The State Of Mah And Ors vs Mahadu Reshma Gavit
2016 Latest Caselaw 6583 Bom

                                           1                             16 fa 285.16.odt



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                         
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2016




                                                 
    1.      The State of Maharashtra,
            Through Collector, Nandurbar.




                                                
    2.      The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2)
            Nandurbar.

    3.      The Executive Engineer,
            MIW Division, Nesu Project, Dhule.           ...       Appellants




                                        
                  Vs.
            Shri Chmarya Aatya Gavit,
                             
            Age-Major, Occu. Agril.,
            R/o. Vagadi, Tq. Navapur,
            Dist. Nandurbar.                             ...       Respondent
                            
                                         with
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 974 OF 2016

    1.      The State of Maharashtra,
      


            Through Collector, Nandurbar.
   



    2.      The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2)
            Nandurbar.

    3.      The Executive Engineer,





            Minor Irrigation Work Scheme, Dhule.         ...       Appellants
                  Vs.
            Smt. Shantibai w/o Nandlya Gavit,
            Age-Major, Occu. Agril.,
            R/o. Deolipada, Tq. Navapur,
            Dist. Nandurbar.                             ...       Respondent





                                         with
                              FIRST APPEAL NO. 2553 OF 2016

    1.      The State of Maharashtra,
            Through Collector, Nandurbar.

    2.      The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2)
            Nandurbar.

    3.      The Executive Engineer,
            MIW Division, Nesu Project, Dhule.           ...       Appellants


    ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2016                 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2016 00:07:12 :::
                                           2                                16 fa 285.16.odt



                  Vs.
            Raoji Hogrya Gavit,
            Age-Major, Occu. Agril.,




                                                                           
            R/o. Vagadi, Tq. Navapur,
            Dist. Nandurbar.                               ...       Respondent




                                                  
                                         with
                              FIRST APPEAL NO. 3203 OF 2016

    1.      The State of Maharashtra,




                                                 
            Through Collector, Nandurbar.

    2.      The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2)
            Nandurbar.




                                       
    3.    The Executive Engineer,

                Vs.
          Mahadu Reshma Gavit,
                             
          MIW Division, Nesu Project, Dhule.      ...                Appellants


          Age-Major, Occu. Farmer,
                            
          R/o. Devlipada, Tq. Navapur,
          Dist. Nandurbar.                        ...                Respondent
                                      ----
    Mr. S.N. Morampalle, Advocate for the Appellants.
      

    Mr. R.C. Patil, Advocate for the respondent.
                                      ----
   



                                              CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.

DATE : 21-11-2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. With consent of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties, the present appeals are finally heard at the admission

stage. Since all these appeals are arising out of the common

acquisition proceedings, though, a separate judgment has been

passed by the reference court in each of the references. I have

heard the common arguments and I deem it appropriate to decide

all these appeals by a common reasoning.

2. The lands which are the subject matter of the present

3 16 fa 285.16.odt

appeals were acquired for the construction of minor irrigation

project at Village Devlipada, Tq. Navapur, District Nandurbar. The

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in that regard was published in

the official gazette on 29.05.2000 and the award under Section 11

came to be passed on 08.09.2000. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer (for short 'S.L.A.O.') fixed the market value of the acquired

lands @ Rs. 33,000/- per Hectare and, accordingly, offered the

amount of compensation to the respective claimants. Dis-satisfied

with the amount of compensation so offered the claimants preferred

the applications under Section 18 of the Act to Collector, Nandurbar

seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. The

applications so filed were forwarded by District Collector, Nandurbar

to the Civil Court, Nandurbar (hereinafter referred to as the

'Reference Court') for adjudication.

3. In the reference court, the claimants had claimed the

compensation ranging in between Rs. 95,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-

per hectare. In order to substantiate the claims so made, the

respective claimants adduced their own oral evidence and had also

commonly relied upon one sale instance of the said period

pertaining to a land in vicinity. No oral evidence was adduced by the

state or the S.L.A.O. nor any sale instance was produced on record

by the state. The reference court after having assessed the oral and

documentary evidence brought before it determined the market

4 16 fa 285.16.odt

value of the acquired lands @ Rs. 60,911/- per hectare and,

accordingly, enhanced the amount of compensation. The reference

court has also held the claimants entitled for the statutory benefits.

