Bombay High Court
Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown on 31 October, 2012
Bench: M.N. Gilani
311012FA1140.08+3.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1140/2008
APPELLANT:
State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Buldhana,
District : Buldhana
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Suresh Ambadas Wagh, aged about 24 years, r/o Pimpalgaon
Devi, Tq. Motala, district : Buldhana
===============================================
Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for the appellants
None for the respondents.
===============================================
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.811/2009
APPELLANT:
State of Maharashtra, thorugh the Collector, Buldhana,
District : Buldhana
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
Devidas Shamrao Wagh [side dead by L.Rs.]
1] Smt. Jeejabai Devidas Wagh, aged 49 years
2] Gajanan Devidas Wagh, aged 24 years
3] Vijay devidas Wagh, aged 18 years
4] Sau. Shobha Prakash Vyawahare, aged 20 years
No.1 to 3 r/o Pimpalgaon -Devi, tq. Malkapur, district :
Buldhana No.4 r/o Malkapur, Hanumannagar, Tq.
Malkapur, district : Buldhana
===============================================
Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for the appellants
None for the respondents.
===============================================
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:53 :::
311012FA1140.08+3.odt
2
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.975/2009
APPELLANT:
State of Maharashtra, thorugh the Collector, Buldhana,
District : Buldhana
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Rambhau Rajaram Jawre, aged about 60 years, r/o
Pimpalgaon Devi, Tq. Motala, district : Buldhana
===============================================
Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for the appellants
None for the respondents.
===============================================
ig WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1326/2009
APPELLANT:
State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Buldhana,
District : Buldhana
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Pralhad Baliram Patil, aged about 45 years, r/o Pimpalgaon
Devi, Tq. Motala, district : Buldhana
===============================================
Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for the appellants
None for the respondents.
===============================================
CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.
DATE: 31.10.2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
All these four appeals are arising from the common
judgment and award dated 29.11.2004 passed in Land Acquisition
Case No.171/2002, 174/2002, 173/2002 and 179/2002, whereby
311012FA1140.08+3.odt
the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition
officer for the lands compulsorily acquired for the project -
percolation tank, was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The
details of the lands acquired are as under:
First Survey/ Total Area Name of owner Compensation
Appeal Gat No. area acquired awarded by S.L.A.O.
H.R. H.R.
1140/08 200 1.40 0.79 Suresh Ambadas Rs. 39,500/- P.H.
Wagh (Respdt.)
811/09 200 1.40 0.61 Smt. Jeejabai Rs. 39,500/- P.H.
Devidas Wagh &
Others (Respdt.)
975/09 191
6.94
1.76
0.86
1.05
Rambhau Rajaram Rs. 39,500/- P.H.
Jaware (Respdt.)
201 1.41 1.09
1326/09 255 9.55 1.30 Pralhad Baliram Patil Rs. 35,000/- P.H.
(Respdt.)
LAC No. Date of Decision Compensation by Reference court Appell-ant
171/02 29/11/04 Rs. 50,000/- P.H. STATE
174/02 29/11/04 Rs, 50,000/- P.H. STATE
173/02 29/11/04 Rs, 50,000/- P.H. STATE
179/02 29/11/04 Rs, 50,000/- P.H. STATE
2] Mr. Yengal, learned A G P appearing for the state
contended that no evidence was placed before the Reference
Court to justify enhancement in the amount of compensation to
any extent. According to him, the sale deed relied upon being of
the year 1980, is not relevant since it is not proximate from time
angle.
3] None appeared for the respondents.
311012FA1140.08+3.odt
4] The point that arises for consideration is :
A] Whether the learned Reference Court was
justified in awarding compensation @ Rs.50,000/-
i.e. about Rs.20,000/- per acre ?
5] Honestly speaking there was no reason for the state
to file appeal when compensation awarded ex-facie appears
very meager and on the lower side. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.35,000/- P.H.
was enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. It is pertinent to note that all
these lands were under cultivation. Crop pattern suggest that
crops like cotton, hybrid jwar, pulses were grown in the land.
Evidence has been lead to the effect that the land acquired was
having black cotton soil with basic facilities like hospital, bus
stop, schools etc. The market places like Jamthi, Malkapur etc.
are in close proximity. By adopting any method to determine
the market value, in no circumstance the value of such fertile
land and which is under cultivation, can be less than
Rs.20,000/- per acre.
6] The claimants produced on record the sale instance
Exhibit 25 in L.A.C. No.114/2002 which is of the year 1980.
The land area 2 acre and 5 gunthas was sold for a
consideration of Rs.20,000=00. The learned Reference Court
was not inclined to consider the same because it was not
311012FA1140.08+3.odt
proximate from time angle. The fact remains that the prices of
the lands have increasing trend. This is a universal truth. In
absence of any other evidence and particularly evidence in
rebuttal, complete ignorance of such evidence, is not justified.
7] The Reference Court made mention of the sale
instance relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
while determining the amount of compensation. It seems that
none of these sale instances were produced on record and
therefore, ought not have been considered. The other piece of
evidence relied upon by the learned Reference Court is a
decision rendered in other land acquisition references. Those
references were about the land of the same village acquired
compulsorily. Although, I do not subscribe to the approach of
the learned Reference Court in dwelling into the evidence
considered by the Land Acquisition Officer in those cases,
however, as has been stated earlier, the compensation awarded
@ Rs.50,000/- per hectare i.e. about Rs.20,000/- per acre for the
lands acquired in the year 1998 being very much on the lower
side, no interference with the judgment and award is warranted.
8] All these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
JUDGE
SMP.
