The State Of Mah.Represented By ... vs Smt Zmibai Jayaram Rathod
2016 Latest Caselaw 1057 Bom

                                                                           Fa226-515.07
                                             1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                               
                              NAGPUR.




                                                       
                        FIRST   APPEAL     NO.   226     OF     2007




                                                      
    Smt Zamibai Jayaram Rathod,
    aged Major, Occu. Agriculturist
    R/o Mokh, Distt. Yavatmal. 
    (Deceased thr L. Rs.)




                                           
    1] Kashiram Jayaram Rathod.

    2] Bojraj Jayaram Rathod.
                             
    3] Yamunabai Premsingh Rathod
                            
    Nos. 1 to 3 are R/o Mandwa, 
    Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.

    4] Ganga Baliram Rathod.
      


    5] Yuvraj Baliram Rathod.
   



    6] Dhanraj Baliram Rathod.

    Nos. 4 to 6 are R/o Mandva
    Tq. Digras Distt. Yavatmal.                                     APPELLANTS.





                                          VERSUS


    1] State of Maharashtra 





    through Collector, Yavatmal
    Distt. Yavatmal. 

    2] Special Land Acquisition 
    Officer, Benefitted Zone at
    Yavatmal, Distt. Yavatmal.                                      RESPONDENTS.

WITH

Fa226-515.07

FIRST APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2007

1] State of Maharashtra

through Collector, Yavatmal Distt. Yavatmal.

2] Special Land Acquisition

Officer, Benefitted Zone at Yavatmal, Distt. Yavatmal. APPELLANTS.

VERSUS

Smt Zamibai Jayaram Rathod, aged Major, Occu. Agriculturist R/o Mokh, Distt. Yavatmal.

(Deceased thr L. Rs.)

a] Kausal Lakduji Jadhao (daughter), aged 65 yrs. Occu.

Agriculturist, R/o Kalsa, Tq.

Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.

b] Sarubai Kisan Chavan (daughter) (dead)

I] Kundlik Kisan Chavan (son)

aged 50 yrs. Occu. Agriculturist R/o Khekdi, Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.

II] Digambar Kisan Chavan (son) aged 47 yrs., Occu. Agriculturist

R/o Khekdi Tq. Digras, Distt.

Yavatmal.

III] Gitabai Kamal Rathod (daughter) aged 40 yrs.

Occu.Agriculturist, R/o Dhamangaodeo, Tah. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.

IV] Vijay Kisan Chavan (son) aged 38 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist,

Fa226-515.07

R/o Khekdi, Distt. Yavatmal.

V] Dnyaneshwar Kisan Chavan (son) aged 30 yrs. Occu.

Agriculturist, R/o Khekdi, Tah.

Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.

c] Baliram Jayram Rathod

(son (dead) thr L. Rs.

I] Gangab ai Baliram Rathod aged 65 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist, R/o Kalsa Distt. Yavatmal.

II] Suman Gemsingh Chavan (daughter) aged 32 yrs. Occu.

Agriculturist, R/o Waroli, Tq. Manora, Distt. Washim.

III] Savita Govardhan Jadhav (daughter) aged 30 yrs. Occu.

Agriculturist, R/o Kalsa, Tq. Digras, Distt.Yavatmal.

IV] Yuvraj Baliram Rathod

(son), aged 27 yrs. Occu.

Agriculturist, R/o Kalsa, Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.

V] Dhanraj Baliram Rathod (son) aged 25 yrs. Occu.

Agriculturist, R/o Kalsa, Tq. Digras, Distt.Yavatmal.

d] Kashiram Jayaram Rathod.

(son) aged 55 yrs. Occu.

Agriculturist, R/o Chikhli, Tq. Manora, Distt.Washim.

2] Bojraj Jayaram Rathod.

e] Bhojraj Jairam Rathod (son) aged 52 yrs., Occu.

Agriculturist, R/o Mandva Tq.

Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.

f] Premsingh Jayram Rathod

Fa226-515.07

(son) (dead)thr L. Rs.

I] Jamuna @ Sindhubai Premsingh Rathod aged

47 yrs. Occu. Agriculturist, R/o Sawali, Post Waigoul, Tq. Manora, Distt. Washim.

II] Maroti Premsing Rathod (son) aged 27 yrs. Occu.

Agriculturist, R/o Sawali, Post Waigoul, Tq. Manora, Distt. Washim.

III] Kavita Ram Pawar (daughter) aged 24 yrs. Occu.

