Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Sardarkhan Makbulkhan Pathan on 7 April, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NOS.3260, 3261, 3262 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.3260 of 2015
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I.L.S. Division Dist.Beed.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
Sardarkhan Makbulkhan Pathan,
Age Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Daulawadgaon, Tq.Ashti,
Dist. Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.Claimant)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.3261 OF 2015
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I.L.S. Division Dist.Beed.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Mahamdahanif Bahadurkha Pathan,
2. Habib Bahadurkha Pathan,
Both Age Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Daulawadgaon, Tq.Ashti,
Dist.Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.Claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:49 :::
2 FA NOS.3260, 3261, 3262 of 2015
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.3262 OF 2015
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I.L.S. Division Dist.Beed.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
Manvarkha Makbulkha Pathan,
Age Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Daulawadgaon, Tq. Ashti,
Dist.Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.Claimant)
...
Mr.N.T.Bhagat, AGP for appellants / State.
Mr. C.K.Shinde, Advocate, for respondents.
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : April 7th, 2016
***
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard. With the consent of learned Counsel for the
parties, heard finally.
2. All the aforesaid three appeals are being heard
3 FA NOS.3260, 3261, 3262 of 2015
simultaneously and I deem it appropriate to pass common
judgment in view of the fact that all these three appeals arise
out of the common judgment and award passed by the Joint
Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Beed, in the respective Land
Acquisition References. Since the factual aspects are not in
dispute, I need not to repeat the said facts.
3. The award passed by the Reference Court has been
objected to only on the ground that the Reference Court has
relied upon the sale deed of a small portion of the land. I have
gone through the record of the case and I have also perused
the reasons recorded by the Reference Court. The claimants
in all the aforesaid three Land Acquisition References had
claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rs. one
lac) per acre. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has
declared the award thereby declaring the market value of the
acquired lands at the rate of Rs.550/- per R.
4. Shri C.K.Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the
original claimants submitted that before the Reference Court
three sale deeds were relied upon by the claimants; first of the
date 17.11.2003 ( Exh.19), second was 25th June, 2003
(Exh.20), and the last was of 30 November, 2002 ( Exh.21).
4 FA NOS.3260, 3261, 3262 of 2015
Learned Counsel pointed out that the land which was the
subject matter of the sale deed at Exh.19 was admeasuring 15
R. and was sold for Rs.45,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.3,000/-
per R. The land which was the subject matter of Exh.20 was
admeasuring 15 R. and was sold for Rs.40,000/- i.e. at the rate
of Rs.2667/- per R; whereas, the land which was subject
matter of Exh.21 was admeasuring 40 R. and was sold for
Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.2500/- per R. Learned
Counsel pointed out that sale instances at Exhs.19 and 20 were
of the adjacent lands purchased by the purchasers therein.
Learned Counsel further brought to my notice that the
Reference Court while considering the said sale instances has
observed that the purchasers of the said sale deed were
benefitted because of well water, electric motor and pipeline
and considering the advantages attached to the said land, the
Reference Court deducted 30% amount from the market price
of those lands and fixed the market value at the rate of
Rs.2100/-, Rs.1867/- and Rs.1750 per R., respectively.
Learned Counsel further brought to my notice that
considering the overall evidence, the Reference Court has
ultimately fixed the market price at Rs.1950/- per R. for
seasonally irrigated land and Rs.1460/- per R. for Jirayat land.
Learned Counsel submitted that the Reference Court has
5 FA NOS.3260, 3261, 3262 of 2015
rightly fixed the market value and assessed the compensation
and no interference is required in the award so passed.
5. I have carefully gone through the record of the
case. From the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, it is revealed that while determining the market value
of the subject lands, there were six sale instances before the
Land Acquisition Officer. From the discussion made by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer it is revealed that while
determining the market value, he has relied upon only one of
such instance which is of the date 24.2.2000 wherein two
hectares of land was sold for the price of Rs.90,000/- i.e.
Rs.450/- per R. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has
further noted that the ready reckoner rate of the said land was
Rs.550/- per R. However, it is quite evident that the Special
Land Acquisition Officer has not at all taken into account the
other sale instances. From the information which is given in
tabular form in the award passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, it is revealed that in the other sale
instances, the price received for the respective lands per R. was
ranging from Rs.729/- per R. to Rs.2666/- per R. The sale
instances relying upon which the Special Land Acquisition
Officer has determined the market value is of the year 2000.
6 FA NOS.3260, 3261, 3262 of 2015
Admittedly, the Section 4 notification was published on
5.2.2004. It, therefore, cannot be said that the price at which
the sale had occurred in 2000 was comparable to the price
which may be existing in the year 2004. On the contrary, the
other sale instances which have not been considered by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer are of the year 2003 and 2004.
One of the sale instance is of 31st August, 2004, i.e. after the
date of publication of the notice under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act wherein for 80 R. land the price was received at
the rate of Rs.1875/- per R.
6. Having considered the aforesaid evidence, it does
not appear to me that the Reference Court has committed any
error in assessing the compensation at the rate of Rs.1950/-
per R. for seasonally irrigated land and Rs.1460/- per R. for
Jirayat land.
7. I have carefully gone through the discussion made
by the Reference Court and it is revealed that all the
circumstances are adequately taken into account by the
Reference Court and, accordingly, decision has been arrived at.
I do not see any perversity or incorrectness in the impugned
Judgment and Award. It appears to me that the Reference
7 FA NOS.3260, 3261, 3262 of 2015
Court has determined the market value of the subject land
fairly and properly and I, therefore, see no reason for causing
any interference in the judgment and order so passed. The
appeals filed by the State are devoid of substance. Hence, the
following order:
ORDER
a) All the three appeals are dismissed without any order as
to the costs.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/3260-3261-3262-15fagr
