Bombay High Court
Dharmaraj Sambhajirao Deshmukh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA Nos.1227, 25, 2616, 2620 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1227 OF 2007
Dasrao Yadavrao Murure,
Age 44 years, Occu. Agri,
R/o Ambegaon, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur.
...APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Latur.
...
...RESPONDENT
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2007
Dharmaraj s/o. Sambhajirao Deshmukh
Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Ambewadi Masalga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur.
...APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Latur.
...RESPONDENT
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2616 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Latur.
...APPELLANT
(Ori. Respondent)
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:36:19 :::
2 FA Nos.1227, 25, 2616, 2620 of 2008
Dharmaraj s/o. Sambhajirao Deshmukh
Age : 33 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Ambewadi Masalga,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2620 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Latur.
ig ...APPELLANT
(Ori. Respondent)
VERSUS
Dasrao Yadavrao Murure,
Age 38 years, Occu. Agri,
R/o Ambegaon, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
...
Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for appellants in FA Nos.
1227/2007 & 25/2007 and for Sole Respondent in FA Nos.
2616/2008 & 2620/2008
Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, AGP for Respondent / State in FA Nos.
1227/2007 and 25/2007 and for Appellant / State in FA Nos.
2616/2008 and 2620/2008
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : April 16th, 2016
...
JUDGMENT:
1. Since all these four appeals are arising out of
common judgment and award passed by the Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Latur, on 31st of March, 1995, in LAR
No.2162/1990 with connected matters, I deem it expedient to
decide all these appeals by common reasoning.
2. First Appeal No.25/2007 is filed by the Original
Claimant in LAR No.2162/1990 whereas Appeal No.2616/2008
is filed by the State taking exception to the same award.
3.
first Appeal No.1227/2007 is filed by the Claimant in
LAR No.2163/1990 whereas, Appeal No.2620/2008 is filed
questioning the same award by the State.
4. The land survey No.19 admeasuring 2 H. 80 R. was
owned by Dasrao s/o Yadavrao Murmure which was the subject
matter in LAR No.2163/1990 whereas land survey No.20
admeasuring 3 H. 68 R., owned by Dharamraj Deshmukh, was
the subject matter of LAR No.2162/1990. Both these lands
along with many other were acquired for Masalga Medium
Project. Section 4 notification in that regard was published on
27th of January, 1983, and common award under Section 11
was passed on 23rd of July, 1987. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of
Rs.6201/- per Acre. The claimants have claimed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per Acre. Dissatisfied
with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
the claimants have preferred Reference Application under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and after adjudication,
the learned Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate
of Rs.20,000/- per acre in both the Land Acquisition
References.
5.
In the present appeals filed by the claimants, it is
their contention that the Reference Court must have awarded
the compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per Acre. Learned
Counsel appearing for the claimants in both the aforesaid
appeals submitted that the claimants in both the appeals have
relied upon a sale instance of the similarly situated land which
had taken place on 5.4.1978. Learned Counsel submitted that
the claimants examined the purchasers therein before the
Court. The said land was admeasuring 1 Acre 8 Gunthas and it
was sold at the price of Rs.30,000/-. Learned Counsel
submitted that when similarly situated land was sold at the
aforesaid rate in the year 1978, the demand raised by the
claimants, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per
Acre was most reasonable and must have been granted by the
Reference Court. Learned Counsel submitted that though the
Reference Court did rely upon the sale instances brought on
record by the claimants at Exh.22, while awarding the
compensation, erroneously reduced the amount of
compensation. Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed that the
compensation amount in both the appeals be enhanced and the
impugned award be accordingly modified.
As against it, Mr. C.V.Dharurkar, learned A.G.P. submitted
that the Reference Court has wrongly relied upon the sale
instances brought on record by the claimants in determining the
amount of compensation. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the
subject land of the said sale instance was situated at village
Holi whereas the lands under acquisition were of village
Masalga. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the State has
also placed on record one sale instance at Exh.27 pertaining to
the land situated at village Masalga. Learned A.G.P.
submitted that in the aforesaid transaction land admeasuring 5
acres 5 gunthas was sold at the price of Rs.20,000/-.
