Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Vasant Achutraoi Pandit & Ors on 20 July, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1
20 FIRST APPEAL 771 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra,
through : The Collector, Beed. ... APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondent]
V E R S U S
Pamabai w/o Uttam Sable,
Age- 36 years, Occup. Agri.
R/o. Pachangri, Tq.; Patoda, Dist Beed.
ig ... RESPONDENT
[Ori. Claimant]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 705 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra,
through : The Collector, Beed. ... APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondent]
V E R S U S
Manohar s/o Narayan Mundhe,
Age- 60 years, Occup. Agri.
R/o. Pachangri, Tq.; Patoda, Dist Beed. ... RESPONDENT
[Ori. Claimant]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 706 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra,
through : The Collector, Beed. ... APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondent]
V E R S U S
1. Deoji s/o Rama Dhanwade,
2. Shriram s/o Rama Dhanwade,
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:26:57 :::
2
20 FIRST APPEAL 771 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
3. Laximan s/o Babu Dhanwade,
All major, Occup. Agri.
R/o. Bodkhewadi u/v Pachangri,
Tq.; Patoda, Dist Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
[Ori. Claimants]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 707 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra,
through : The Collector, Beed. ... APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondent]
V E R S U S
1.
Rajendra s/o Ramrao Mundhe,
2. Hari s/o Ramrao Mundhe
Both major, Occup. Agri.
R/o. Pachangri, Tq.; Patoda, Dist Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
[Ori. Claimants]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra,
through : The Collector, Beed. ... APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondent]
V E R S U S
1. Vasant s/o Achutrao Pandit, ( As per Registrar's Court's order
age 45 years dt 8/9/09, appeal is abated as
against R.No.1)
2. Padmakar s/o Achutrao Pandit,
age 40 years
3. Chandrakant s/o Achutrao Pandit,
age 35 years
All Occup. Agri.
R/o. Pachangri, Tq.; Patoda, Dist Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
[Ori. Claimants]
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:26:57 :::
3
20 FIRST APPEAL 771 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra,
through : The Collector, Beed. ... APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondent]
V E R S U S
1. Dadarao s/o Anandrao Atule, ( As per Registrar's Court's order
dt 8/9/09, appeal is abated as
against R.No.1)
2. Kalyan s/o Sahebrao Atule,
age 40 years
Both major, Occup. Agri.
R/o. Bodkhewadi u/v Pachangri,
Tq.; Patoda, Dist Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
[Ori. Claimant]
...
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, AGP for Appellant / State, in all the appeals.
Mr. T. B. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondents, in all the appeals.
...
CORAM : P. R. BORA, J.
DATE : 20th July, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. All these appeals are arising out of a common award passed
by the Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed on 19 th April, 2005, in Land
Acquisition Reference Nos.122 of 1998 to 126 of 1998, 128 of 1998 and
129 of 1998. The subject lands were acquired by the Government for
Urdhva Manjra Project. Section 4 notification for acquisition of the
aforesaid lands was issued on 18th September, 1992 and award under
20 FIRST APPEAL 771 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
Section 11 of the Act came to be passed on 29 th January, 1996. The
respective land owners accepted the compensation under protest and filed
references before the Collector, which were forwarded for adjudication to
the Civil Court. Before the Reference Court, the claimants had demanded
the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.4,000/- per Are. The learned
Reference Court, however, after having considered the oral and
documentary evidence brought before it, determined the price of the
Bagayat land at the rate of Rs.1,285/- per Are, whereas of the Jirayat land
Rs.1,000/- per Are. Aggrieved by the award so passed, the Government
has filed the present appeals.
2 Shri Wattamwar, the learned AGP appearing for the State
submitted that the Trial Court has implicitly relied upon the two sale
instances for determining the market value of the land under acquisition.
The learned AGP submitted that out of the said two sale instances, one
was from village Wadwana, which is at the distance of about 10 kms from
Pachangri and as such the sale instance so relied by the Reference Court,
cannot be said to be a comparable sale instance. The learned AGP further
submitted that in view of the fact that the Reference Court has determined
the market value of Bagayat land at the rate of Rs.1,285/- per Are, for
Jirayat land, in any case, the market value could not have been determined
more than Rs.650/- per Are. The learned AGP further submitted that the
20 FIRST APPEAL 771 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
Trial Court failed in appreciating that the sale instances, which were cited
by and relied upon by the original Claimants, were of the small portion of
the land, and as such, the same criteria could not have been applied while
determining the price of the subject lands. The learned AGP, has therefore,
prayed for setting aside the award and redetermining the market value
according to the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the original
Claimants has supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of
the appeals.
