Bombay High Court
Sampati Kishan Hajare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 August, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1
76-77 FIRST APPEALS 446 & 447 OF 2010.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 446 OF 2010
Sampati Kishan Hajare,
Age 72 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Wadi-Wagholi, Ta. Latur,
District Latur. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
V E R S U S
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur,
District Latur.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Raighvan Project, Osmanabad,
District Osmanabad. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 447 OF 2010
1] Waman Baburao @ Bapurao Hajare,
Died, through LRs.
1-1] Smt. Parvatibai Waman Hajare (Patil),
Age 82 years, occ. Nil,
R/o. Wadi-Wagholi, Ta. Latur,
District Latur.
1-2] Dagdu Waman Hajare (Patil),
Age 67 years, occ. Agri.,
R/o. Wadi-Wagholi, Ta. Latur,
District Latur.
1-3] Prabhakar Waman Hajare (Patil),
Age 63 years, occ. Agri.,
R/o. Wadi-Wagholi, Ta. Latur,
District Latur.
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:08:32 :::
2
76-77 FIRST APPEALS 446 & 447 OF 2010.odt
1-4] Deelip Waman Hajare (Patil),
Age 62 years, occ. Agri.,
R/o. Wadi-Wagholi, Ta. Latur,
District Latur.
1-5] Rajabhau Waman Hajare (Patil),
Age 57 years, occ. Agri.,
R/o. Wadi-Wagholi, Ta. Latur,
District Latur.
1-6] Madhukar Waman Hajare (Patil),
Age 55 years, occ. Agri.,
R/o. Wadi-Wagholi, Ta. Latur,
District Latur.
2]
Dattu Baburao @ Bapurao Hajare,
Age 82 years, occ. Agri.,
R/o. Wadi-Wagholi, Ta. Latur,
District Latur. ... APPELLANTS
(Orig. Claimants)
V E R S U S
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur,
District Latur.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Raighvan Project, Osmanabad,
District Osmanabad. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respondents)
...
Mr. V. G. Kodale, Advocate h/f Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the
Appellants in both the appeals.
Mr. S. R. Yadav, AGP for Respondent No.1 in FA No.446 of 2010.
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, AGP for Respondent No.1 in FA No.447 of 2010.
Mr. Suresh D. Dhongade, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both the
appeals.
...
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:08:32 :::
3
76-77 FIRST APPEALS 446 & 447 OF 2010.odt
CORAM : P. R. BORA, J.
DATE : 01st August, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. The present appeals are filed by the original Claimants
seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the
Reference Court in the awards impugned in the present appeals.
Since both the appeals are arising out of the same acquisition and
they are decided by a common judgment, I deem it appropriate to
decide these appeals by common reasoning.
2 Since the factual aspects are not in dispute as about
acquisition of land and issuance of notification under Section 4 and
passing of the award under Section 11 of the Act, I do not find it
necessary to reproduce the said facts. The SLAO had determined the
market value of the subject lands at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per
Hectare. Since the price so offered by the SLAO was inadequate, the
Appellants disputed the said price and filed references under Section
18 of the Act. The said references were forwarded for adjudication to
the Civil Court at Latur.
76-77 FIRST APPEALS 446 & 447 OF 2010.odt
3 Before the Reference Court, the Appellants had claimed
compensation at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per Acre. In order to
substantiate their contention, the Appellants relied upon sale instance
of a land situated at adjacent village sold in the relevant period. The
sale deed of the said land was duly proved and was marked as
Exhibit - 47. It was 26 Ares land, which was sold at the price of
Rs.24,600/-. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the acquiring
body. The Reference Court after having considered the evidence
adduced by the Claimants, determined the market value of the land
under acquisition at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per Acre and also
awarded separate compensation for black plum trees, which were 70
in number in L.A.R. No.8 of 1991 and 75 in L.A.R. No.7 of 1991.
Being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation determined by the
Reference Court, the Claimants have preferred the present appeals.
4 The learned counsel for the Appellants assailed the
impugned judgment on several grounds. According to the learned
counsel, the Reference Court has not considered the evidence
brought on record by the Appellants about the yearly yield from lands
under acquisition. The learned counsel submitted that the subject
lands were fully irrigated and sugarcane crop was being grown in the
76-77 FIRST APPEALS 446 & 447 OF 2010.odt
said lands. The learned counsel further submitted that sufficient
evidence was placed on record by the original Claimants evidencing
that sugarcane crop was sold by the Appellants to the sugar factory
and the necessary receipts were also placed on record of the Trial
Court.