According to the learned A.G.P., the sale instance relied upon
by the State was thus, more comparable for determining the
amount of compensation of the subject lands. Learned A.G.P.
submitted that the learned Reference Court, instead of relying
upon the sale instance brought on record by the State, wrongly
relied upon the sale instance cited by the claimants and
awarded unfair and unreasonable price for the land under
acquisition. Learned A.G.P., therefore, prayed for modification
of the award by determining the market value of the acquired
lands on the basis of the sale instances at Exh.27.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions
advanced on behalf of the original claimants and the State. I
have also perused the impugned judgment and award and the
evidence adduced in the matters. The claimants have
examined one Devidas Bajulge who had purchased the land
which was the subject matter of the sale deed placed on record
by the claimants at Exh.22. Said Devidas was also subjected
to cross examination by the State. The said witness has
specifically deposed that though the land purchased by him was
falling in the outskirts of village Holi, it was nearer to the lands
under acquisition and the lands purchased by him were of
similar quality and fertility and also the potentiality.
7) As against this, though the State has placed on
record another sale instance at Exh.27, did not examine any
witness in relation to the said sale deed. The State did not
bring on record any evidence to show that the land which was
the subject matter of the sale deed at Exh.27 was of the similar
quality, fertility and potentiality of the lands under acquisition.
Learned Tribunal found the sale instance relied upon by the
claimants more dependable for assessing the amount of
compensation and, accordingly, determined the amount of
compensation. The learned A.G.P. further submitted that on the
basis of the sale instance cited by the claimants, the Reference
Court had reached to the conclusion that the irrigated land shall
yield the price of Rs.37,000/- per acre. In the circumstances,
according to learned A.G.P., for the subject lands which were
admittedly non irrigated lands, no compensation could have
been awarded at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre.
8) During the course of hearing of the present appeals,
learned Counsel for the original claimants placed on record copy
of the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal
No.541/2003 delivered on 6th October, 2015. Learned
Counsel brought to my notice that in the said appeal also, the
subject land was acquired for Masalga Medium Project though
under different notification. Learned Counsel further brought
to my notice that the notification for acquisition of the said land
was issued on 8.1.1984 whereas the notification for acquisition
of the lands involved in the present appeals was issued on 27th
January, 1983. Learned Counsel submitted that in LAR
No.356/1988 arising out of the acquisition of the land acquired
for the same Masalga Medium Project, the Reference Court had
awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per acre
and the award passed in the said Reference has become final.
Learned Counsel submitted that the lands which are subject
matter of the present appeals are from the same vicinity and
acquired for the same project and in such circumstances, on
parity basis, the same price needs to be determined as market
value of the properties involved in the present appeals.
9) From the observations made by this Court in the
judgment in F.A. No.541/2003, it is revealed that the award
passed in LAR No.356/1988 has attained finality wherein the
Reference Court had awarded the compensation at the rate of
Rs.24,000/- per acre for the dry land. The lands which are
subject matter of the present appeals are from the same area
and in such circumstances there is reason to believe that the
said lands would be possessing the same market value. Even
otherwise, after having gone through the discussion made by
the learned Reference Court in the impugned awards, I did not
find that the compensation determined by the Reference Court
is in any way unreasonable or on higher side. The Tribunal
has written a well reasoned judgment and has correctly
determined the market value of the lands under acquisition.
10) Secondly, as has been noted by me here-in-above,
this Court, in First Appeal No.541/2003, arising out of the Land
Acquisition Reference pertaining to the same Masalga Medium
Project, has awarded the compensation at the rate of
Rs.24,000/- per acre for dry land. Undoubtedly, the lands
which are subject matter of the present appeals are of the
same area acquired for the same project. In the
circumstances, it does not appear to me that any interference is
required in the judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court in both the Land Acquisition References. Neither the
original claimants have made out any case for enhancement in
the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court
nor the State has put forth any convincing case so as to reduce
the amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference
Court.
All the aforesaid appeals are thus liable to fail. In the
result, following order:
ORDER
A) First Appeal Nos. 1227 OF 2007, 25 OF 2007,
2616 OF 2008, and 2620 OF 2008, are dismissed. No order
as to costs.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/1227-07fagr
