Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Rajeshwar Sangram Patil on 29 November, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 928 fa 22.09.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
Shrimant s/o Madhavrao Sagar,
Age: 45 years, Occ. Agril.,
R/o Kokalgaon, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ... Respondent
with
ig FIRST APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
Rajeshwar s/o Sangram Patil,
Age: 28 years, Occ. Agril.,
R/o Nadi-Hatterga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ... Respondent
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
Madhavrao s/o Sidramappa Shetkar,
Age: 52 years, Occ. Agril.,
R/o Nadi-Hatterga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ... Respondent
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
Balchandra s/o Nilkanthappa Shetkar,
Age: 55 years, Occ. Agril.,
R/o Nadi-Hatterga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ... Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2016 00:47:59 :::
2 928 fa 22.09.odt
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
Trimbakappa s/o Sidramappa Shetkar,
Age: 60 years, Occ. Agril.,
R/o Nadi-Hatterga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ... Respondent
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
Shantkumar s/o Trimbakappa Shetkar,
Age: 31 years, Occ. Agril.,
R/o Nadi-Hatterga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ... Respondent
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Virendra s/o Deelip Patil,
Age: 6 years mior u/g. of mother
Laxmibai w/o Deelip Patil,
Age: 32 yrs, Occ. Agri. & Household
2. Dayanand s/o Baswantrao Patil,
Age: 27 years, Occ. Agriculture,
Both r/o Nadi-Hatterga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
Hanmant s/o Baburao Sagar,
Age: 42 years, Occ. Agril.,
R/o Kokalgaon, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ... Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2016 00:47:59 :::
3 928 fa 22.09.odt
----
Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, AGP for the appellant-state.
Mr. L.C. Patil, Advocate for the respondents.
----
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : 29-11-2016.
P.C. :
1. Heard Shri S.P. Deshmukh, the learned A.G.P. appearing
for the appellant-state and Shri L.C. Patil, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents i.e. Original claimants. Since all
these appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award
passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Latur, I have heard the
common arguments in all these appeals and I deem it appropriate
to decide these appeals by common reasoning.
2. The lands which are the subject matter of the present
appeals were acquired for K.T. Weir to be constructed between
village Kokalgaon and Nadi-Hatterga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was published in the official
gazette on 29.03.1990 and the award under Section 11 came to be
passed on 15.03.1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had
assessed the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.10,800/- per acre and has accordingly offered the amount of
compensation to the respective claimants. Dis-satisfied with the
amount of compensation so offered the claimants had preferred the
applications under Section 18 of the Act to Collector, Latur, who in
4 928 fa 22.09.odt
turn forwarded all these applications to the Civil Court at Latur for
adjudication (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court'). The
claimants had claimed the compensation @ Rs. 75,000/- to
Rs.1,00,000/- per acre before the reference court.
3. In order to substantiate the claim so made by them the
claimants, in addition to their oral evidence placed on record one
sale instance. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the state
nor any sale instance was placed on record by the state. The
learned reference court, after having assessed the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record before it, determined the
market value of the non-irrigated lands @ Rs.40,000/- per acre and
for the irrigated lands @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre and has accordingly
enhanced the amount of compensation. The reference court has
also granted statutory benefits as well as the interest as provided
under the Act. Aggrieved by, the state has preferred the present
appeals.
4. Shri S.P. Deshmukh, learned A.G.P. appearing for the
state has assailed the impugned judgment and award on various
grounds. The learned A.G.P. submitted that, relying upon only one
sale instance that too of a land situated at different village, the
reference court has determined the market value of the acquired
lands. The learned A.G.P further submitted that, though, it is
assumed that, there was no sale instance available pertaining to the
5 928 fa 22.09.odt
lands situated at village Killari and therefore, the sale instance
relating to the land of the adjacent village was required to be
considered, even then the market value determined by the
reference court relying upon the said sale instance cannot be
sustained. The learned A.G.P. submitted that, the sale instance
which has been relied upon by the reference court is admittedly of
the post notification period. The learned A.G.P. submitted that, the
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 29.03.1990,
whereas, the sale deed at exhibit-12 which has been relied upon by
the claimants and which has been accepted by the learned
reference court was executed on 11.06.1990.
