Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Niwarti Kishanrao Gudsure on 31 May, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 423 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur. Appellant/
orig resp.
VERSUS
Fatru s/o Ismailsaheb Jore,
age 45 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o Takali (Bombali),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Respondent
ig (orig claimant)
...
WITH
FA/424/2004
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur. Appellant/
orig resp.
VERSUS
1. Mohan s/o Kashiram Sonale,
age 45 years, Occ. Agri,
2. Uttam s/o Kashiram Sonale,
age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture,
Both r/o Takali (Bombali),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Respondent
(orig claimant)
...
WITH
FA/425/2004
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur. Appellant/
orig resp.
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 02/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 03:51:38 :::
2 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
Subhash s/o Shankarrao Patil
age 40 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o Takali (Bombali), Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur
Respondent
(orig claimant)
...
WITH
FA/426/2004
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur. Appellant/
ig orig resp.
VERSUS
Mahalsing s/o Gundappa Ajane,
age 35 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o Takali (Bombali),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Respondent
(orig claimant)
...
WITH
FA/429/2004
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur. Appellant/
orig resp.
VERSUS
Baswant s/o Apparao Patil
age 65 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o Takali (Bombali),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Respondent
(orig claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.421 OF 2004
::: Uploaded on - 02/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 03:51:38 :::
3 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur. Appellant/
orig resp.
VERSUS
Niwarti s/o Kishanrao Gudsure,
age 42 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o Takali (Bombali),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Respondent
(orig claimant)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.422 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur. Appellant/
orig resp.
VERSUS
Gundappa s/o Limbaji Ajane
age 70 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o Takali (Bombali),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
Since dead through his L.Rs.
1. Mahaling s/o Gundappa Ajane,
age 46 yrs, Occ. Agri.
2. Murlidhar s/o Gundappa Ajane,
age 44 yrs, Occ. Agri.
3. Venkat s/o Gundappa Ajane,
age 42 years, Occ. Agri.
4. Balaji s/o Gundappa Ajane,
age 38 yrs, Occ. Agri,
All R/o Takali (Bombali),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Respondent
(orig claimant)
...
::: Uploaded on - 02/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 03:51:38 :::
4 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.427 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur. Appellant/
orig resp.
VERSUS
Shamrao Bhimrao Sonale,
age 55 yrs, Occ. Agri,
R/o Takali (Bombali),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Respondent
(orig claimant)
...
ig WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.431 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur. Appellant/
orig resp.
VERSUS
Pandurang s/o Baliram Sonale,
age 21 yrs, Occ. Agri,
R/o Takali (Bombali),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Respondent
(orig claimant)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.432 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur. Appellant/
orig resp.
VERSUS
Eknath Kashiram Sonale,
age 45 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o Takali (Bombali),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Respondent
(orig claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 02/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 03:51:38 :::
5 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
...
AGP for Appellant-State : Mr S B Yawalkar
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: May 31, 2016
...
COMMON JUDGMENT :-
1. Being aggrieved by the common Judgment and
Award passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Latur dated 13.09.2000 in LAR No.631/1990 alongwith
connected Land Acquisition References, the original
respondent State has preferred these appeals. Since all
the appeals arises out of the common Judgment and
Award passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Latur from the same award, same are decided by this
common Judgment.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeals, are
as under :-
Agricultural land owned and possessed by the
Respondents/original claimants came to be acquired by
the Government for the construction of the percolation
Tank situated at village Takali (Bombali), Tq. Udgir,
District Latur. Notification under section 4 of the Land
6 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
Acquisition Act was issued and published on 6.2.1986
and on 31.3.1989 the Special Land Acquisition Officer
had passed the Award. Being aggrieved by the said
Award, the respondents/original claimants have filed
Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
and the same came to be referred to the Civil Court.
The Special Land Acquisition officer had awarded
compensation for the acquired land ranging from Rs.142
per Aar to Rs.172/- per Aar. The learned Additional
District Judge, Latur, by its impugned Judgment and
award dated 13.9.2000 awarded the compensation for
the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per
Hectare i.e. Rs.450/- per Aar. Hence, these appeals.
3. Mr. Yawalkar, the learned AGP submits that the
Reference Court has not considered the fertility,
potentiality, quality and location of the acquired lands
while awarding enhanced compensation. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer has considered the sale
instances of same locality, revenue assessment of the
acquired lands while determining the price of the lands
acquired. The learned AGP further submits that the
7 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
Reference Court has wrongly relied upon the sale
instances and awarded exorbitant amount of
compensation. The Reference Court has not considered
that Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted
compensation for the lands under acquisition after
classifying the lands in five groups considering all
relevant factors. The learned AGP submits that the
impugned common judgment passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Latur, is, thus liable to be
quashed and set aside.
4. None present for the respondents/original
claimants.
