Bombay High Court
Jairam Keshia Banjari And Others vs State Of Maharashtra And 2 Others on 31 March, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
251-J-FA-227-07 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.227 OF 2007
Jairam Keshia Banjari,
Aged 42 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
Resident of Mandva, Tq. Digras,
Dist. Yavatmal (Dead) Through
Legal Representatives
(1) Zamibai w/o Jairam Rathod,
aged about 70 years.
(2) Baliram Jairam Rathod,
aged 45 years (Dead) Through
legal representatives
(i) Ganga Baliram Rathod,
aged 40 years,
(ii) Yuvraj Baliram Rathod,
aged 15 years, Through
guardian i.e. No.2 (i)
(iii) Dhanraj Baliram Rathod,
aged 12 years, Through
guardian i.e. No.2(i)
(3) Kashiram Jairam Rathod,
Aged 42 years.
(4) Bhojraj Rairam Rathod,
Aged 35 years.
(5) Yamunabai Presmsing Rathod,
aged 30 years.
All appellants resident of Mandwa,
Tq. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal. ... Appellants.
-vs-
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Urban Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:10:18 :::
251-J-FA-227-07 2/6
2. Collector, Yavatmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Benefited Zone, Arunavati Project,
Yavatmal. ... Respondents.
Shri N. C. Phadnis, Advocate for appellants.
Ms N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : MARCH 31, 2016
Oral Judgment :
This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to judgment of the Reference
Court dated 10/02/2004 in L.A.C. No.241 of 2004.
Land admeasuring 1H 43 R from Survey No.93/03 situated at
village Mokh came to be acquired for the Arunavati Irrigation Project. The
Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published in the gazette on
06/03/1986 and the award was passed on 03/08/1986. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- per hectare. Being
aggrieved, the original appellant filed reference application under Section 18
of the said Act seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation.
Though initially an amount of Rs.40,000/- per hectare was claimed as
enhanced compensation, during pendency of the proceedings the claim was
amended for seeking an amount of Rs.1 lakh per hectare. By the impugned
judgment, the Reference Court partly enhanced the amount of compensation
251-J-FA-227-07 3/6
to Rs.20,000/- per hectare. Hence this appeal.
2. Shri N. C. Phadnis, the learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the acquired land was irrigated as could be seen from the
7/12 extract Exhibit-64. The same indicated that water from the stream was
being used for cultivating the same and various cash crops were being grown.
He submitted that in F.A. No.843 of 1991 along with other connected
appeals which relate to acquisition of lands from village Kalsa which is at a
distance of about 2 km from the acquired land, an amount of Rs.65,000/- per
hectare was granted by this Court. The notification under Section 4 of the
said Act therein was dated 16/06/1981. The learned counsel also submitted
that as said amount has been awarded by taking the land in question to be
perennially irrigated land, the appellant would be entitled for same amount
of compensation. It was therefore submitted that the land owner was
entitled to receive Rs.65,000/- per hectare.
3. Per contra, Ms N. P. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent
supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the Reference
Court was justified in granting compensation of Rs.20,000/- per hectare as
there was no other evidence led by the appellant before the Reference Court.
The learned counsel relied upon judgment in F. A. No.597 of 1993 (Vitthal
Lakadaji Gawande vs. The State of Maharashtra) decided on 19/03/2010
251-J-FA-227-07 4/6
wherein land of from village Bori was acquired pursuant to notification dated
28/06/1997 and an amount of Rs.37,000/- per hectare came to be granted
for the acquired land. It was therefore submitted that as in said judgment a
reference to sale deed of village Mokh was made and after considering the
same, an amount of Rs.37,500/- per hectare came to be awarded, same
amount deserves to the granted in the present case. The learned counsel
therefore sought for dismissal of appeal.
4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the records of the case and I have considered their respective
submissions. The following point arises for consideration :
" Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the
amount of compensation ? "
In support of the prayer for enhancement, the landowner had
examined one Bhojraj Rathod below Exhibit-60. This witness has stated that
the acquired land was irrigated with the help of a pump installed on the bank
of the stream. There was black soil in the said land. The 7/12 extracts from
the years 1983-84 onwards were placed at Exhibit-64.
5. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. Considering
this material on record, the Reference Court had awarded a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. The Reference Court in
251-J-FA-227-07 5/6
paragraph 11 of its judgment has recorded a finding that the acquired land
was having the facility of irrigation on the basis of the document at Exhibit-
64. In F.A. No.843 of 1991, land was acquired from village Kalsa which is
about 2 km from village Mokh, which fact is not seriously disputed. Said
land was granted a sum of Rs.65,000/- per hectare as the land was
perennially irrigated and the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was
dated 16/06/1981.
In F.A. No.597 of 1993, by treating the acquired land as dry crop
land a sum of Rs.37,500/- for the land situated at village Bori was granted.
There is reference to a sale deed of land situated at village Mokh and grant of
compensation of Rs.37,500/- per hectare in F.A.No.135 of 1993.
6. The evidence on record indicates that the acquired land was
irrigated. The Notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated
06/03/1986. Considering the fact that in F.A. No.843 of 1991 this Court had
granted a sum of Rs.65,000/- for perennially irrigated land, for a subsequent
Notification issued after more than five years, the amount of Rs.65,000/- per
hectare for irrigated land appears to be fair compensation. Moreover,
considering the fact that the land acquired in F.A. No.597 of 1993 was dry
crop land and an amount of Rs.37,500/- was granted, the amount to be
awarded for irrigated land if doubled would be more than Rs.65,000/-. The
point as framed is answered accordingly and it is held that the appellants are
251-J-FA-227-07 6/6
entitled for grant of Rs.65,000/- per hectare.
7. In view of aforesaid, the judgment of Reference Court dated
10/03/2004 in L.A.C. No.241 of 2004 is partly modified. The appellants are
entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare along with all
statutory benefits.
First Appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
