Bombay High Court
The Slao Jalgaon vs Fakira Mahadu Dhangar on 31 August, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.563 OF 2004
1. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Jalgaon ...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Raghunath Ratan Pardhi,
Age : 35 years, Occu: Farmer,
R/o. Bhoras Tq. Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.562 OF 2004
1. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Jalgaon ...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Yuvraj Babulal Koli,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Farmer,
R/o. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.564 OF 2004
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2016 00:00:44 :::
2 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
1. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Jalgaon ...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Fakira Mahadu Dhangar
2. Kachru Mahadu Dhangar
3. Laxmibai Mahadu Dhangar
All farmer and R/o Bilakhed,
Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Claimants)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.565 OF 2004
1.
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Jalgaon ...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Shrawan Valha Dhangar
Age: 61 years, Occu: Farmer,
R/o. Bilakhed Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.566 OF 2004
1. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Jalgaon,
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2016 00:00:44 :::
3 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Jalgaon ...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Narayan Valha Dhangar
Age: 57 years, Occu: Farmer,
R/o. Bilakhed, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.567 OF 2004
1. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Jalgaon.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Jalgaon ...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Zopa Valha Dhangar
Age: 59 years, Occu: Farmer,
R/o. Bilakhed, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.568 OF 2004
1. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Jalgaon.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Jalgaon ...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2016 00:00:44 :::
4 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
VERSUS
Bhalchandra Ramchandra Pardhi
Age: 65 years, Occu: Farmer,
R/o. Bhoras, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
====
Mr.S.N.Morampalle, AGP for Appellants;
Mr.P.A.Bhosale, Adv. h/for Mr. A.B.Kale, Advocate
for the Respondent/s.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
31 st
August,2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
parties.
2) The State has filed the present appeals
against the common judgment and Award passed by
the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Jalgaon
(hereinafter referred to as Reference Court) on
1st April, 2000 in LAR No.112/2002 with the
connected LARs. The lands were acquired for
5 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
construction of minor irrigation tank at village
Deoli Bhoras, Tehsil Chalisgaon District Jalgaon.
Section 4 Notification of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), was published on
14th March, 1996; whereas Award under Section 11
of the Act came to be passed on 31st March, 1999.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(for short, SLAO) had offered the compensation to
the respective claimants/land holders by
determining the market value of the acquired
lands @ Rs.58,000/- per hectare.
4) Dissatisfied with the compensation so
offered, the respective land holders preferred
applications under Section 18 of the Act to
Collector, Jalgaon, who in turn, forwarded the
said Applications to the Civil Court at Jalgaon
for adjudication.
5) Before the Reference Court the claimants
had claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- per
6 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
acre. Though, several Reference Applications
were filed, common evidence was adduced in all of
such petitions. Two sale-instances were placed
on record by the claimants in order to
substantiate their claim as regards to the market
value of the acquired lands. No oral or
documentary evidence was adduced by the
State/SLAO.
6) The learned Reference Court, after
having assessed the oral and documentary evidence
adduced before it, determined the market value of
the acquired lands @ Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare
and accordingly, awarded the compensation to the
respective land holders with the statutory
benefits under the Act. Aggrieved by the same,
the State has filed the present appeals.
7) Shri Morampalle, learned AGP, appearing
for the appellant/State, assailed the impugned
Award on various grounds. The learned AGP
submitted that the SLAO had fixed the market
7 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
value after having considered several sale
instances of the relevant period of the
comparable lands and as such, no interference was
called for in the amount of compensation so
offered by the SLAO.
. Learned AGP further submitted that the
sale instance, which was cited by the claimants
and which has been relied upon by the Reference
Court in determining the amount of compensation
cannot be said to be a comparable sale instance
since in all respect, the land, which was the
subject matter in the said sale deed, was
different than the acquired lands.
. Learned AGP further submitted that the
Reference Court has enhanced the amount of
compensation by six times than fixed by the SLAO
without there being any cogent and sufficient
evidence and he, therefore, prayed for setting
aside the impugned Award and to confirm the
price, as was offered by the SLAO in the Award
passed under Section 11 of the Act.
8 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
8) Shri A.B.Kale, learned Counsel appearing
for the claimants supported the impugned
judgment. The learned Counsel submitted that two
sale instances were placed on record by the
claimants and in fact, the learned Reference
Court must have relied upon the sale instance and
must have determined the market value of the
acquired lands on the basis of the sale deed
wherein higher price was received to the subject
land.
