.07+4 .odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.762/2007
APPELLANT:
Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Pusad(For Vidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur) At Pusad, Tq.
Pusad, District Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Ragho s/o Laxman Badkal,Aged-about 65 years, R/o
Nawargaon, Tq.Maregaon, District Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra,Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works
No.1, Yavatmal.
4] Executive Engineer, Yavatmal, Medium Project Division
(Irrigation Department) Yavatmal [deleted by counsel]
================================================
Mr. A.B. Patil Advocate for appellant
Mrs S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. S.M. Bhagde, A G P for respondent no.2 & 3
================================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.860/2007
APPELLANT:
Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Pusad (For Vidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur) At Pusad, Tq.
Pusad, District Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Jago s/o Laxman Badkal Aged-about 55 years, R/o
Karanwadi, Tq.Maregaon, District Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:19:40 :::
231012FA762.07+4 .odt
2
No.1, Yavatmal.
4] Executive Engineer, Yavatmal Medium Project Division,
(Irrigation Department), Yavatmal.
================================================
Mr. A.B. Patil Advocate for appellant
Mrs S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. A.D. Sonak, A G P for respondent no.2 to 4
================================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1486/2008
APPELLANT:
Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Pusad( For Vidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur) At Pusad, Tq.
Pusad, District Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Pandurang s/o Maroti Awari, Aged-about 33 years, R/o
Nawargaon, Tq.Maregaon, District Yavatmal.
2] Tanebai w/o Maroti Awari, Aged about 60 years, R/o
Nawargaon, Tq.Maregaon, District Yavatmal.
3] The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
4] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works
No.1, Yavatmal.
5] Executive Engineer, Yavatmal Medium Project Division,
(Irrigation Department), Yavatmal.
================================================
Mr. A.B. Patil Advocate for appellant
Mrs S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. S.M. Bhagde, A G P for respondent no.3 to 5
================================================
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 16/2011 [IN F.A. NO.1486/2008]
CROSS OBJECTORS:
1] Pandurang s/o Maroti Awari, Aged-about 45 years, R/o
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:19:40 :::
231012FA762.07+4 .odt
3
Nawargaon, Tq.Maregaon, District Yavatmal.
2] Tanebai w/o Maroti Awari, Aged about 70 years, R/o
Nawargaon, Tq.Maregaon, District Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through its
Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Pusad.
2] The State of Maharashtra,Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation
Works No.1, Yavatmal.
4] Executive Engineer Medium Project Division,Yavatmal.
================================================
Mrs S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for cross objectors
Mr. A B Patil advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. S.M. Bhagde, A G P for respondent no.2 to 4.
================================================
WITH
FIRST APEAL NO.1487/2008
APPELLANT:
Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Pusad (For Vidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur) At Pusad, Tq.
Pusad, District Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Rajendraprasad S/o Laxman Gaykwad, Aged about 33 years,
R/o Nawargaon, Tq. Maregaon, District Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works
No.1, Yavatmal.
4] Executive Engineer, Yavatmal Medium Project Division,
(Irrigation Department), Yavatmal.
================================================
Mr. A.B. Patil Advocate for appellant
Mrs S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:19:40 :::
231012FA762.07+4 .odt
4
Mr. A D Sonak, A G P for respondent no.2 to 4
================================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.165/2009
APPELLANT
Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, (For Vidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur) At Pusad,
Taluka Pusad, District Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Anil S/o Bapurao Ladke, Aged 40 years, Occupation
Agriculturist, R/o Nawargaon, Tal-Maregaon, District
Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,Minor Irrigation Works
No.1, Yavatmal.
4] Executive Engineer Medium Project Division Irrigation
Department Yavatmal.
