The State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Jalindar Dashrath Ghorpade And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6056 Bom

                                           1                      935 fast 19898.16.odt



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                        
                     FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 19898 OF 2016




                                                
    1.      The State of Maharashtra,
            Through the Special Land Acquisition
            Officer No.1, Ahmednagar.




                                               
    2.      The Executive Engineer,
            Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
            Division Ahmednagar.                        ...       Appellants
                  Vs.




                                        
            Vijay Laxman Belote,
            Age-35 yrs, Occ-Agril,

            Dist. Ahmednagar.
                             
            R/o Devibhoyare, Tq. Parner,
                                                        ...       Respondent

                                      with
                            
                     FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 19901 OF 2016

    1.      The State of Maharashtra,
            Through the Special Land Acquisition
      

            Officer No.1, Ahmednagar.
   



    2.      The Executive Engineer,
            Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
            Division Ahmednagar.                        ...       Appellants
                  Vs.
            The Parner Taluka Co-operative Sugar





            Factory Ltd.,
            Through its Managing Director,
            Shri Krushna Baburao Kanhore,
            Age-55 yrs, Occ-Service,
            R/o Devibhoyare, Tq. Parner,





            Dist. Ahmednagar.                           ...       Respondent

                                      with
                     FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 19904 OF 2016

    1.      The State of Maharashtra,
            Through the Special Land Acquisition
            Officer No.1, Ahmednagar.

    2.      The Executive Engineer,
            Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
            Division Ahmednagar.                        ...       Appellants


    ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016                ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:25:28 :::
                                           2                        935 fast 19898.16.odt



                  Vs.
    1.      Jalindra Dashrath Ghorpade,
            Age-35 yrs, Occ: Agril,




                                                                         
    2.      Santosh Dashrath Ghorpade,




                                                 
            Age-31 yrs, Occ-Agril.,
            R/o Devibhoyare, Tq. Parner,
            Dist. Ahmednagar.                            ...       Respondents

                                      with




                                                
                     FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 19907 OF 2016

    1.      The State of Maharashtra,
            Through the Special Land Acquisition




                                      
            Officer No.1, Ahmednagar.

    2.
                             
            The Executive Engineer,
            Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
            Division Ahmednagar.                         ...       Appellants
                  Vs.
                            
    1.      Rangnath Rama Sarade,
            Age-60 yrs, Occ: Agril,

    2.      Chbubai Dnyandeo Pimparkar,
      

            Age-35 yrs, Occ: Agril,
   



    3.      Sarubai Nama Sarade (Deleted)

          R/o Devibhoyare, Tq. Parner,
          Dist. Ahmednagar
                                   ----





    Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellants.
    Mr. Mahesh Sonwane, Advocate for the respondents.
                                   ----
                                       CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.

                                       DATE    : 15-10-2016.





    ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. With consent of the learned A.G.P. And learned counsel

appearing for the respondents i.e. original claimants the present

appeals are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

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

3 935 fast 19898.16.odt

appeals were acquired by the state for construction of percolation

tank at Village Devibhoyar. 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 05.02.1998,

whereas, the award under Section 11 of the Act came to be passed

on 30.11.2000. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the

market value of the acquired lands ranging between Rs.75,800/- to

Rs. 85,000/- per hectare and had, accordingly, offered the amount

of compensation to the respective claimants.

3. Dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation so

offered the respective land holders filed application under Section

18 of the Act seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation.

All those applications were forwarded by Collector, Ahmednagar to

the Civil Court at Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the

Reference Court) for adjudication. In the proceedings before the

reference court Shri Vijay Laxman Belote, the claimant in L.A.R. No.

221 of 2001 deposed on oath on behalf of the claimants in the

connected L.A.R.'s bearing no. 218 of 2001, 219 of 2001 and 220 of

2001. The claimants in the aforesaid land acquisition references

had filed pursis adopting the oral evidence of said Shri Vijay

Laxman Belote. The claimants had also placed on record one sale

instance (exhibit-17) to substantiate the claim so raised by them.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer namely Sanjay Chunilal Bagade

also deposed to substantiate the objections raised by the state, in

4 935 fast 19898.16.odt

its written statement. The Special Land Acquisiton Officer had relied

upon only on one document i.e. award passed under Section 11 of

the Act in respect of the acquired lands on 30.11.2000.

4. The learned reference court after having scrutinised the

oral and documentary evidence brought on record before it,

determined the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.

3,00,000/- per hectare for seasonally irrigated lands and Rs.

2,00,000/- per hectare for the non-irrigated lands and accordingly

enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the respective

claimants depending upon the quality and type of the lands owned

by the respective claimants. Aggrieved by the enhancement so

awarded by the reference court the state has filed the present

appeals.

