Bombay High Court
Radhakishan Namdev Mogal vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 14 October, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.213 OF 2016
Santosh S/o. Vitthalrao Dakh,
Age:30 years, Occu.:Agril,
R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani,
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
ig VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.209 OF 2016
Sudam S/o. Nivrutti Matne,
Age:38 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani,
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:14:48 :::
2 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.210 OF 2016
Rambhau S/o. Madhavrao Mahajan,
Age:40 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Kundi (Bk.), Tq. Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani,
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.211 OF 2016
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:14:48 :::
3 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
Ramchandra S/o. Abasaheb Dakh,
Age:52 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani,
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3.
The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.212 OF 2016
Vinayak S/o. Ramrao Naraladkar,
Age:65 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani,
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:14:48 :::
4 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
Mr.Survase Rajhans P., Advocate for appellant.
Mr. A.M.Phule, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Advocate for respondent no.3.
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2016
1. Balasaheb S/o. Laxman Matne,
Age:38 years, Occu.: Agri.,
2. Sanjay S/o. Laxman Matne,
Age:35 years, Occu.: Agri.,
Both R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani
...APPELLANTS
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.241 OF 2016
Laxman S/o. Eknath Dalve,
Age:28 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:14:48 :::
5 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
ig WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.242 OF 2016
1. Ganesh S/o. Harishchandra
Sadegaonkar,
Age:33 years, Occu.: Agri.,
2. Girish S/o. Harishchandra
Sadegaonkar,
Age:30 years, Occu.: Agri. &
Advocate,
R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani.
...APPELLANTS
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:14:48 :::
6 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.243 OF 2016
Gnyandev S/o. Nabaji Mandge,
Age:60 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani,
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.245 OF 2016
Dagdu S/o. Nivrutti Matne,
Age:43 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani.
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:14:48 :::
7 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.246 OF 2016
1. Savita W/o. Shivaji Dakh,
Age:35 years, Occu.: Agri.,
2. Gajanan S/o. Shivaji Dakh,
Age: Minor,
3.
Yogesh S/o. Shivaji Dakh,
Age: Minor,
Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 u/g. of real
mother Petitioner No.1
All R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani.
...APPELLANTS
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:14:48 :::
8 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
FIRST APPEAL NO.247 OF 2016
Radhakishan S/o. Namdev Mogal,
Age:58 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Kundi, Tq. Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ...APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3.
The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.248 OF 2016
Bhagirath S/o. Maroti Kadam,
Age:26 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Gugli Dhamangaon,
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Parbhani
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.K.V.) Parbhani.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Canal Division No.10,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:14:48 :::
9 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
Mr.Survase Rajhans P., Advocate for appellant.
Mr. G.O.Wattamwar, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Smt.Ranjana Reddi, Advocate for respondent no.3.
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : October 14th, 2016.
....
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Since the present appeals are arising out of
common judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition
Reference No.289/2011, with connected Land Acquisition
References, delivered by second Joint Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Parbhani, on 29th July, 2015, common
arguments were heard in all these matters and I deem it
appropriate to decide all these appeals by common
reasoning.
2. The lands which are the subject matter of the
present appeals were acquired for the purpose of
construction of Right Canal of Lower Dudhana Project.
The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, in that regard was published in the Government
gazette on 30th April, 2007, whereas award under Section
10 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
11 came to be passed on 26th April, 2010. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market price of the
acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1250/- per Are in some
matters and Rs.1230/- per Are in few matters and,
accordingly, offered the amount of compensation to the
respective land holders. Dissatisfied with the amount so
offered, the land holders (herreinafter referred to as the
claimants) preferred applications under Section 18 of the
Act to Collector, Parbhani who, in turn forwarded all these
applications for adjudication to the Civil Court ( hereinafter
referred to as the Reference Court). The claimants had
claimed compensation for their acquired lands before the
Reference Court at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per
Are. In order to substantiate the claim so raised by them,
the respective claimants deposed before the Reference
Court and two sale instances were also placed on record
by the claimants.