================================================
Mr. A.B. Patil Advocate for appellant
Mrs S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. S.M. Bhagde, A G P for respondent no.2 to 4
================================================
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 22/1012 [ IN F.A. NO.165/2009]
CROSS OBJECTOR:
Anil S/o Bapurao Ladke, Aged 40 years, Occupation
Agriculturist, R/o Nawargaon, Tal-Maregaon, District
Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, (For
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur) At
Pusad, Taluka Pusad, District Yavatmal.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:19:40 :::
231012FA762.07+4 .odt
5
2] The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works
No.1, Yavatmal.
4] Executive Engineer Medium Project, Yavatmal.
================================================
Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, advocate for respondent/ cross-objector
Mr. A B Patil advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. S.M. Bhagde/ A.D. Sonak, A G P for respondent 2 to 4
================================================
CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.
DATE: 23.10.2012
ORAL JUDGMENT:
These appeals and cross appeals are arising from the
judgment and award passed in between 28.9.2006 to 20.10.2006 by
the Reference Courts at Kelapur - Pandharkawada, district :
Yavatmal. The particulars of the survey numbers, land acquired,
compensation granted by S.L.A.O. and by Reference Court are
reproduced in the following chart:
Sr. No. First Appeal No Survey Total area Area acquired Name of owner
No./Gat No. (H.R.) (H.R.)
1 762/07 31 0.88 0.88 Ragho Laxman Badkal( Respdt)
2 860/07 30 4.02 4.02 Jago Laxman Badkal. (Respdt)
3 1486/08 320 1.72 1.72 Pandurang Maroti Awari
cross obj. 16/11 317 2.58 2.58 (Respdt)
4 1487/08 18 1.62 1.62 Rajendraprasad Laxman Gaikwad (Respdt)
5 165/09 301 2.23 2.23 Anil Bapurao Ladke
Cross-Obj. 22/12 (Respdt)
Compensation awarded by LAC No. Date of Decision Compen-sation by
S.L.A.O. Reference court
231012FA762.07+4 .odt
Rs.27,000/- P.H. 135/04 [ Old 71/04 ] 29/9/06 Rs.85,000 P.H.
Rs.1,500/- P.H. for P.K.
Rs.27,000/- P.H. 141/04 28/9/06 Rs.85,000/- P.H.
Rs.1,500/- P. H. for P.K. [ Old 77/04 ]
Rs.27,000/- P.H. 130/04 20/10/06 Rs.88,000/- P.H.
Rs.1,500/- P. H. for P.K. [ Old 66/04 ]
Rs.32,000/- P.H. 136/04 [Old 72/04] 19/10/06 Rs.85,000/- P.H.
Rs.1,500/- P.H. for P.K.
Rs.32,000/- P.H. 28/03 [Old 23/03] 19/10/06 Rs.85,000/- P.H.
Rs. 1,500/- P.H. for P.K.
2] Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that there being no evidence produced on record, the
learned Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the
compensation from Rs.27,000/- per hectare granted by the S.L.A.O.
to Rs.85,000/- per hectare. According to him, the learned Reference
Court adopted erroneous approach while entertaining these
references.
3] Learned A G P, appearing for the State supported the
contention advanced by Mr. Patil.
4] Mrs. Deshpande, appearing for the respondents / cross-
objectors, contended that whatever the compensation awarded by
the learned Reference Court is very much on the lower side.
According to her, by producing on record overwhelming evidence,
the land owners satisfactorily discharged the burden which lay upon
them. In that view of the matter, no interference with the judgment
and award impugned is warranted, she urged.
5] Point that arises for my consideration is :
Whether the compensation awarded by the
231012FA762.07+4 .odt
Reference Court is just and fair?
