The State Of Maharashtra vs Vasant Bandoba Zadpide
2016 Latest Caselaw 3962 Bom

                                              1                 FA NO.216 OF 2002

                 
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                              
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                      
                          FIRST APPEAL NO.216 OF 2002


               The State of Maharashtra




                                                     
               through Collector, Osmanabad.

                                                   ...APPELLANT
                                                   (Original Respondent)
               VERSUS




                                            
               Vasant Bandoba Jhadpide, Age:
                             
               Nil. Occup.Bhopi r/o Tuljapur
               Tq.Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.
                            
                                                   ...Respondent
                                                   (Original claimant)
                                       ...
      

      Mr.S.N.Morampalle, AGP for appellant.
   



      Mr.K.B.Jadhav, Advocate, h/f Mr. K.B.Bhise, 
      Advocate for respondent.

                                             ...





                                    CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.

DATE : July 19th, 2016

***

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal is filed against the award

passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Osmanabad,

in Land Acquisition Reference No.230/1991 on 13th March,

1995. Vide the impugned award the learned trial Court

2 FA NO.216 OF 2002

has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-

( Rs. five lacs) to the respondent herein by way of

compensation of his house, which was acquired for the

purpose of widening of road in the city of Tuljapur.

2. For acquisition of the aforesaid property,

Section 4 notification was issued on 22nd January, 1988

whereas the award under Section 11 of the Act came to be

passed on 23rd February, 1989. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer has determined the total compensation

to the tune of Rs.18,091/-. Since the respondent herein

was aggrieved with the compensation so awarded, he

preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the

Reference application, the respondent relied upon two sale

instances; one executed on 15.6.1988 and the other

executed on 28.10.1988. The property which was the

subject matter of the sale deed dated 15.6.1988 was

admeasuring 100 sq.ft. and was sold for value of

Rs.1,75,000/- whereas the property which was sold vide

the sale deed dated 28.10.1988 was sold at the rate of

Rs.40,000/- and the area of the said property was 56 sq.ft.

It was the contention of the respondent before the

3 FA NO.216 OF 2002

Reference Court that his property was abutting to the

Mahadwar road and was in the prime locality of the city of

Tuljapur. It was the further contention of the respondent

that since the property was situated on the Mahadwar

road, it was having commercial value. It was further

contention of the respondent that he had spent around

Rs.95,000/- for renovation of the said property. The

relevant witnesses were examined by the respondent

before the Reference Court. Approved valuer was also

examined by the respondent before the Reference Court.

As against it, neither any oral evidence was adduced nor

any sale instance was produced on record by the State i.e.

the present appellant.

3. After considering the evidence on record, the

learned Reference Court determined total compensation

payable to the present respondent to the tune of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. five lacs). Aggrieved thereby, the

State has filed the present appeal.

4. Mr. S. N. Morampalle, learned A.G.P. appearing

for the appellant State, submitted that the Reference Court

4 FA NO.216 OF 2002

has awarded an exaggerated amount towards the

compensation. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the

Reference Court has implicitly relied upon the sale

instances cited by the respondent herein, however, has

failed to consider that the concerned properties were not

comparable with the property in question and were at a

longer distance from the subject property and, as such,

the same rate could not have been awarded for the

property in question. Learned Counsel further submitted

that the Reference Court has ignored the observations

made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while

determining the amount of compensation. Learned

A.G.P., therefore, prayed for setting aside the said award

and prayed for confirming the amount of compensation

awarded by the Special Land acquisition Officer.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent

has supported the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel

submitted that the learned Reference Court has passed a

well reasoned order and has relied upon the sale instances

duly proved by the present respondent and hence no

interference is required in the award so passed.

5 FA NO.216 OF 2002

6. After having heard learned A.G.P. and the

learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and on

perusal of the impugned award and other material placed

on record, apparently, it does not appear to me that any

interference is required in the award impugned in the

present appeal. Admittedly, no evidence was adduced on

behalf of the ig State before the Reference Court.

Indisputably, no sale instance was placed on record and

proved by the respondent State. As against this,

respondent has duly proved two sale instances and did

also examine the approved valuer. Two sale instances

were on record of the Reference Court relying on which the

Reference Court has determined the amount of

compensation. The first sale instance, which has been

relied upon by the respondent is of the date 15.6.1988 and

the land of the subject matter of the said sale deed was

100 sq.fts. and was sold at the rate of Rs.1,75,000/- and

the other sale instance was of the date 28th October,

1988, and the subject property was admeasuring 56

sq.fts. which has received value of Rs.40,000/-. As has

come on record, both the properties are at the distance of

6 FA NO.216 OF 2002

less than 100 feet from the subject property. The

Reference Court has further elaborately discussed that the

property was located at a prominent place on the

Mahadwar road, leading to famous Tulaja Bhavani temple.

The Reference Court has further rightly observed that the

subject property was having a commercial value. The

Reference Court has further taken into account the

evidence adduced by the respondent as regards to the

amount spent by the respondent amounting to Rs.95,000/-

for renovation of the said property prior to about four

years of the alleged acquisition. In view of the fact that

Section 4 notification was issued on 22nd January, 1988, I

do not find any fault on the part of the Reference Court if it

has relied upon the sale instances dated 15.6.1988 and

28.10.1988, which are of the same period. The

Reference Court further has rightly taken into account the

arrangements which were required to be made by the

respondent for severance and for shifting of the electrical

meters from the subject property and awarded adequate

compensation in that regard. After having considered

the material on record, it does not appear to me that the

Reference Court has committed any error in awarding the

7 FA NO.216 OF 2002

compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- ( Rs. five lacs).

Even in the appeal, nothing has been brought to the notice

of this Court to have different conclusion than the one

recorded by the Reference Court. In the above

circumstances, the appeal fails and is accordingly

dismissed, however, without any order as to the costs.

Pending Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

...

AGP/216-02fa