Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Krishna Valley ... vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 11 August, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 230 OF 2010
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.2.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Vasant S/o Bapurao Lambrud,
Age 40 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Lambarwadi, Tq. Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 231 OF 2010
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.2.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Navnath s/o Saheb Aajbe,
Age 65 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Lambarwadi, Tq. Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:45:48 :::
2
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 232 OF 2010
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.2.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Kisan S/o Tukaram Lambrud,
Age 65 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Lambarwadi, Tq. Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 233 OF 2010
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.2.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Kalyan s/o Bapurao Lambrud,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Lambarwadi, Tq. Patoda,
Dist. Beed.
3. Minabai W/o Kalyan Lambrud,
Age 42 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o As above.
4. Prashant s/o Kalyan Lambrud,
Age 18 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o As above.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:45:48 :::
3
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
5. Deelip S/o Deorao Bharate,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o As above.
6. Rohidas S/o Deorao Bharte,
Age 42 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o As above.
7. Ramdas S/o Deorao Bharate,
Age 42 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o As above. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimants)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 236 OF 2010
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.2.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Rangnath S/o Yada Aajbe,
Age 55 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
R/o Lambarwadi, Taluka Patoda,
District Beed.
3. Abasaheb S/o Rangnath Aajbe,
Age 35 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
R/o As above.
4. Angad S/o Rangnath Aajbe,
Age 30 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
R/o As above.
5. Nandraj s/o Babasaheb Lambrud,
Age 18 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
R/o As above. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimants)
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:45:48 :::
4
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 237 OF 2010
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.2.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Jagannath S/o Patilba Aajbe,
Age 65 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
R/o Lambarwadi, Taluka Patoda,
District Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 238 OF 2010
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.2.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Bajirao S/o Yada Aajbe, ( Abated as per the
Age 70 years, Occupation Agriculturist, Registrar Court's
R/o Lambarwadi, Taluka Patoda, order dt.8/2/11)
District Beed.
3. Gokul S/o Bajirao Aajbe,
Age 40 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
R/o As above.
4. Bharat S/o Bajirao Aajbe,
Age 25 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
R/o As above.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:45:48 :::
5
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
5. Prakash S/o Bhiku Bale,
Age 30 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
R/o As above. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimants)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 239 OF 2010
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
ig (Orig. Respondent No.2.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Nana S/o Maruti Bale,
Age 55 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
R/o Lambarwadi, Taluka Patoda,
District Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 943 OF 2011
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.2.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Ajinath S/o Kashinath Lambrud,
Age 30 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Lambarwadi, Tq. Patoda,
Dist. Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:45:48 :::
6
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
3. Bajirao S/o Kashinath Lambrud,
Age 25 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o As above.
4. Rahibai W/o Kashinath Lambrud,
Age 50 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o As above.
5. Jaibai W/o Bapurao Lambrud,
Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o As above.
6. Parubai W/o Dattatraya Madke,
Age 30 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o As above. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimants)
ig WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 944 OF 2011
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.2.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Pandurang S/o Shrimant Aajbe,
Age 55 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o Lambarwadi, Tq. Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimant)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 945 OF 2011
Maharashtra Krishna Valley,
Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent No.2.)
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:45:48 :::
7
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, at Beed.
2. Sarjerao S/o Mahada Aajbe,
Age 40 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Lambarwadi, Tq. Patoda,
Dist. Beed.
3. Rama S/o Mahada Aajbe,
Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o As above.
4. Laxman S/o Mahada Aajbe,
Age 32 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o As above. ig ... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respdt.1 and Orig. Claimants)
...
Mr. Gulab Rajale, Advocate for Appellant in all the appeals.
Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent / State in all the appeals.
Mr. D. R. Jaybhar, Advocate for Respondents / Claimants in all the appeals.
...
CORAM : P. R. BORA, J.
Reserved on : 01st August, 2016.
Pronounced on : 11th August, 2016.
JUDGMENT:
. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
2 For construction of a storage tank at village Lambarwadi,
Taluka Patoda, District Beed, certain lands were acquired by the
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
Maharashtra Krishna Valley, Development Corporation, through its
Executive Engineer i.e. present Appellant. Notification under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was
published on 15th June, 2000. Notification under Section 6 was
published in the Government Gazette on 3rd March, 2005.
Possession of the lands was obtained by the Appellant Corporation
on 4th October, 1999. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an
award under Section 11 of the Act on 28th October, 2005. Since the
land owners were not satisfied with the price offered by the SLAO, all
these land owners (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimants")
preferred reference applications under Section 18 of the Act seeking
enhancement of compensation. The Collector, Beed, forwarded all
these applications to the District Court for adjudication. Total 11 of
such reference applications were forwarded.