5 The learned counsel further submitted that though the
averments in the sale instance at Exhibit - 47 were revealing that the
said land was irrigated land, in fact it was the Jirayat land. The
learned counsel inviting my attention to the evidence of Shri
Yeshwantrao Patil submitted that the said witness in his deposition
before the Court has categorically stated that the said land was
Jirayat land, however, since the sale would not have been permitted
of such a small piece of land admeasuring 26 Ares unless it is shown
that it was an irrigated land that it was mentioned that the land in
question was an irrigated land though it was a Jirayat land. The
learned counsel submitted that these aspects are, however, ignored
by the learned Reference Court. The learned counsel further
submitted that from the evidence, which was adduced by the present
Appellants before the Reference Court, it was fully established by the
Appellants that the land in question was a fully irrigated and fertile
76-77 FIRST APPEALS 446 & 447 OF 2010.odt
land. In such circumstances, the market value of the said land must
have been determined at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per Acre as was
claimed by the Appellants. The learned counsel has, therefore,
prayed for enhancing the amount of compensation in view of the
evidence, which was adduced by the Appellants and to modify the
impugned award to the said extent. In so far as price of trees is
concerned, it was argued by the learned counsel that the same has
also not been properly determined by the Reference Court. The
learned counsel submitted that though expert was examined, the
Court has on its own conclusion unnecessarily decrease the amount
of compensation. The learned counsel has, therefore, prayed for
enhancement on that count also.
6 The learned counsel for the acquiring body resisted the
submissions made on behalf of the Appellants. The learned counsel
submitted that the Reference Court has awarded the adequate
amount of compensation and no interference is required in the
compensation so awarded. The learned counsel submitted that the
SLAO has determined the market value of the land at the rate of
Rs.4,000/- per Acre and that has been enhanced by the Reference
Court by seven and half times and determined at the rate of
76-77 FIRST APPEALS 446 & 447 OF 2010.odt
Rs.30,000/- per Acre. The learned counsel further submitted that the
price determined by the Reference Court of the land under acquisition
and the compensation paid for the trees is adequate and no
interference is required in the impugned award. He, therefore, prayed
for dismissal of the appeals.
7 After having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the
impugned judgment and the evidence on record, apparently it does
not appear to me that the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court is inadequate as has been argued by the learned counsel for
the Appellants.
8 The material on record clearly reveals that the evidence,
which is much relied upon by the Appellants is a sale instance at
Exhibit - 47. Though now it has been contended on behalf of the
Appellants that the said sale instance was pertaining to Jirayat land
and the said fact was also brought on record through the evidence of
the vendor of the said land, the submissions so made are wholly
unacceptable. The learned Reference Court has rightly discussed
that the documentary evidence placed on record would prevail. The
76-77 FIRST APPEALS 446 & 447 OF 2010.odt
discussion made by the Reference Court reveals that in the said sale
deed at Exhibit - 47, it is clearly averred that the subject land is an
irrigated land. It is not in dispute that the land, which was subject
matter of Exhibit - 47 admeasuring 26 Ares was sold at the price of
Rs.24,600/-. The learned Reference Court has observed that since
the Respondents did not adduce any evidence, the Court has
determined the amount of compensation on the basis of the evidence
brought on record by the Claimants. Accordingly the Reference Court
has determined the market value of the land under acquisition at the
rate of Rs.30,000/- per Acre. After having gone through the
discussion made by the Reference Court and the reasoning given by
the Reference Court while arriving at aforesaid conclusion, it does not
appear to me that the Reference Court has committed any error in
determining the market value of the land under acquisition. In view of
the fact that the sale instance at Exhibit - 47 was the only evidence
brought on record by the Appellants for determining the market value
of the land under acquisition, the same was considered by the
Reference Court and accordingly the price was fixed. Though it was
sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the Appellants that
while determining the market value, the aspect of yearly income
76-77 FIRST APPEALS 446 & 447 OF 2010.odt
derived from the land, must have been considered by the Reference
Court, it has to be stated that the said aspect is aptly considered while
determining the market value on the basis of the comparable sale
instance, which was brought on record.
9 The Appellants have also claimed enhancement in the
amount of compensation for the trees existing in the land under
acquisition. However, I do not see any force in the claim so made.
The Reference Court in paras 11 to 13 of the judgment has
elaborately discussed about the entitlement of the Appellants for the
compensation towards fruit bearing trees in their respective land
under acquisition. The Reference Court has also considered the
evidence of the expert adduced on behalf of the Appellants. The
Reference Court has held that black plum trees on an average would
have a yield of 100 kg per year and holding the rate of Rs.2/- per kg,
has calculated the amount of compensation. According to me, the
Reference Court has adopted a proper procedure and has determined
the adequate compensation to be paid for the trees existing in the
land under acquisition.
10 After having considered the entire material on record, it
76-77 FIRST APPEALS 446 & 447 OF 2010.odt
does not appear to me that any case is made out by the Appellants for
enhancing the amount of compensation. The appeals are devoid of
any substance and deserve to be dismissed. Hence, the following
order :
O R D E R
Both the appeals stand dismissed. However, no order as to the costs.
[ P. R. BORA, J. ]
ndm