5. Though the Special Land Acquisition Officer has
classified the acquired lands in five groups, awarded
compensation ranging from Rs.142/- to Rs.172/- per
aar. Village Takali (Bombali) is having a population of
7000 and there is water supply and electric supply to
the village. Furthermore, there is State High Way
passing from Udgir to Bidar from the same village. It
further appears that, the Special Land Acquisition
8 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
Officer has not considered the sale instances in respect
of the lands situated adjoining to the lands under
acquisition. Even though respondents-claimants have
submitted the sale instances before the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, the same has not been considered.
It further appears from the contents of the Award that
the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not considered
fertility of the lands and crops raised by the
respondents-claimants in their respective lands. I do
not find any fault in the finding recorded by the
Reference Court that compensation awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate.
6. The respondents/original claimants have placed
their reliance on a sale instance Exh.42. The
respondent/original claimant Fataru has deposed before
the Reference Court that the land situated in his village
sold at a low rate and thus he has placed his reliance on
a sale deed Exh.42 of the adjoining village. It appears
from the contents of the sale deed Exh.42 that one
Gopala sold the land admeasuring 22 R out of the land
bearing S.No.161/A to one Narsing Patil for a
9 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
consideration of Rs.17,000/- on 29.3.1984. The said
sale deed exh.42 came to be executed two years prior to
the date of the notification in the present award. The
respondents/original claimants have examined PW 1
Gahininath Ghule, who is an attesting witness of the
sale deed. Thus, the sale deed Exh.42 is duly proved
before the Reference Court.
7.
Furthermore, the respondents/claimants have
filed copy of the Judgment delivered by the Civil Judge
S.D. Latur in LAR No.1314/1990 dtd. 2.5.1997, the
learned Civil Judge S.D. Latur has awarded
compensation of Rs.92,000/- per Hectare to the Bagayat
Land and Rs.72,000/- per Hector to Jirayat Land. The
reference Court in paragraph no.24 of the Judgment
has observed that the Award declared by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer is the same challenged in the
said reference No.1314/1990.
8. It appears that, even considering the sale instance
Exh.42 as well as previous judgment wherein the Civil
Court has enhanced the compensation by awarding the
10 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
compensation @ Rs.70,000/- per Hectare under the
same Award, the Reference Court in the present matter
had awarded compensation to all the lands @
Rs.45,000/- per Hectare. In my considered opinion, the
Reference Court has awarded just and reasonable
compensation and there is no reason at all to interfere
in it.
9.
It further appears that some standing trees came
to be acquired by the Government at the time of
construction of said percolation tank. There were
tamrind, sandal, mango and bor trees in the field of
respondents/original claimants in First Appeal No.423
of 2004. It further appears from the record that, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the
compensation for acquisition of the said trees at a
meager rate. Even though, contents of the pancnama
speaks that 35 sandal trees came to be acquired by the
Government at the time of construction of the said
percolation tank, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
granted only Rs.10,756/- as a compensation amount in
lumpsum in respect of the said 35 sandal trees standing
11 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
in the land of respondent/original claimant Fataru.
Even though respondent-claimant has not adduced any
oral or documentary evidence, considering the nature of
the trees and other factors, the Reference Court has
enhanced the compensation by Rs.21,512/- for the
sandal trees. Considering the other standing trees, the
Reference Court has awarded total compensation of
Rs.35,000/- to respondent-claimant Fataru. It further
appears from the record that there is a well in the land
of respondent-original claimant Fataru and the Special
Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of
Rs.1057/- for acquisition of the said well. The learned
Judge of the Reference Court has considered the said
aspect and awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/- for the
said well, which appears to be just and reasonable.
10. In view of the above, I do not find any fault in the
impugned Judgment and Award. The learned Judge of
the Reference Court has awarded just and reasonable
compensation for the acquired lands, standing trees and
well. No interference is required in the impugned
Judgment and Award. There is no merit in the appeals.
12 FA 423.2004 + GROUP.odt
All these first appeals are thus liable to be dismissed
with costs. Hence, following order.
O R D E R
I. The First Appeal bearing Nos.423 of 2004
State of Maharashtra Vs Fataru Ismailsaheb
Jore, 424 of 2004 State of Maharashtra Vs
Mohan Kashiram Sonale and another, 425 of
2004 State of Maharashtra Vs Subhash s/o
Shankarrao Patil, 426 of 2004 State of
Maharashtra Vs Mahalsing Gundappa Ajane,
429 of 2004 State of Maharashtra Vs
Baswant Apparao Patil, 421 of 2004 State of
Maharashtra Vs Niwarti Kishanrao Gudsure,
422 of 2004 State of Maharashtra Vs
Gundappa Limbaji Ajane through L.Rs., 427
of 2004 State of Maharashtra Vs Shamrao
Bhimrao Sonale, 431 of 2004 State of
Maharashtra Vs Pandurang Baliram Sonale,
432 of 2004 State of Maharashtra Vs Eknath
Kashiram Sonale are hereby dismissed with
costs.
II. Award be drawn up accordingly.
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