. The learned Counsel further submitted
that the sale instance, relying on which the
Reference Court has determined the amount of
compensation, was executed on 2nd February, 1995
and was from the same village Bilakhed. The
learned Counsel further submitted that the land,
which was sold vide the aforesaid sale deed, was
admeasuring 96 Ares and had fetched the price of
Rs.2,65,000/-. The learned Counsel submitted
that the Reference Court has, therefore, rightly
determined the amount of compensation to the tune
of Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare. The learned
9 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
Counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
appeals filed by the State.
9) I have carefully considered the
submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. I
have also perused the impugned judgment as well
as the evidence on record. The material on
record reveals that one Nana Eknath Patil had
deposed on behalf of the claimants in the group
of the present appeals. Power of Attorney to
depose on his behalf was executed by the
respective claimants, which is there on record at
Exhibit-18. The said witness has deposed that
the market value of the acquired lands at the
relevant time, was around Rs.3,00,000/- per acre
and had accordingly prayed for determination of
the market value of the acquired lands and to
award compensation accordingly.
. In addition to evidence of Nana Eknath
Patil, one more witness, viz. Latifkha Dakerkha
was examined on behalf of the claimants, who was
an attesting witness to the sale deed of the land
10 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
bearing Gut No. 97/1, admeasuring 96 Ares of
village Bilakhed, which was sold to one Gangadhar
Hiraman Dhangar by Jagan Dhansingh Rathod by way
of registered sale deed, executed on 2nd February,
1995 for the consideration of Rs.2,65,000/-. The
concerned sale-deed was duly proved during the
course of the evidence of the said witness.
10)
Relying on the aforesaid sale-instance,
brought on record by the claimants and duly
proved by them, the Reference Court has
determined the market value of the acquired lands
and has accordingly awarded the compensation.
Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that in
para 6 thereof, the Reference Court has discussed
the evidence as about the comparable sale
instance brought on record by the claimants.
Though now it has been sought to be canvassed by
the State that the sale instance brought on
record was not of a comparable land and could not
have been relied upon by the Reference Court in
determining the market value of the acquired
11 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
land, in the cross-examination of PW 2 -
Latifkha, nothing has been brought on record so
as to draw any inference that the land, which was
the subject matter of the sale instance was not
of a comparable land and the market value of the
acquired lands, could not have been determined on
the basis of the price received to the said land.
Admittedly, the land which was the subject matter
of sale-deed at Exh.19, was of village Bilakhed
and the sale instance had occurred on 2nd
February, 1995. It has come on record in the
evidence of PW 2 - Latifkha that the land which
was the subject matter of the sale-deed at
Exh.19, was in the vicinity of the acquired lands
and from the same village. It has also come on
record in his evidence that village Bilakhed is
about 5 kms from Chalisgaon town. The said
witness has further deposed that village Bilakhed
is on the high-way running between Chalisgaon -
Malegaon. In so far as quality of the land is
concerned, the said witness has deposed that the
acquired lands were superior than the land which
12 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
was the subject matter of sale-deed at Exh.19.
In the cross-examination, except putting certain
suggestions, which of course are denied by the
said witness, nothing has been brought on record
so as to discard the testimony of the said
witness or to draw any other inference or for
not considering the sale-deed, which was proved
during the course of the evidence of said
witness.
11) Admittedly, no evidence was adduced on
behalf of the State or Special Land Acquisition
Officer. In the circumstances, the Reference
Court has determined the market value of the
acquired lands on the basis of sale-instance
which was brought on record by the claimants. As
stated herein above, the land, which was the
subject matter of Exh.19, was admeasuring 96 Ares
and had received the consideration of Rs.
2,65,000/-. The learned Reference Court in paras
6 and 8 of the impugned judgment has elaborately
discussed the evidence in that regard and had
13 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
also explained the reasons for determining the
market value on the basis of the said sale-deed.
The Reference Court has also observed that the
sale-deed, which was relied upon by the claimants
was executed on 2nd February, 1995, i.e. prior to
about one year of issuance of Section4
Notification in respect of the acquired lands.
In the circumstances, giving escalation of 10%
increase, the Reference Court has determined the
market value of the acquired lands @
Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare. Admittedly, the
acquired land are Jirayat lands and the sale
instance which was relied upon is also pertaining
to Jirayat land. In the circumstances, It does
not appear to me that any error is committed by
the Reference Court in passing the impugned
Award. There is no merit in the appeals. Hence,
the following order, -
ORDER
i) The appeals are dismissed. No
order as to costs. Pending civil
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
14 FA NOS. 563/2004 & ORS.
ii) The compensation amount, if
any, deposited by the appellants in this
Court, is permitted to be withdrawn by
the respective claimants in terms of the
respective Awards, if already not
withdrawn by them.
sd/-
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/jt
Cause title-Kodgire