6] Sale instance i.e. exhibit 41 relied upon by the land
owners relates to the land of the same village i.e. Navargaon it
being just 2 ½ years prior to the date of notification, learned
Reference Court was justified in fixing the market value after
considering the same. However, from the observations made in
paragraph 13 of the judgment and award it appears that the learned
Reference Court felt hitch in relying upon the Index II in view of
the provisions of section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
However, in later part of the judgment, the learned Reference Court
observed that there was no challenge to the genuineness to the sale
transaction and therefore, he proceeded to draw presumption about
its genuineness and then considered it as a cogent evidence. In fact,
after the decision of the Apex Court in Cement Corporation of India
..vs.. Puriya reported in (2004) 8 SCC 270, this issue remains no
longer res-intigra. The Division Bench of this Court in case of
MIDC..vs.. Shaikh Khatinabi Abdul Gafar Shaikh and others,
reported in 2008(2) Bom.C.R. 34 relying upon the decision in
Cement Corporation's Case supra observed thus:
"It is not in dispute that Shri Ladekar's land was
purchased by Shri Dwivedi and that copy of Index
II in respect of the sale is placed on record at Exh
32. The learned Advocate for the appellant
231012FA762.07+4 .odt
submitted that for relying on the sale instances the
party ought to have been examined. Such a view
undoubtedly held field even after insertion of
section 51(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. In
(Special Deputy Collector ..vs.. Kurra Sambasiva
Rao), reported at 1997 DGLS 725:A.I.R.1997
S.C.2625 the Apex Court held that the sale instance
can be proved only by examining the vendor or
vendee. However, subsequently, in (State of
Haryana ..vs.. Ram Singh) reported at 2001 DGLS
895:A.I.R.2001 S.C.2532 the Apex Court held that
the registered documents can be seen even without
examining the parties. In (Cement corporation of
India ..vs.. Puriya) reported at 2004 DGLS 713:
2004 A.I.R.S.C.4830:(2004)8S.C.C.270, all these
authorities, were considered and it was held that
certified copy of document registered under the
Registration Act, including copy given under
section 57 of the Act, may be accepted as evidence
of the transaction recorded. In view of this
objection of non-examination of the vendor or
vendee cannot be sustained"
7] In that view of the matter, the evidence in the nature of
231012FA762.07+4 .odt
the certified copy of the Index II is very much admissible even
without examining vendee and vendor. This transaction shows that
for the area of 1.21 H.R. value fetched was Rs.74,300/- P.H. and
this happened 2 ½ years earlier. If 10% increase per year is added,
the value would be more than Rs.90,000/- P.H.
8] Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out admission
given by land owner A.W. 1 Ragho [L.A.C.No.132/2004] to the
effect that 3 to 4 years prior to application of notification under
section 4 there was rumour that the Bembla Project was going to be
implemented and for that lands would be acquired. This does not
mean that whatever the sale transactions were effected were not
bonafide or deliberately the price was inflated. To a specific
suggestion A.W.1 Ragho denied that transaction Exhibit 25 is a
bogus and was prepared with an eye on the proposed acquisition. It
is pertinent to note that the appellant did not undertake any exercise
to point out some more sale instances, at least to raise a doubt that
they were deliberately made to claim higher amount of
compensation. In absence of such evidence the sale instance
Exh.41, which prima facie, appears genuine, cannot be discarded.
9] Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/cross-objectors relied upon the sale transaction at
exhibit 45 [in F.A. No.165/2009] to claim enhanced amount of
compensation than whatsoever has been awarded by the learned
231012FA762.07+4 .odt
Reference Court. This transaction is dated 24.12.1990 which was
made in pursuance to the agreement of sale. Frankly speaking no
importance can be attached to the agreement of sale exhibit 46
which was not registered. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove
its genuineness. Thus what appears is that on 24.12.1990, the land
in the village, which is adjoining to village Navarwgaon fetched
value of Rs.1,10,000/- i.e. about Rs.55,000/- per acre. Having
regard to date of notification issued under section 4 i.e. dated
6.2.1997, this sale instance does not appear to be proximate from
time angle.
10] In that light of the matter, there appears no scope for
interference with the judgment and award impugned.
11] Accordingly, the appeals as also the cross-objections are
dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
SMP
