Bombay High Court
Spl Land Acquisition Officer & Ors vs Digambar Vedu Sonwane on 23 December, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 fa929-04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 929 OF 2004
1. The Spl. Land Acquisition
Officer (III) Uper Tapi Project,
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Vijausing Khushalsing Pardeshi,
Age-35 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Raipur Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2004
1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
(III) Upper Tapi Project,
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Supade Dagdu Sonwane,
Age:50 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Raipur, Tal. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2004
1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
(III) Upper Tapi Project,
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 01:23:41 :::
2 fa929-04
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Kadu Hema Pardeshi,
Age 40 Years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Raipur, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
ig WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 931 OF 2004
1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
(III) Upper Tapi Project,
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Kashinath Mansaram Chaudhari,
Age:51 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Raipur, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 933 OF 2004
1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
(III) Upper Tapi Project,
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 01:23:41 :::
3 fa929-04
Raju Madhav Pardeshi,
Age:35 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Raipur, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 930 OF 2004
1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
(III) Upper Tapi Project,
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Sahebrao Gulabrao Patil,
Age:50 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Raipur, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2004
1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
(III) Upper Tapi Project,
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Bhaiyyasaheb Baburao Patil,
Age:45 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/o. Raipur Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 01:23:41 :::
4 fa929-04
FIRST APPEAL NO. 934 OF 2004
1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
(III) Upper Tapi Project,
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Arun Shamrao Pardeshi,
Age:45 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Raipur, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon
ig ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 935 OF 2004
1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
(III) Upper Tapi Project,
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Ramsing Sukhram Pardeshi,
Age:52 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Raipur, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon,
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 936 OF 2004
1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
(III) Upper Tapi Project,
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 01:23:41 :::
5 fa929-04
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Digambar Vedu Sonwane,
Age:60 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Raipur, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1294 OF 2004
1.
The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
(III) Upper Tapi Project,
(Hatnur) Jalgaon,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Waghur Project, Jalgaon
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Narayan Ramdas Pardeshi,
Age:45 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Raipur, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Petitioner)
...
Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for State
Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the Respondent.
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
...
Date of reserving the Judgment: 29.11.2016
Date of pronouncing the Judgment: 23.12.2016
...
JUDGMENT:
1. Since all these appeals are arising out of the
common judgment and award passed by the 2-Additional
6 fa929-04
District Judge at Jalgaon on 12.03.2003 in Land Acquisition
Reference No. 24 of 2002 with the connected land acquisition
references. I have heard the common arguments in all these
appeals and I deem it appropriate to decide all these appeals by
a common reasoning.
2. When the present appeals were taken up for
hearing, Shri A.B. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents in all these appeals who are the original claimants
in the respective land acquisition references tendered across
the bar the copy of the judgment delivered by the division
bench of this Court (Coram: Naresh H. Patil and K.K. Tated, JJ.)
on 12.10.2010 in first appeal no. 628 of 2005 with the
connected appeals. Shri A.B. Kale, also placed on record the
copy of the judgment delivered by the division bench of this
court (Coram: Naresh H. Patil and K.K. Tated, JJ.) on
30.07.2010 in first appeal no. 1205 of 2005 with the connected
appeals. The learned counsel also placed on record the
reported judgment of the division bench of this court in the
case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (III), Jalgaon and
another V/s. Bhagwat Vithal Sonwane reported in 2009(4)
Mh.L.J. 308.
3. The learned counsel submitted that, all the
7 fa929-04
aforesaid judgments pertain to acquisition of lands for Waghur
project. The learned counsel further submitted that, the
present appeals are covered by the aforesaid previous
judgments of this court and, therefore, can be disposed of on
terms of the said decided appeals. The learned counsel further
submitted that, the lands which are the subject matter of the
present appeals were acquired for the same Waghur project.
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
pertaining to the lands involved in the present appeals was also
issued during the same period. The learned counsel further
submitted that, the reference court in the impugned judgment
has relied upon the same sale instances. The learned counsel,
therefore, prayed for confirming the impugned award by
dismissing the present appeals preferred by the state.
4. Shri S.P. Deshmukh, the learned A.G.P. appearing
on behalf of the appellant state submitted that, the facts as are
narrated by the learned counsel for the respondents are
matters of record and are not disputed by the state. The
learned A.G.P., further submitted that the tribunal while
delivering the impugned judgment has however erred in
awarding the compensation for pot kharab lands @ Rs.
2,00,000/- per hectare in L.A.R. No. 29 of 2002, L.A.R. No. 378
of 2001 and L.A.R. No. 647 of 2001. The learned A.G.P.,
8 fa929-04
therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed in the
aforesaid L.A.R. to the aforesaid extent and to modify the
award by awarding the market value to the pot kharab lands at
half of the rate which may be determined by this court for non-
irrigated lands (jirayat lands).
5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf
of the learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellant state and Shri
A.B. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. I
have also perused the impugned judgment and award and the
judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties. Admittedly, the lands which are the
subject matter of the present appeals were acquired for
Waghur project. Notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act in that regard was published on 21.08.1997 and
the award under section 11 of the Act came to be passed on
18.08.2000. The S.L.A.O. had fixed the market value of the
acquired lands @ Rs. 48,875/- per R to Rs. 85,100/- per R for
the non-irrigated lands and accordingly has assessed the
amount compensation to be offered to the respective claimants.
Dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation so offered the
claimants had filed the reference applications under Section 18
of the Act. Before the tribunal the claimants had claimed the
compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- per hectare
9 fa929-04
for jirayat lands and double of the same for irrigated lands. The
reference court after having considered the sale instances
brought on record before it has determined the market value @
Rs. 4,00,000/- per hectare for irrigated lands, @ Rs. 2,00,000/-
per hectare for jirayat lands and half of the same for the pot
kharab lands and accordingly has enhanced the amount of
compensation. Aggrieved by, the state has filed the present
appeals.
6.
The lands which were the subject matter in the case
of Special Land Acquisition Officer (III), Jalgaon and
another V/s. Bhagwat Vithal Sonwane (cited supra) were
acquired for Waghur project vide notification dated 21.08.1997
issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Actand the award
under section 11 of the Act pertaining to the said land was
declared on 18.08.2000. As noted herein-above, the lands
which are the subject matter of the present appeals were also
acquired for Waghur project vide notification under section 4 of
the Act published on 21.08.1997 and award under section 11 of
the act was passed on 18.08.2000. It is not in disputed that
the division bench of this court in the case of Special Land
Acquisition Officer (III), Jalgaon and another V/s.
Bhagwat Vithal Sonwane has confirmed the award passed by
the reference court, wherein, the compensation was awarded in
10 fa929-04
respect of bagayat land @ Rs. 4,00,000/- per hectare, in
respect of jirayat land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare and in
respect of pot kharab land @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. It has
come on record in the evidence adduced in the present matters
that the lands for Waghur project were acquired form different
villages namely Shingayat, Khatgaon, Raipur etc. It has also
come on record that village Shingayat and village Raipur are
adjacent to each other and their boundaries touch each other.
7.
The Apex Court in the matter of Union of India Vs.
Bal Ram and another reported in AIR 2004 SC 3981, has
held that if the lands are acquired for same project then the
court should see that the claimants get some rate of
compensation unless some contrary evidence is brought on
record. Following observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the aforesaid judgment are material in the present case
which are thus:
"The High Court taking into consideration that
certain other lands coming under different villages
which had been acquired for the same purpose,
namely Plan Development Area around Palam
Airport in the vicinity of Delhi, found that
compensation under market value of Rs. 47.224 per
bigha would be reasonable and appropriate. In
doing so, the High Court followed a decision of this
Court in Satpal Vs. Union of India, 1997(11) SCC
11 fa929-04
423. the ground urged before us is that in view of
the decision in Kunwar Singh v. Union of India 1998
(8) SCC 136 contiguity of villages could not by itself
be sufficient to drawn an inference of similarity in
character of the lands in awarding the compensation
and, therefore, the reasoning of the High Court is
not correct. The High Court indeed did not rely
upon the contiguity of the lands alone but it found
that the nature/quality of the lands is by and large
similar to those lands considered in Satpal's case. If
that is the finding of the High Court, we do not think
there would be any justification to make any
distinction between lands which had been lying in
Palam and Shahabad Mohamadpur. Therefore, the
view taken by the High Court cannot be faulted
with. The High Court also found that it would be
unfair to discriminate between the land owners to
pay more to some and less to others when the
purpose of acquisition is same and lands are
identical and similar, though lying in different
villages, we find the judgment of the High Court to
be fair and reasonable and no interference is called
for."
8. Considering the facts involved in the present
appeals in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the aforesaid judgment, it does not appear to me that, the
learned reference court has committed any error in determining
the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs. 4,00,000/- per
12 fa929-04
hectare for irrigated lands, Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare for non-
irrigated lands and Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare for pot kharab
lands. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court
in the aforesaid judgment since the lands involved in the
present appeals are acquired for the same purpose i.e. Waghur
project and were acquired vide the same notification, though,
the lands involved in the present appeals are from different
village, in absence of any contrary evidence as regards to the
nature and quality of the said lands, deserve to be valued at
the same rate as was granted to the lands involved in the
decided appeals. No interference is therefore warranted in the
market value of the acquired lands as determined by the
reference court.
9. However, there is substance in the submission
made by the learned A.G.P. that in some of the matters the
reference court has erred in awarding compensation for pot
kharab lands at the rate of jirayat lands and to that extent the
awards in the said reference applications need to be modified
and the appeals filed against the awards passed in the said land
acquisition references need to be modified to the said extent.
In the result the following order is passed.
ORDER
i) First Appeal nos. 929 of 2004, 1292 of 2004,
13 fa929-04
930 of 2004, 932 of 2004, 934 of 2004, 935
of 2004, 936 of 2004 and 1294 of 2004
stands dismissed, however, without any order
as to the costs.
ii) First Appeal nos. 1293 of 2004, 931 of 2004
and 933 of 2004 are partly allowed. The
judgments impugned in the aforesaid appeals
so far as they relate to grant of compensation
ig for the pot kharab land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per
hectare stands quashed and set aside and it is
ordered that the compensation for pot kharab
lands involved in the said matters be awarded
@Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare and the
impugned awards be modified to the aforesaid
extent.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
mub