3 I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. It is
true that two sale instances were relied upon by the Claimants one is at
Exhibit - 37 and another is at Exhibit - 40 and the Reference Court has
also relied upon the said sale instances. Admittedly, no evidence was
adduced on behalf of the State. The land, which was the subject matter of
Exhibit - 40 was a Bagayat land and was admeasuring 14 Ares and was
sold at the price of Rs.18,000/-. The Respondents i.e. original Claimants
had examined Bhaosaheb Raosaheb Jadhav as their witness, who has
purchased the aforesaid land and thus the sale instance in respect of the
said land was duly proved before the Reference Court and accordingly was
marked as Exhibit - 40. It was executed on 12 th May, 1989. The original
Claimants had also examined one Kamraj Bhaskar Mule, who had sold his
40 Ares Jirayat land for Rs.40,000/- to one Babu Jogdand on 23 rd May,
20 FIRST APPEAL 771 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
1989. During the course of the evidence of the said witness, the sale
instance was duly proved and was marked as Exhibit - 37. Said land was
situated at village Wadwana.
4 The Reference Court in paragraph No.27 of the judgment has
noted that both the sale instances relied upon by the original Claimants
were of the period prior to the date of Section (4) notification. The Trial
Court has further observed that the sale instance at Exhibit - 37 was of
village Loni, which was just 1 km away from village Pachangri. The
Reference Court has also noted that another sale instance at Exhibit - 40
was pertaining to village Wadwana, which was about 10 kms away from
Pachangri. Though the Reference Court did not seems to have made any
further discussion as to for what reason he has relied upon said sale
instance, from the other discussion made by the Reference Court, it is quite
evident that according to the Reference Court the sale instance at Exhibit -
37 was enough to determine the market value of the land under acquisition.
The Reference Court after having considered the entire evidence on record
has determined the market value of the land under acquisition.
5 After having considered the evidence on record and more
particularly when there was no contrary evidence adduced, it does not
appear to me that the Reference Court has committed any error in
determining the market value of the land under acquisition at the rate of
20 FIRST APPEAL 771 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
Rs.1,000/- per Are for Jirayat land and Rs.1,285/- per Are for Bagayat land.
The Reference Court has observed that price, which was determined by the
S.L.A.O. was inadequate and was required to be enhanced suitably.
Nothing has been brought on record by the Respondents before the Trial
Court and also in the present appeals as to which were the other sale
instances, which could have been relied upon by the Reference Court for
determining the market value of the land under acquisition. The another
argument advanced by the learned AGP that when the Reference Court
has determined the market value of Bagayat land at the rate of Rs.1,285/-
per Are, it ought to have fixed the market value of the Jirayat land to half of
the said price and at the most Rs.700/- per Are, cannot be accepted for the
reason that there cannot be any such straight jacket formula.
6 After having considered the entire material on record, it
appears to me that the Reference Court on the basis of evidence, which
was brought before it, has rightly determined the market value of the lands
under acquisition on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of
the Act. It is further revealed that the Reference Court has not blindly relied
upon the sale instance cited by the Claimants. While determining the
market value, the Reference Court has elaborately discussed the reasons
therefor. The sale instance at Exhibit - 37 was pertaining to the land at
village Loni. Village Loni is at a distance of 1 km from village Pachangri.
20 FIRST APPEAL 771 OF 2008 OTHERS.odt
The aforesaid sale instance was executed on 23rd May, 1989; whereas
Section 4 notification was issued on 18 th September, 1992, for acquisition of
the subject lands. Thus, prior to three years of issuance of notification
under Section 4 of the Act, the aforesaid land had received the price of
Rs.1,000/- per Are. In the circumstances, it does not appear to me that the
Reference Court has committed any error in determining the market value
of the subject lands at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per Are. I am, therefore, not
inclined to cause any interference in the impugned judgment and award.
Hence, the following order -
O R D E R
All the aforesaid appeals stand dismissed.
However, no order as to the costs.
[ P. R. BORA, J. ]
ndm