3 The material on record shows that the learned District
Judge has decided the aforesaid 11 references in three groups. In
the first group, a common judgment and award is passed in LAR
Nos.98, 99, 101 and 108 of 2008. The second common judgment
pertains to LAR Nos.106, 102, 103 and 105 of 2008, whereas, in the
third group, LAR Nos.107, 100 and 104 of 2008 are decided by a
common judgment. All the aforesaid three common judgments are
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
delivered on 17th January, 2009. The record further shows that in the
aforesaid three groups of land acquisition references, the evidence in
so far as of sale instances are concerned, is common. In all these
three groups, one of the Claimant in the said group has deposed on
behalf of all the Claimants and other witnesses as earlier mentioned
are common in all the aforesaid groups of land acquisition references.
The amount of compensation has been uniformly enhanced by the
learned Reference Court in all the aforesaid three groups. In view of
the facts as aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to decided all these 11
appeals by a common reasoning.
4 In each of the aforesaid matter, the SLAO had offered the
compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.537/- per Are,
whereas the learned Reference Court has determined the market
value of the said lands at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per Are and has
accordingly, enhanced the amount of compensation.
5 In the present appeals, it is the contention of the Appellant
Corporation that the amount of compensation has been arbitrarily
enhanced by the Reference Court without there being any sufficient
evidence therefor. It is also the contention of the Appellant
Corporation that the sale instances relying on which the Reference
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
Court has determined the market value of the lands under acquisition,
were not the comparable sale instances and could not have been
relied upon for determining the market value of the lands under
acquisition. It is the further contention of the Appellant that the
Reference Court has wrongly awarded the interest under Section 34
of the Act. On all these grounds, the Appellant Corporation has
prayed for setting aside the judgments and awards passed by the
Reference Court in three common judgments referred to hereinabove.
6 As against it, the Respondents i.e. original Claimants in all
these appeals have supported the judgments and awards impugned
in the present appeals. According to the original Claimants, the
Reference Court has awarded a very moderate enhancement in the
amount of compensation and in fact, the Claimants are entitled for
some more compensation than awarded by the Reference Court. The
original Claimants have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of all these
appeals.
7 Perusal of the impugned judgments and awards reveal
that in each of the three common judgments, one of the Claimant in
each group has deposed and in regard to the sale instances, the
evidence of other two witnesses is common in all the three common
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
judgments. For the sake of convenience, I will be referring to the
evidence as adduced in the common judgment delivered by the
Reference Court in the matter of LAR No.98 of 2008 and other three
connected matters. Total three witnesses were examined by the
original Claimants in order to substantiate their claim. The Claimant
in LAR No.98 of 2008 namely Vasant S/o Bapurao Lambrud deposed
on behalf of all the Claimants in the connected reference applications
and the two other witnesses examined were Rama Aajbe and
Raosaheb Aajbe. The Respondent i.e. present Appellant, admittedly,
did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence before the
Reference Court.
8 The Claimants through the evidence of witnesses namely
Rama Aajbe and Raosaheb Aajbe, duly got proved the sale-deeds,
which were marked as Exhibits - 29, 30 and 31. The 7/12 extracts of
the lands under acquisition were also placed on record. The
electricity bills were also placed on record by the original Claimants so
as to bring on record that electric motors were being used for
irrigating their respective lands.
9 The learned Reference Court after having considered the
oral and documentary evidence brought on record did determine the
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
market value of the lands under acquisition and accordingly,
enhanced the amount of compensation and also awarded the
statutory benefits provided under the provisions of the Act.
10 Perusal of the impugned judgments reveal that while
determining the market value of the lands under acquisition alongwith
the evidence of the respective Claimants, the Reference Court had
relied upon the sale instances brought on record by the Claimants
and the evidence of two independent witnesses namely Rama Aajbe
and Raosaheb Aajbe. The comparable sale instances are at Exhibits
- 29 to 31 in the record of the case. The learned Reference Court in
paras 20 to 24 of the impugned judgments has elaborately discussed
the evidence brought on record by the Claimants and more
particularly as about the sale instances at Exhibits - 29 to 31.