Agriculturist, R/o Pipdi, Tq. Shahpur, Distt.Barhanpur. RESPONDENTS.

Shri N. C. Phadnis, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

                                     CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
   



                               
                                      Dated    :   MARCH  31, 2016.

    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

Since both these appeals raise a challenge to the judgment of the

Reference Court dated 16.06.2004 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 567

of 2004 they are being decided by this common judgment.

2] For the sake of convenience reference is made to the facts in First

Appeal No. 226 of 2007. The appellant is the owner of plot bearing Survey

No. 97/01 admeasuring 1339.10 sq. mts. Said plot is situated at village

Mokh, Tahsil Digras, District Yavatmal. This land was acquired by issuing

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the

Fa226-515.07

said Act) on 04.03.1989. The land was acquired for the submergence of the

Arunavati River Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on

26.03.1991 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 14/- per sq. mt. The

appellant being aggrieved filed reference under Section 18 of the said Act.

The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 35.27 per sq. mt.

The land owner who is the appellant in First Appeal No. 226 of 2007 as well

as the State of Maharashtra which is the appellant in First Appeal No. 515 of

2007 have accordingly challenged the judgment of the Reference Court.

3] Shri N. C. Phadnis, the learned counsel for the appellant in First

Appeal No. 226 of 2007 submitted that though Reference Court took into

consideration the sale instance at Ex. 16 which was dated 20.02.1985, it had

lost sight of the fact that the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act had

been issued on 04.08.1989. He submitted that the sale instance pertained to

land situated at village Mandva which was at a distance of 1 km. from the

acquired land. According to the learned counsel though the sale instance was

of the year 1985 and the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was

issued on 04.03.1989, the Reference Court ought to have granted

compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. mt.

4] Ms. N. P. Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

the appellant in First Appeal No. 515 of 2007 on the other hand submitted

that Reference Court was not justified in relying upon the said sale instance.

It was submitted that as the sale instance was of the year 1985 same could

not have been taken into consideration while considering enhancement of

Fa226-515.07

compensation for the land acquired in the year 1989. It was therefore

submitted that the sale instance was not a comparable one for being relied

upon. According to the learned counsel it was a case for reducing the

amount of compensation granted by the Reference Court.

4] With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have

gone through the records of the case and perused the impugned judgment.

The following point arises for consideration:

Whether any case is made out to interfere with the

judgment of the Reference Court?

5] In support of the prayer for enhancement, the land owner

examined her son. This witness stated that village Mokh was situated on

Darwah-Digras road and was at a distance of 1 km. from village Mandva. He

referred to the sale instance dated 20.02.1985 in respect of a plot of land

situated at village Mandva. Another witness examined was Deorao Dhangar

who had purchased said land admeasuring 1134 sq. mt. for Rs. 4000/- on

20.02.1985. No evidence was led on behalf of the State.

6] The Reference Court relied upon the only sale instance and held

that the aforesaid land had been sold at the rate of Rs. 35.27 sq. mt. It also

took into consideration the fact that the distance between the two villages

was 1 km. Merely because the said sale deed was executed on 20.02.1985,

the same would not be a ground to discard that sale instance in absence of

any other sale instance being available. The submission made in that regard

for discarding the said sale instance therefore cannot be accepted.

7] It is to be noted that while accepting the price of the land at Rs.

Fa226-515.07

35.27 per sq. mt. the sale transaction of the year 1985 has been considered.

Considering the fact that the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act for

acquiring the present land is dated 04.03.1989, the land owner would be

entitled to some enhancement in that regard. The normal trend of granting

10% appreciation per year can be kept in mind while granting some

enhancement. Considering the evidence available on record an amount of

Rs. 45/- per sq. mt. could be treated as fair compensation for the acquired

land. This is after taking into consideration the passage of almost four years

from the date of the sale instance to the issuance of the Notification under

Section 4 of the said Act. The point as framed is accordingly answered by

holding that the land owner would be entitled to enhanced compensation at

the rate of Rs. 45/- per sq. mt. for the acquired land.

8] Accordingly the following order is passed:

1] The judgment dated 16.06.2004 in Land Acquisition Case No.

567 of 2004 is partly modified. It is held that the land owner is entitled for

compensation at the rate of Rs. 45/- per sq. mt. Rest of the award is

maintained.

2] First Appeal No. 226 of 2007 is partly allowed in aforesaid

terms. Consequently First Appeal No. 515 of 2007 stands dismissed. There

would be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

svk