Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Govardhan Asaram Thombare & Ors on 30 May, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
fa1685.04
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1685 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Beed, District Beed ...Appellant
versus
1. Baban s/o Bhanudas Thombare
Age major, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Deolgaon Ghat, Tal. Ashti
District Beed.
2. Tulshiram s/o Bhanudas Thombare
Age major, Occ. and R/o. As above
3. Chandrakant w/o. Jagannath Thombare
Age major, Occ. and R/o. As above ...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1686 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Beed, District Beed ...Appellant
versus
1. Govardhan s/o Asaram Thombare
Age 20 years, Occ. Education
R/o. Deolgaon Ghat, Tal. Ashti
District Beed.
2. Machindra s/o Asaram Thombare
Age 22 years, Occ. and R/o. As above
3. Bhaginath s/o Mahadu Thombare
Age major, Occ. and R/o. As above
4. Lahu s/o Mahadu Thombare
Age major, Occ. Education
R/o. As above ...Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 31/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 03:45:12 :::
fa1685.04
-2-
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1687 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Beed, District Beed ...Appellant
versus
1. Gangadhar s/o Ramchandra Thombare
Age 20 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Deolgaon Ghat, Tal. Ashti
District Beed.
2.
Rangnath s/o Ramchandra Thombare
Age major, Occ. and R/o. As above ...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Beed, District Beed ...Appellant
versus
Ramrao Krishnaji Thombare
Age major, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Deolgaon Ghat, Tal. Ashti
District Beed. ...Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1689 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Beed, District Beed ...Appellant
versus
1. Ramnath s/o Manik Thombare
Age major, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Deolgaon Ghat, Tal. Ashti
District Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 31/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 03:45:12 :::
fa1685.04
-3-
2. Nandu s/o Manik Thombare
Age minor U/g. of Kamalbai
Manik Thombare
Age major, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. As above
3. Saheba s/o Rajaram Thombare
Age major, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. As above
4. Bansi s/o Rangnath Thombare
Age major, Occ. & R/o. As above ...Respondents
ig WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1690 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Beed, District Beed ...Appellant
versus
Dagdu s/o Sakharam Shinde
Age major, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Deolgaon Ghat, Tal. Ashti
District Beed. ...Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1691 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Beed, District Beed ...Appellant
versus
Bhausaheb s/o Nathu Thombare
Age major, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Deolgaon Ghat, Tal. Ashti
District Beed. ...Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1692 OF 2004
::: Uploaded on - 31/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 03:45:12 :::
fa1685.04
-4-
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Beed, District Beed ...Appellant
versus
1. Ashok s/o Vishwanath Thombare
Age 19 years, , Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Deolgaon Ghat, Tal. Ashti
District Beed.
2. Uttam s/o Vishwanath Thombare
Age 25 years, , Occ. & R/o. As above ...Respondents
ig WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1693 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Beed, District Beed ...Appellant
versus
Sakharam s/o Bhairu Thombare
Age major, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Deolgaon Ghat, Tal. Ashti
District Beed. ...Respondent
.....
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for the appellants
Mr. Nilesh R. Avhad h/f Smt. Asha Rakh, advocate for the respondents
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 30th MAY, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15.4.2004
passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Beed in L.A.R.
No. 68 of 1996 and other connected References, the appellant-State
has preferred these appeals. Since all these appeals arise out of the
fa1685.04
common judgment and award, the same are decided by this common
judgment.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeals, are as follows:-
The lands owned and possessed by the respondents original
claimants situated at village Deolgaon Ghat, Tq. Ashti, District Beed
came to be acquired for construction of percolation tank No.3 at
Deolgaon Ghat. On 8.2.1990, a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act was published and on 15.3.1992 the Special
Land Acquisition Officer had declared the award. Being aggrieved by
the inadequacy of the amount of compensation, granted by the
S.L.A.O., the respondents-original claimants had preferred
References, as detailed above. The learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional
District Judge, Beed by its impugned judgment and award dated
15.4.2004 partly allowed the Reference petitions and awarded the
compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.450/- per R
and further awarded compensation for the fruit bearing trees.
Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred these appeals.
3. The learned A.G.P. for the appellant submits that the award
passed by the S.L.A.O. reflects true and correct market value of the
acquired land. The Reference Court has not correctly appreciated the
documentary evidence adduced by the parties which resulted into
causing manifest injustice. The learned A.G.P. submits that there is
fa1685.04
considerable difference between the assessment of the acquired
lands and the assessment under the lands under sale instances. The
learned A.G.P. submits that the compensation awarded by the
S.L.A.O. is just and proper and the same is based on true market
value prevailing at the relevant time.