3. The learned Reference Court, after assessing
the oral and documentary evidence brought on record
before it, determined the market value of the acquired
lands at the rate of Rs.2500/- per Are and accordingly
11 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
proportionately enhanced the amount of compensation
payable to the respective claimants. The claimants have
preferred the present appeals under Section 54 of the Act
seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation so
awarded by the Reference Court.
4. Shri Survase, learned Counsel appearing for the
claimants, submitted that the Reference Court has, for
wrong reasons, discarded the sale instance Exh.21 and has
placed implicit reliance on another sale instance at Exh.23
in determining the amount of compensation. The learned
Counsel submitted that the claimants were fair enough in
bringing on record the material which was available with
them as about the sale instances occurred in the relevant
period. The learned Counsel submitted that 80 R. land of
village Kundi was sold by registered sale deed on 30th of
June, 2009, for consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- ( Rs.
sixteen lacs). Learned Counsel submitted that since said
land was sold by the vendor to Buldhana Urban Credit Co-
operative Society, the said sale instance ought to have
been considered as genuine sale instance showing real
market value of the land in the said area. Learned
12 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
Counsel further submitted that merely because the said
sale was of the post notification period, and was from
village Kundi, the Reference Court should not have
outrightly kept the same out of consideration.
5. Learned Counsel submitted that in catena of
judgments, Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court
has ruled that in determination of the market value of the
lands, the sale instances occurred in adjoining villages can
always be taken into consideration. Learned Counsel has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through
S.L.A.O. CIDCO, Vs. Sahadu Aba Shete and others in
First Appeal No.1469 of 2007, with connected appeals,
decided on 25.9.2008. Learned Counsel, more particularly,
invited my attention to the observations made by the
learned Division Bench in paras 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the
said judgment. Learned Counsel submitted that in the
said matter also, the point at issue was whether the
Reference Court should have discarded the sale instances
of the adjoining village and the Division Bench has
recorded a finding that the same could not have been
13 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
rejected by the Reference Court and were liable to be
considered while determining the market value of the
acquired land.
6. Learned Counsel further submitted that the
Reference Court ought to have struck balance in between
the price received to the land which was subject matter at
Exh.21 and the consideration received to the land which
was the subject matter of Exh.23. Learned Counsel
submitted that from the evidence a reasonable inference
can be drawn that villages Kundi and Gugli Dhamangaon
are adjacent villages and the agricultural lands situated in
both the villages are having same potentiality. Learned
Counsel, therefore, prayed for enhancement in the amount
of compensation in view of the evidence on record and in
view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the
judgment relied upon by him.
7. Shri Kurundkar, learned Counsel appearing for
the acquiring body supported the impugned judgment.
Learned Counsel submitted that the Reference Court has
objectively assessed the evidence brought before it and
14 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
has passed well reasoned order. Emphasis of the learned
Counsel was on the issue that when the comparable sale
instance from same village was available, there was no
necessity for the Reference Court to look into the sale
instance of the adjoining village. Learned Counsel
submitted that the ratio laid down in the Division Bench
judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
appellant may not be applicable in the facts of the present
case. Learned Counsel further submitted that even
otherwise the sale deed at Exh.21 could not have been
considered for determination of the market value of the
acquired lands for the reason that the said sale has taken
place after two years of the Section 4 notification.
Learned Counsel further submitted that the sale instance
at Exh.21 apparently appears to be un-comparable for the
reason that the price received to the said land is
abnormally on higher side. Learned Counsel further
submitted that in the circumstances, the Reference Court
has rightly preferred not to rely upon the said sale
instance. Learned Counsel further submitted that the
Reference Court has properly considered the sale instance
Exh.23 and has also given appropriate increase in the rate
15 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
of the land by making the observation that the said sale
was effected prior to about one year of the issuance of the
Section 4 notification. Learned Counsel submitted that
there is no reason to cause any interference in the well
reasoned judgment and order passed by the Reference
Court. Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal
of the appeals.
8. Smt. Ranjana Reddy, who is appearing for the
acquiring body in some of the matters, adopted the
argument advanced by learned Counsel Shri Kurundkar,
Smt. Ranjana Reddy, additionally, submitted that the
Reference Court has also considered the fact that though it
was the assertion of the respective claimants that their
lands are irrigated lands, no such evidence was produced
on record by any of the claimants so as to draw an
inference that the acquired lands were irrigated lands.
