Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Vithal Sakharam Pankhade And Ors on 22 August, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1
64 FIRST APPEAL 715 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 715 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Beed. ... APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondent]
V E R S U S
1. Bhausaheb s/o Narayan Pankhade,
Age- major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Raj-Pimpri, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
2. Dilip s/o Narayan Pankhade,
Age- major, Occu. & R/o. as above.
3. Balasaheb s/o Narayan Pankhade,
Occu. & R/o. as above. ... RESPONDENTS
[Ori. Claimants]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 716 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Beed. ... APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondent]
V E R S U S
1. Vithal s/o. Sakharam Pankhade,
Age 45 yrs., Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Rajpimpri, Tal. Georai, Dist. Beed.
2. Bharat s/o. Sakharam Pankhade,
Age 25 yrs., Occu. & R/o. as above.
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2016 00:27:40 :::
2
64 FIRST APPEAL 715 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
3. Dilip s/o. Sakharam Pankhade,
Age 30 yrs., Occu. & R/o. as above.
4. Smt. Kaushalyabai w/o. Raghunath Pankhade,
Age 32 yrs., Occu. & R/o. as above. ... RESPONDENTS
[Ori. Claimants]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 717 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Beed. ... APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondent]
V E R S U S
1. Pralhad s/o. Baburao Tekale,
Age- major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Rajpimpri, Tal. Georai, Dist. Beed.
2. Shivaji s/o. Baburao Tekale,
Age- major, Occu. & R/o. as above.
3. Dattatraya s/o. Baburao Tekale,
Age- major, Occu. & R/o. as above. ... RESPONDENTS
[Ori. Claimants]
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 718 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Beed. ... APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondent]
V E R S U S
1. Smt. Subhadrabai Narayan,
Age Major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Gaundan, Tal. Georai, Dist. Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2016 00:27:40 :::
3
64 FIRST APPEAL 715 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
2. Smt. Nandabai Sheshrao,
Age Major., Occu. & R/o. as above.
3. Trimbak s/o. Laxman,
Age Major., Occu. & R/o. as above.
4. Laxman Bapu Bhandar,
Age Major., Occu. & R/o. as above. ... RESPONDENTS
[Ori. Claimants]
...
Mr. S. N. Morampalle, AGP for Appellant in all the appeals.
ig ...
CORAM : P. R. BORA, J.
DATE : 22nd August, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. Since the present appeals are filed against the common
judgment and award passed by 5th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge,
Beed, in LAR No.567 of 2001 with connected references, I deem it
appropriate to decide these appeals by common reasoning.
2 The lands were acquired for the purpose of construction
of percolation tank at village Gaundgaon, Taluka Georai, District
Beed. Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act") was published on 30th September, 1993, and
the award under Section 11 of the Act came to be passed on 10 th
64 FIRST APPEAL 715 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
March, 1997. The lands, which were acquired for the aforesaid
purpose, were categorized by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in
two categories. For the lands in the first category, which were
including Gat Nos.566 to 569 situated at village Gaundgaon,
compensation at the rate of Rs.225/-per Are for Jirayat land was
offered; whereas, the land which was falling in the second category
i.e. Gat No.176 was given the rate of Rs.250/- per Are. For the Pot-
kharab land, compensation was offered at the rate of Rs.15/- per Are.
Dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded by the SLAO, the
landholders approached the District Collector seeking enhancement in
the amount of compensation. On such application being received, the
District Collector made reference under Section 18 of the Act and
forwarded the same for adjudication to the Civil Court. The 5 th Ad-hoc
Additional District Judge, Beed, after having assessed the oral and
documentary evidence brought before him, determined the
compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per Are for the Jirayat lands.
The Reference Court awarded the compensation for Pot-kharab land
at the rate of Rs.300/- per Are. Aggrieved by, the State has preferred
the present appeals.
3 Heard Shri S. N. Morampalle, learned AGP for the State.
64 FIRST APPEAL 715 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
4 The learned AGP submitted that the Reference Court has
failed in properly appreciating the evidence on record. The learned
AGP further submitted that the sale instances, which are considered
by the Reference Court and on the basis of which the Reference
Court has enhanced the amount of compensation, in fact cannot be
said to be the comparable sale instances, and as such, the market
vale of the lands under acquisition could not have been determined by
the Reference Court on the basis of such sale instances. The learned
AGP, therefore, prayed for setting aside the award impugned in the
present appeals.
5 None present for the original Claimants.
6 After having heard the arguments advanced by the
learned AGP and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award
and other material on record, apparently there appears no substance
in the appeals so filed by the State. The learned Reference Court has
relied upon the sale instances brought on record by the Claimants.
From the discussion made in the common judgment and award
passed, it is revealed that in addition to the oral evidence of
respective Claimants in each of the land acquisition reference, one
64 FIRST APPEAL 715 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
Bapurao Bhimrao Dhotre was examined as the second witness for
and on behalf of all the Claimants so as to prove the comparable sale
instance. In the evidence of the said witness, the sale transaction
dated 21st August, 1993, pertaining to Gat No.501 situated at village
Raj Pimpri, Taluka Georai was duly proved. The said transaction was
pertaining to 70 Ares land which was sold at the value of Rs.90,000/-
by way of registered sale-deed. Though the said witness was
elaborately cross-examined by the learned counsel for the acquiring
body, nothing adverse could come on record during his cross-
examination.
7 The Reference Court in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment
has properly discussed the evidence of sale instance. In the sale
instance, which was duly proved by the Claimants, the land under
acquisition had received the price to the tune of Rs.1,285/- per Are.
Considering the fact that the land, which was the subject matter of
sale-deed at Exhibit - 18 was purchased by the adjacent landholder,
the Reference Court did not find it proper to apply the same criteria for
determining the market value of the lands, which were subject matter
of the references before it and has determined the market value of the
said lands at the rate of Rs.600/- per Are i.e. less than 50% of the
64 FIRST APPEAL 715 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
price, which was received to the land, which was the subject matter of
Exhibit - 18. Admittedly, no evidence oral or documentary was
adduced by the State.
8 After having perused the entire material on record, it does
not appear to me that the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court in any way exorbitant. On the contrary, the Reference Court
has fixed the market price of the lands under acquisition by taking
very conservative approach. Though it was sought to be canvassed
by the learned AGP that the sale transaction at Exhibit - 18 could not
have been relied upon by the learned Reference Court, I do not see
any reason for not believing the said evidence. The Appellant - State
has failed in making out any case requiring any interference in the
impugned judgment and award. Hence, the following order :
O R D E R
I. All the appeals are dismissed without any order as
to the costs.
II. The amount of compensation, if any, deposited by
the Appellant in this Court is permitted to be
64 FIRST APPEAL 715 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
withdrawn by the respective Claimants, if already
not withdrawn by them.
[ P. R. BORA, J. ]
ndm