5. The learned A.G.P. further submitted that, the reference
court has also failed in appreciating that the land which was the
subject matter of exhibit-12 was irrigated land. The learned
counsel inviting my attention to para 10 of the impugned judgment
submitted that, as observed by the reference court the land which
was the subject matter of exhibit-12 was having a pipe line laid
therein meaning thereby that it was an irrigated land. The learned
A.G.P. submitted that, in the circumstances, the same rate could
not have been given by the learned reference court for the dry
lands. The learned A.G.P. submitted that, when land at exhibit-12
was an irrigated land and was sold after the issuance of Section 4
notification, at the most same rate could have been awarded by the
reference court for the irrigated lands. The learned A.G.P.
6 928 fa 22.09.odt
submitted that, the reference court has not provided any
explanation as to on what ground it has determined the market
value of the acquired lands holding the same to be irrigated land @
Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The learned A.G.P. submitted that, from the
evidence on record, it is apparently revealed that the reference
court has determined the market value of the acquired lands on
higher side for which there was no evidence on record. The learned
A.G.P., therefore, prayed for modification of the award by re-
determining the market value of the acquired lands in view of the
evidence on record.
6. Shri L.C. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents i.e. original claimants supported the impugned
judgment and award. The learned counsel submitted that, though,
the reference court has made certain discussion as about the pipe
line laid in the land which was the subject matter of exhibit-12
there is no further evidence on record showing that the said land
was fully irrigated land. The learned counsel submitted that, in the
circumstances, the reference court has rightly awarded the same
rate for the acquired lands which were dry and has also determined
the market value of the other lands which were irrigated @ Rs.
50,000/- per acre. The learned counsel submitted that, the
reference court has not committed any error in determining the
market value of the acquired lands and accordingly in enhancing
the amount of compensation. The learned counsel further
7 928 fa 22.09.odt
submitted that, amount as awarded by the reference court has
been already recovered by the respective claimants in the execution
proceedings filed by them. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed
for dismissal of the appeals.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced
by the learned A.G.P. and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents i.e. original claimants, I have also perused the
impugned judgment and the evidence on record.
ig Perusal of the
impugned judgment reveals that, there was only one sale instance
before the reference court for consideration so as to determine the
market value of the acquired lands. The said sale instance was
produced on record by the claimants. The claimants have also
examined one Manik Eknath Shinde, in order to prove the said sale
deed. The evidence of said Manik Eknath Shinde reveals that he
was attesting witness to the sale deed which was executed in
respect of survey nos. 163 and 164 ad-measuring 4 acres. The
evidence of said witness further reveals that, the sale deed was
executed on 11.06.1990 before the Registrar and the said land was
sold for the consideration of Rs.1,55,000/-. In the cross-
examination, said Manik Eknath Shinde has admitted that the lands
of village Pokalgoan are inferior in quality than the land of Killari.
The said witness further admitted that, the land situated at the
western side of Killari are superior than the land situated on the
eastern side the said witness has further admitted that the acquired
8 928 fa 22.09.odt
lands were towards the eastern side of village Killari. In the cross-
examination of the said witness it has also come on record that the
land which was the subject matter of exhibit-12 was a dry land. In
the further cross-examination, it is nowhere put to the said witness
that, it was an irrigated land and he was telling a lie that the said
land was dry land. The said witness has also further stated that,
the prices of the land within 10 kilometers of village Killari are
similar. I have also perused the sale deed at exhibit-12, it carries a
clear averment on top of the said sale deed that the said sale deed
pertains to a dry land. After having considered the evidence of PW1
Manik Eknath Shinde, it appears that, though, the reference court
on the basis of existence of pipe line in the land which was the
subject matter of exhibit-12 has held the said land to be irrigated
land, infact there was no concrete evidence showing that the said
land was irrigated land. On the contrary as mentioned by me
herein-above the sale deed of the said land clearly mentions that, it
was a dry land and the attesting witness examined by the claimants
had also in clear terms testified that it was a dry land. It appears
that, though, such discussion is not made by the reference court,
ultimately, the reference court has determined the market value of
the acquired land at the same rate i.e. @ Rs.40,000/- per acre and
has accordingly enhanced the said rate by Rs.10,000/- while
determining the market value of the irrigated lands to the tune of
Rs. 50,000/- per acre.
9 928 fa 22.09.odt
8. For the reasons stated above, it does not appear to me
that, the reference court has determined the market value of the
acquired lands arbitrarily or on higher side. In the circumstances, I
do not see any reason to cause any interference in the judgment
and award so passed. In the result all these appeals fail and are
accordingly dismissed.
(P.R. BORA)
ig JUDGE
mub
