Bombay High Court
Haridas Chandrabhan Varne L.Rs ... vs The State Of Mah on 11 April, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 FA 821.2006.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 821 OF 2006
1. Haridas s/o Chandrabhan Varne,
Deceased, through his L.R.s
1a. Sau. Ranjanbai w/o Haridas Varne,
age 38 years, Occ. Agril, and household,
R/o Pimpalgaon, Tq. Gangapur,
District Aurangabad [Divshi/Pimpalgaon]
1b. Kantabai d/o Haridas Varne,
age 24 years, Occ. Agri and Household,
R/o as above.
1c. Yogesh s/o Haridas Varne,
age 21 years, Occ. Agri, r/o as above.
1d. Sonu Haridas Varne,
age 19 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o as above.
1e. Roopali d/o Haridas Varne,
age 16 years, minor u/g of
Ranjanabai Haridas appellant
No.1a.
2. Gorakhnath Chandrabhan Varne,
age 33 years, Occ. Agril,
R/o as above. ....Appellants...
[orig. claimants]
VERSUS.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad. ...Respondent...
[orig respondent]
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:54:44 :::
2 FA 821.2006.odt
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr S K Adkine
AGP for Respondent : Mr K D Mundhe
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: April 11, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award
passed by the 3rd Adhoc Additional District Judge,
Aurangabad dated 15.2.2006, in LAR No.510.1996 (new)
120/1994 (old).
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as
under :-
The claimants are the owners of Block No.43
admeasuring 27 Acres 18 Gunthas situated at village
Kinhal, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. The
Government has acquired the land in the year 1989 for
construction of a percolation tank in the village and out
of block no.43, land ad-measuring 2 Hectors 80 Aars
owned and possessed by the claimants came to be
acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed
an award on 2.8.1993 and awarded the compensation @
Rs.230/- per Aar. Being aggrieved by the same, the
3 FA 821.2006.odt
appellants/original claimants had filed a Reference.
The learned 3rd Adhoc Additional District Judge,
Aurangabad, by its impugned Judgment and Award
dated 15.2.2006 partly allowed the Reference and
thereby awarded enhanced compensation @ Rs.115/-
per are in addition to the rate awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, the learned Judge of
the Reference Court has awarded compensation @
Rs.345/- per Aar for the acquired land. Hence, this
appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that,
the acquired land was a black cotton soil and irrigated
land. Learned counsel submits that, there is evidence
to show that the acquired land is irrigated on the water
of well by means of pipe line through electric motor
installed on the well situated in the acquired land.
Learned counsel submits that the claimant has deposed
before the Reference Court that he was taking sugar-
cane, grass, zinger, wheat, and gram in his land prior to
the acquisition. Learned counsel submits that, even the
S.L.A.O. has also accepted acquisition of the well
4 FA 821.2006.odt
situated in the acquired land. Besides the land, the
compensation is awarded separately for acquisition of
the well. Learned counsel submits that, even though
the appellants/claimants have proved the sale instance
of land bearing Block No.142 of the same village, same is
not considered by the Reference Court. Learned counsel
submits that, said transaction of land admeasuring 37R
dated 23.4.1990 for a consideration of RS.20,500/-. The
claimant has examined attesting witness on the said
sale deed and accordingly, said sale deed is marked as
Exh.23. Learned counsel submits that, the appellant-
claimant has also produced on record certified copy of
another sale deed which was executed three years prior
to the notification u/s 4 of the present acquired land.
Learned counsel submits that, the Reference Court has
not considered the same. Learned counsel submits
that, though reference Court has corrected the mistake
committed by the S.L.A.O. and treated the acquired land
as seasonally irrigated land, failed to consider the sale
instance as stated above and awarded the compensation
at a very meager rate.
5 FA 821.2006.odt
4. Learned AGP appearing for respondent-State
submits that, so far as the sale instance at Exh.23 is
concerned, the land under the sale instance was
purchased alongwith the share in the well and in the
electric motor. Learned AGP submits that, as per the
contents of the sale deed itself, land under the sale
instance was situated adjacent to Gavthan. Learned
AGP further submits that moreover the land under the
sale instance was adjacent to the another land of the
purchaser. Learned AGP submits that, therefore, so far
as land under sale instance is concerned correct
marked price does not reflect from the same. Learned
AGP further submits that, so far as another sale deed
produced before the Reference Court is concerned, same
was produced on record after closure of oral evidence of
both the sides. Learned AGP submits that, the
Reference Court has therefore rightly discarded the said
sale instance. Learned AGP submits that, the Reference
Court has rightly enhanced the compensation @
Rs.115/- per Aar in addition to the rate awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the facts and
6 FA 821.2006.odt
circumstances of the case, no interference is required.
There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
5. So far as the classification of the land acquired is
concerned, the Reference Court has rightly come to the
conclusion that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has
committed mistake in treating the acquired land as
Jirayat land and the S.L.A.O. should have considered
the acquired land as seasonally irrigated land.
6. So far as the sale instance Exh.23 which has been
duly proved by the appellant-claimant before the
Reference Court is concerned, the land under said sale
instance has fetched more price than the market rate for
the reason that the land in sale instance was just
adjacent to Gavthan and another land of the purchaser.
In this case, the Section 4 notification is 1.11.1990, sale
transaction at Exh.23 was on 23.4.1990. Even though
assuming that the land under sale instance has fetched
more price than market price, to some extent, this sale
instance speaks about the prevailing market rate in the
7 FA 821.2006.odt
said village. The sale deed Exh.23 was executed some
seven months prior to the date of notification for the
acquired lands. The appellant-claimant has also
deposed before the Court that, distance between the
acquired land and land under sale instance Exh.23 is
about 8000 to 9000 feet.
7. So far as other sale instance produced after
closing of the evidence is concerned, the learned
counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that, the
said sale deed was executed three years prior to the date
of notification for a consideration of Rs.600/- per aar.
Said sale deed thus not considered by the Reference
Court for the reason that it was not tested by cross
examination. However, by considering the sale instance
at Exh.23, I am of the opinion that, the Reference Court
has not correctly awarded the rate while awarding
enhanced compensation to the claimants. In my
opinion, it would be just and proper if the compensation
is awarded @ Rs.215/- instead of 115/- as awarded by
the Reference Court.
8 FA 821.2006.odt
8. In the result, appeal is partly allowed in terms of
the following order.
O R D E R
I. Appeal is hereby partly allowed.
II. The impugned judgment and Award passed by
the 3rd Adhoc Additional District Judge,
Aurangabad in LAR No. 510/1996 (New)
120/1994 (old) dated 15.2.2006 is hereby
modified in the following manner :-
"The Respondent-State shall pay the
compensation to the claimants for the
acquired land at the rate of Rs.215/-(Rs.
Two Hundred fifteen only) per Aar in
addition to the compensation awarded by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer @
Rs.230/- per Aar."
III. Rest of the Judgment and Award stands
confirmed.
IV. The appellants-claimants to pay the deficit
court fees, if any.
V. Award be drawn up accordingly.
9 FA 821.2006.odt
VI. Needless to say that, if the amount is paid as
per award passed by the Reference Court, the
same shall be deducted while computing the
compensation as per the modified Award.
VII.First Appeal disposed of. No costs.
sd/-
ig ( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
