Shriram Tukaram Solanke vs State Of Mah. Thr. The Collector ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1329 Bom

    228-J-FA-97-07                                                                         1/6


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                   
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO.97 OF 2007




                                                          
    Shriram Tukaram Solanke 
    Since deceased through LRs.  




                                                         
    1(a)  Milind s/o Shriram Solanke 
            Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business 
            R/o Shivaji Building Lane No.3




                                                
            Tapodham Parshad Warje, Pune 53. 

    1(b) Vinod s/o Shriram Solanke, 
                                      
            Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service, 
            R/o Flat No.1, Ashish Appartment,     
                                     
            Panchal Layout, Hingana Road, 
            Nagpur 16.                                         ... Appellants. 

    -vs- 
              


    1.  State of Maharashtra, 
         Through The Collector, Yavatmal 
           



    2.  The Collector, Yavatmal 

    3.  The Executive Engineer, 





         Arunawati Canal Department, 
         Yavatmal 

    4.  Spl. L.A.O. Minor Irrigation Works 
         No.1, Yavatmal. 





    5.  Executive Engineer Bembla Project
         Division, Yavatmal.                                   ... Respondents. 


    Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for appellants. 
    Shri H. R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 




             ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:21 :::
     228-J-FA-97-07                                                                                 2/6


                                                  CORAM  : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. 

                                                  DATE     : APRIL 07, 2016 
    Oral Judgment : 




                                                                   

This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the judgment dated

23/12/2005 passed in L.A.C. No.23 of 2000 whereby the Reference Court

partly enhanced the amount of compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per hectare for

the acquired land. The appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking further

enhancement in the amount of compensation. Land admeasuring 4H 35 R

from village Pimpalgaon bearing Gat No.27 came to be acquired for the

Bembla project. The notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated

19/04/1994 and the award was passed on 02/03/1996. The Land

Acquisition Officer granted compensation @ Rs.22,000/- per hectare for the

acquired land. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed reference under Section

18 of the said Act. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of

compensation to Rs.50,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved the present

appeal has been filed.

2. Shri A. Sambre, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the acquired land was irrigated by drawing water from the adjacent

stream which was noted in the 7/12 extracts at Exhibits-40 and 41. He

submitted that various crops were being grown in the said land and the

Reference Court was not justified in treating the land as dry crop land except

228-J-FA-97-07 3/6

to the extent of 50R land. He then submitted that though there were two

sale instances at Exhibits-42 and 43 that were placed on record, the same

indicated that the market value of the acquired land was higher than the

amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court. He referred to the

map at Exhibit-48 to indicate the location of village Pimpalgaon and

adjoining villages. The learned counsel also refereed to the judgment dated

27/08/2015 in F.A. No.343 of 2004 and other connected appeals pertaining

to the same project but from village Khadksawanga. He submitted that as

the acquired land was from the adjoining village, the amount of

compensation awarded in said first appeal should also be taken into

consideration. It was therefore submitted that the appellant was entitled to

compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare.

3. Shri H. R. Dhumale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

the respondents supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the

Reference Court after considering the evidence on record rightly granted

compensation of Rs.50,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. No sale

instances from village Pimpalgaon were filed on record. He further

submitted that no documents were filed by the appellant to indicate that

crops were being grown in the said acquired land. According to him, the sale

instances related to irrigated land and therefore the compensation awarded

therein could not be taken into consideration in the present case. It was

228-J-FA-97-07 4/6

therefore submitted that the award as passed by the Reference Court

deserves to be maintained.

4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have

perused the records of the case. I have also gone through the impugned

judgment. The appellant examined himself below Exhibit-36. He placed on

record the 7/12 extracts at Exhibits-40 and 41. In the said 7/12 extracts,

there is reference to crops like cotton, tur etc. There is also an endorsement

that water was being drawn from the nearby stream. The appellant has

stated that his land was adjoining Kholad river. In his cross examination, it

was suggested to him that the flood water of the river used to come inside his

field which fact was admitted by the appellant. Considering the 7/12

extracts at Exhibits-40 and 41 it can be said that the land was being irrigated

by drawing water from the nearby stream. However, there is no permission

granted by the Tahsildar for drawing water from the stream.

5. The sale instance at Exhibit-42 is dated 18/01/1994. The same

pertains to a transaction in respect of land admeasuring 1H 21 R situated at

Mouja Kopra. The transaction is for Rs.1,50,000/- This would indicate that

approximate market value of the land was Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. This

sale instance is prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the said

Act. The revenue map on record indicates that after the boundary of village

228-J-FA-97-07 5/6

Pimpalgaon, there is village Sawanga and thereafter there is a boundary of

village Kopra. This sale instance can be taken into consideration by keeping

in mind the approximate distance of the acquired land from village Kopra.

6. The sale instance at Exhibit-43 is dated 05/08/1994. The land

therein is situated at village Thalegaon, Taluka and District Yavatmal.

Considering the date of said sale instance and the same being after issuance

of notification under Section 4 of the said Act, this sale transaction is

discarded. In F.A. No.343 of 2004 decided on 27/08/2015, the land from

village Khadaksawanga and adjoining village was acquired as per notification

dated 15/09/1994. After treating the land to be irrigated land,

compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- per hectare came to be granted.

7. Considering aforesaid evidence on record, it can be said that the

appellant was taking crops like cotton and tur from the acquired land. A

finding to that effect is recorded in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment.

The same is however restricted to only 80R land. There is no basis for

holding only 80R land to be irrigated. In absence of any such indication in

the revenue records, it cannot be said that only a portion of the land was

irrigated.

228-J-FA-97-07 6/6

8. Thus, considering the 7/12 extracts at Exhibits-40 and 41 along

with the sale instance at Exhibit-42 of the adjoining village and the

adjudication in F.A. No.343 of 2004, in the present case, the amount of fair

compensation for the acquired land can be taken to be Rs.1,00,000/- per

hectare. This is after considering the date of notification under Section 4 of

the said Act alongwith the sale instance at Exhibit-42 as well as the 7/12

extracts on record. The point as framed is answered by holding that the

appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per

hectare.

9. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed :

The judgment dated 23/12/2005 in L.A.C. No.23 of 2000 is partly

modified. It is held that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation @

Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. Rest of the award is maintained.

The first appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

JUDGE

Asmita