Learned Counsel further submitted that in the land which
was the subject matter of Exh.23, there was a borewell
whereas, as observed by the Reference Court, in none of
the acquired lands existence of well was noticed. As
such, according to learned Counsel, in fact, even the same
16 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
rate could not have been given for the acquired lands.
Learned A.G.P. appearing for the State has supported the
impugned judgment.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions
made on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the
claimants, learned Counsel appearing for the acquiring
body, and the learned A.G.P. I have also perused the
impugned judgment and the other material available on
record. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that
two sale instances were brought on record by the
claimants in order to substantiate their claim. Exh.21 and
Exh.23 are these two sale instances. The land which is
the subject matter of Exh.21 was admeasuring 80 Ares,
situate at Kundi and was sold by registered sale deed
executed on 30th of June, 2009, by one Mohammad Anwar
s/o Md.Akbar Rangrej to Buldhana Co-operative Urban
Credit Society for consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rs.
sixteen lacs) i.e. Rs.20,000/- per Are. The land
admeasuring 60.70 Are situate at Gugali-Dhamangaon,
which was the subject matter of Exh.23 was sold by one
Santosh Digambarrao Mogal by registered sale deed on
17 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
20th April, 2006 to one Asaram Pralhadrao Mogal for
consideration of Rs.1,27,000/- i.e. at the rate of 2167/-
per R. In Paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the judgment, the
Reference Court has analyzed the aforesaid sale instances
and has also assigned reasons for not relying on the sale
instance at Exh.21 and for relying on the sale instance at
Exh.23. The sale instance at Exh.21 had taken place
admittedly
two years after the issuance of Section 4
notification whereby the subject lands were acquired
whereas, the sale instance at Exh.23 was effected prior to
about one year of issuance of the notification under
Section 4 of the Act. The Reference Court has further
observed that when the sale instance prior to issuance of
Section 4 notification pertaining to the same village, where
the acquired land was situated was available for
consideration, there was no necessity to refer to sale
instance pertaining to the land situated at the adjoining
village. The Reference Court has assigned one more
reason for not considering the sale instance that it was
executed after issuance of Section 4 notification.
18 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
10. There cannot be a dispute regarding the law laid
down by the learned Division Bench in the case of State of
Maharashtra through S.L.A.O. CIDCO, Vs. Sahadu Aba
Shete and others (cited supra), that the market price of
the acquired land can be determined on the basis of the
sale instances of the lands of the neighbouring villages if
the lands have similar potentials and fertility. However, in
paragraph no.21 of the said judgment itself the learned
Division Bench has reproduced certain observations made
in the case of the State of Maharashtra Vs. Yashwant
Kahnu Shirsath and others (First appeal No.896 of 2005
decided on 19th July, 2007). The said observations are as
under:
"7. It is a settled principle of law that the land of
the adjacent villages can be made the basis for
determining the fair market value of an acquired
land. This principle of law is qualified by a clear
dictum of the Supreme Court itself that wherever
direct evidence i.e. the instances from the same
village are available then it is most desirable that the
Court should consider those instances rather than
relying upon sale instances of the adjoining land. "
Considering the observations as aforesaid, it does not
appear to me that the Reference Court has committed any
error in placing reliance on the sale instance at Exh.23
19 FA NO.213 OF 2016group
pertaining to the land situate at the same village than
relying on the sale instance at Exh.21 which pertains to
the land in adjacent village. Further, taking into account
the fact that the land involved in sale instance at Exh.23
was sold prior to about one year of the issuance of Section
4 notification, the learned Reference Court has given
appropriate increase of 12 to 14 per cent while
determining the market value of the acquired lands and
has thus fixed the market value of the acquired land at the
rate of Rs.2500/- per Are. I do not see any infirmity in
the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
No such case is made out warranting any interference in
the judgment and award so passed. The First Appeals,
therefore, fail. In the result, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
1. The First Appeals are dismissed, however,
without any order as to costs.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/213-16fa