Aggrieved by, the state has preferred the present appeals.

4. Shri S.N. Morampalle, the learned A.G.P. appearing for

the state has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds.

The learned A.G.P. submitted that, the reference court has

manifestly erred in relying upon the sale instance pertaining to a

land at village Khanapur which is near the national highway and

was certainly having different potentials. The learned A.G.P.

submitted that, the lands which are the subject matter in the

present appeals are of the interior portion and, as such, the market

value of these lands could not have been determined by the

reference court on the basis of the land which was abutting to the

national highway. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that, the sale

instance relied upon by the learned reference court is also of small

piece of land, as such, the same could not have been the basis

determining the market value of the acquired lands which are in

hectares. The learned A.G.P. has, therefore, prayed for setting aside

the impugned award and to re-determine market value of the

acquired lands.

5. Shri R.C. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents i.e. original claimants in all these appeals has

5 16 fa 285.16.odt

supported the impugned judgment and award. The learned counsel

submitted that, the reference court has rightly relied upon the sale

instance placed on record by the claimants and has granted

adequate compensation. The learned counsel submitted that, the

claimants were in fact expecting some more compensation than

awarded by the reference court. The learned counsel submitted

that, since the reference court has awarded reasonable amount of

compensation no interference is required in the award so passed.

The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by

the learned A.G.P. and the learned counsel appearing for the

claimants. I have also perused the impugned judgment and the

other material on record. On perusal of the impugned judgment and

the evidence on record, it does not appear to me that any

interference may be required in the impugned judgments.

Admittedly, no evidence was adduced by the appellant-state before

the reference court nor any sale instance was placed on record by

the state. It is, thus, evident that the only evidence before the

reference court was the oral testimonies of the respective claimants

and one sale instance commonly relied upon by all these claimants

in order to support their claim. It is not in dispute that, the lands

which were acquired are non-irrigated lands. The sale instance

which has been relied upon by the learned reference court was also

pertaining to a non-irrigated land. The said sale instance is at

6 16 fa 285.16.odt

exhibit-17 in the record of the trial court in L.A.R. No. 7 of 2005

and in all other reference applications also the same sale instance is

relied upon by the reference court.

7. The land which was the subject matter of sale instance

at exhibit-17 was sold by registered sale deed executed on

28.12.1998 for a consideration of Rs. 35,785/-. It was the land ad-

measuring 47 R. As observed by the reference court the aforesaid

land, thus, was sold @ 76,139/- per hectare. As has been argued

by the learned A.G.P., the objection of the state is that the land sold

vide exhibit-17 was situated at village Khanapur which is near to

Surat-Dhule national highway and, as such, the same could not

have been a base for determining the market value of the acquired

lands which are in the interior area. Though, it was sought to be

canvassed that the acquired lands were in interior portion, the

evidence on record and the discussion made by the reference court

reveals that, acquired lands were at the distance of two to three

kilometers from the land which was the subject matter of the sale

deed at exhibit-17. The reference court has in para nos. 11 and 12

of the judgment has adequately discussed the said evidence and

taking into account fact that, the acquired lands are at the distance

of two to three kilometers from the land which was the subject

matter of the sale instance at exhibit-17 has reduced the market

value of the acquired lands in that proportion and has accordingly

fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 60,911/- per

7 16 fa 285.16.odt

hectare.

8. After having considered the material on record and in

absence of any other evidence on record. it does not appear to me

that reference court has committed any error in determining the

market value of the acquired lands at the aforesaid rate. Nothing

has been brought to my notice even in the present appeal showing

that the compensation as awarded by the reference court is

unreasonably higher. Further, it is revealed that the enhanced

amount of compensation in all these matters is a small amount.

Having regard to the fact that the reference court has not given any

unreasonable increase in the amount of compensation, I do not see

any merit in the present appeals. The appeals, therefore, fail and

are accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to the

costs. Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(P.R. BORA) JUDGE

mub