11 As observed by the Reference Court, the lands, which
were subject matter of sale-deeds at Exhibits - 29 to 31, had fetched
the price ranging between Rs.2,500/- to Rs.2,600/- per Are. As further
observed by the Reference Court, the lands, which were the subject
matter of sale-deeds at Exhibits - 29 to 31, were the nearby lands
situated at a short distance from the lands under acquisition. As
further observed by the Reference Court, the Respondent i.e. present
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
Appellant did not bring on record any evidence to rebut the evidence
adduced by the Claimants.
12 From the discussion made in the impugned judgments, it
appears that the sale instances cited by the Claimants were objected
to by the present Appellant on the ground that they were pertaining to
small pieces of land and that the quality and potentiality of the said
lands were incomparable with the lands under acquisition. The sale
instances on record show that one was pertaining to 26 Ares land and
the price received was of Rs.91,000/-; whereas the another land,
which was also admeasuring 26 Ares had achieved the price of
Rs.77,000/-. The sale instances were of the period prior to issuance
of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. As observed by the
learned Reference Court, the lands which were the subject matter of
cited sale instances and the lands under acquisition were of the
similar qualities i.e. to say the fertility, location and the potentiality of
the lands were similar. In the circumstances, the learned Reference
Court deemed it appropriate to determine the market value of the
lands under acquisition on the basis of said comparable sale
instances by recording a finding that the compensation awarded by
the SLAO in respect of the acquired lands was quite inadequate and
unreasonable.
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
13 From the sale instances at Exhibits - 29 to 31, it is quite
evident that the price, which was received for the lands, which were
the subject matter of the said sale-deeds is ranging in between
2,500/- to Rs.2,600/- per Are. From the discussion made by the
learned Reference Court, it is further revealed that the 7/12 extracts
produced on record by the respective Claimants pertaining to their
respective lands were demonstrating that the Claimants were taking
crops like Jawar, wheat, groundnuts, sunflower, sugarcane, cotton,
Bajra, Toor, Udit etc. Considering all these circumstances, the
Reference Court has determined the market value of the lands under
acquisition at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per Are.
14 After having considered the material on record and more
particularly the evidence brought before the Reference Court in the
form of sale instances, it appears to me that the Reference Court has
correctly determined the market value of the lands under acquisition.
It further appears to me that a very moderate enhancement is
awarded by the Reference Court in the amount of compensation. It is
the contention of the Appellant in the present appeals and the learned
counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued that the sale
instances, which were relied upon by the Reference Court were of the
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
small pieces of land, and as such, the same rate could not have been
awarded to the lands under acquisition. The contention so raised is
duly considered by the learned Reference Court and that is the
reason that though in the cited sale instances the price received was
to the tune of Rs.2,500/- to 2,600/- per Are, the Reference Court
determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at the rate
of Rs.1,500/- per Are i.e. about Rs.1,000/- less than the price fetched
by the lands of the said sale instances. It, therefore, does not appear
to me that the Reference Court has awarded any unreasonable
amount of compensation. On the contrary, I reiterate that the amount
of compensation has been very moderately enhanced by the learned
Reference Court. I, therefore, do not see any reason to cause any
interference in the findings so recorded and the enhancement so
awarded by the learned Reference Court.
15 However, there appears substance in the submissions so
made that the Reference Court has wrongly awarded the interest
under Section 34 of the Act to the Claimants. As held by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash
Shiva Rangari, reported in, [ (2016) 3 Mah LJ 457 ] (Full Bench), if
the possession is taken before the notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act is published and/or before the award is passed, the land-
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
owner would be entitled for interest as per Section 34 necessarily
from the date of passing of the award under Section 11 of the Act,
except in cases where the possession is taken in accordance with
Section 17 of the Act, and in that situation only, the provision of
Section 34 of the Act shall start operating from the date of possession.
In the instant matters, it is not the case that the possession of the
lands under acquisition was taken in accordance with Section 17 of
the Act and in the circumstances, the orders passed by the Reference
Court directing the present Appellant to pay interest under Section 34
of the Act, from the date of possession cannot be sustained and to
that extent the impugned orders deserve to be modified. In the result,
the following order:
ORDER
I. The appeals are partly allowed.
II. Clause (4) of the order in each of the award
impugned in the present appeals whereby the
Respondent i.e. present Appellant is directed to
pay interest under Section 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act to the Claimants from the date of
possession, is modified to the effect that such
FIRST APPEAL 230 OF 2010 OTHERS.odt
interest shall be paid from the date of the award
and not from the date of possession on the
amount determined by the SLAO till the actual
payment of the said amount.
III. Award be modified accordingly.
IV. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to
the costs.
[ P. R. BORA, J. ]
ndm