4. I have also heard learned counsel for the respondents-
original claimants. ig Learned counsel for the respondents-original
claimants submits that the Reference Court has correctly placed
reliance on sale deed at Exh.37 and awarded just and reasonable
compensation to the claimants. The Reference Court has deducted
40% of the market value covered under sale instance at Exh.37 and
accordingly awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate
of Rs.450/- per R. The S.L.A.O. has not considered a report of
Government Horticulturist while awarding the compensation for the
fruit bearing trees. The S.L.A.O. Shri Rambhau Rathod has deposed
before the Reference court that since the lands in which trees are
standing, came to be acquired, a report from the Government
Horticulturist was called for. Even he has produced a copy of report
of Government Horticulturist and the same is marked at Exh.72.
There is apparent mistake committed by the S.L.A.O. while awarding
the compensation for the standing trees in the acquired lands by
considering the fuel value and instead of awarding compensation for
fa1685.04
the standing trees as per column No.11, erroneously awarded
compensation as per column No.10 of the award. The witness No.5
for the claimants S.L.A.O. Rambhau Rathod has admitted the same.
Learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court is proper, correct and legal and thus
calls for no interference.
5. It appears from the oral evidence adduced by the respondent-
claimants that the claimants have placed reliance on the sale
instance at Exh.37 and also other two sale instances. So far as other
two sale instances dated 21.4.1982 and 24.6.1982, are concerned,
the Reference Court has not considered the same for the reason that
there is considerable distance between the acquired lands and the
land under the said sale instances. However, it appears that the
Reference Court has rightly considered the sale instance at Exh.37
wherein the purchaser Smt. Latabai had purchased 20 R land with
share in the well and trees standing in the said land, on 6.12.1991 at
the rate of Rs.750/- per R. The Reference Court has concluded that
the acquired agriculture lands are dry/Jirayat lands. In the sale
instances at Exh.37 since purchaser Smt. Latabai had purchased 20
R of land for consideration of Rs.15,000/- with share in the well and
trees, the Reference Court has deducted 40% of the market value
covered under the sale instances. After deducting the said amount
fa1685.04
from the market value of the land covered under the sale instance,
the Reference court has awarded compensation for the acquired land
at the rate of Rs.450/- per R. On careful perusal of the sale instance
at Exh.37, it appears that the land purchased by said Smt. Latabai is
situated within the revenue jurisdiction of village Deolgaon Ghat, Tq.
Ashti, District Beed. Furthermore, date of notification under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act is dated 8.2.1990 and date of sale
instance of Exh.37 is dated 9.12.1991. The Appellant-State has not
examined the S.L.A.O. to substantiate its contention that the S.L.A.O.
has awarded just and reasonable compensation after considering the
sale instance of said area. I do not find any error in the impugned
judgment and award thereby awarding compensation at the rate of
Rs.450/- per R for the acquired lands.
6. So far as the compensation awarded for the standing trees in
the acquired lands are concerned, the Government Horticulturist's
report was called while determining the compensation for the trees
standing in the acquired lands. The said report is placed before the
Reference court and the same is marked Exh.72. It appears that the
S.L.A.O. has awarded compensation for fruit bearing trees as per
fuel value and not as per the report of the Government Horticulturist.
The report at Exh.72 unmistakenly points out that the fruit bearing
trees like Tamarind, Mango, Lemon, Jujube were standing in the
fa1685.04
lands acquired for the said project. As per the Horticulturist's report
Exh.72, the market value of the standing trees is fixed as per column
No.11 of the report. However, it appears that the S.L.A.O. has paid
compensation for the trees as per fuel value as mentioned in the
column No.10. Even the S.L.A.O. Mr. Rambhau Rathod has also
admitted the same. Learned Judge of the Reference court therefore
rightly held that the S.L.A.O. has awarded inadequate compensation
in respect of the fruit bearing trees. Thus, the Reference Court after
considering entire evidence on record has awarded just and
reasonable compensation.
7. In the light of above discussion and since no other point is
urged by learned A.G.P., I do not find any merits in the appeals and
they are liable to be dismissed with costs. The first appeals are
therefore, dismissed with costs.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