5. Shri Deshmukh, learned A.G.P. criticised the impugned

judgment on the ground that the reference court placing implicit

reliance on the sole sale instance placed on record by the claimants

has erroneously determined the market value of the acquired lands.

The learned A.G.P. submitted that, the reference court did not

appreciate that the sale instance which was relied upon by the

claimants was pertaining to a small piece of land ad-measuring 20

R. The learned A.G.P. further submitted that, on the contrary the

S.L.A.O. had taken into account more sale instances and also had

personally visited the acquired lands and, thereafter, had

5 935 fast 19898.16.odt

determined the market value of the acquired lands. The learned

A.G.P. submitted that, the S.L.A.O. had correctly determined the

market value of the acquired lands and no such evidence was

brought on record by the claimants so as to enhance the amount of

compensation.

6. The learned A.G.P. further submitted that, the claimants

did not examine the vendor or the vendee to prove the sale deed at

exhibit-17 and merely placed on record the certified copy of the

said sale deed.

ig According to the learned A.G.P., the claimants

ought to have examined a witness to prove the said sale deed and

further must have brought on record the evidence as about the

similarity of the acquired lands with the land which was the subject

matter of exhibit-17. The learned A.G.P. further submitted that,

without any such evidence on record the reference court had

arbitrarily enhanced the amount of compensation. The learned

A.G.P., therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed by the

reference court and re-determine the amount of compensation to

be paid to the claimants.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents i.e.

original claimants submitted that, though, the acquired lands are

irrigated lands holding the same to be semi-irrigated lands. The

reference court infact had awarded the compensation on lower side.

The learned counsel further submitted that, the appeals filed by the

6 935 fast 19898.16.odt

state are devoid of any substance the learned counsel, therefore,

prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced

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

original claimants, I also perused the impugned judgment and the

other material placed on record by the parties.

9. As noted hereinabove one of the claimants namely Vijay

Laxman Belote had testified before the reference court on behalf of

all the claimants and one sale instance was produced on record by

the claimant (exhibit-17). The S.L.A.O. also deposed before the

reference court but he did not produce on record any sale instance

to buttress the contentions raised in written statement. It is thus,

evident that oral evidence of one of the claimant and the S.L.A.O.,

one sale instance produced on record by the claimants and copy of

award passed under Section 11 of the Act was the material before

the reference court to determine the market value of the acquired

lands.

10. The sale instance which has been brought on record by

the claimants pertains to gut no. 957, ad-measuring 20 R situated

at Village Devibhoyare. The said land was sold by Pandarinath

Magar to Baban Gaikwad by a registered sale deed executed on

23.01.1996 for consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. As has come on

record it was seasonally irrigated land. Notification under Section 4

7 935 fast 19898.16.odt

of the Act for acquisition of the lands which are the subject matter

of the present appeals was published on 05.02.1998. The sale

instance at exhibit-17, thus, had taken place two years prior to

issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.

11. Admittedly, the aforesaid sale pertains to the land

situated at the same village from where the subject lands were

acquired. In the cross-examination of the witness examined on

behalf of the claimants nothing has been brought on record to show

that the sale instance on which the reliance was placed by the

claimants was not of a comparable land or that the said sale

instance was not genuine. In view of the fact that, the sale

instance was pertaining to the land of the same village and further

that it was executed two years prior to the issuance of notification

under Section 4 of the Act, the reference court deemed it

appropriate to rely on the said sale instance for determination of

the market value of the acquired lands. As noted by me

hereinabove, the state has not placed on record any sale instance

so that the same could have been considered in comparison with

the sale instance brought on record by the claimants.

12. The land which was the subject matter of the sale deed

at exhibit-17 was sold @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare. In absence of

any contrary evidence on record the reference court on the basis of

the said sale instance held the market value of the lands in the

8 935 fast 19898.16.odt

vicinity @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare for the seasonally irrigated

lands. Further, considering the fact that aforesaid sale deed

(exhibit-17) was executed two years prior to the issuance of

notification under Section 4 of the Act, the learned reference court

gave increase at the rate of 10% per year in the rate and

accordingly fixed the market value for the seasonally irrigated lands

@ Rs. 3,00,000/- per hectare. It does not appear to me that, the

reference court has committed any error in determining the market

value of the acquired lands at the said rate. From the discussion

made by the reference court in para 15 and 16 of the impugned

judgment it transpires that the reference court has objectively

assessed the oral and documentary evidence which was brought

before it.

13. Looking to the discussion made by the learned reference

court, it is difficult to accept the objection raised by the appellant

state that the reference court has blindly relied upon the sole sale

instance brought on record by the claimants. It is not the case

that, the reference court has blindly applied the same rate which

was received to the land which was the subject matter of the sale

deed at exhibit-17 to the subject lands. While determining the

market value of the said lands the reference court has observed

that, though, it was asserted by the claimants that the acquired

lands were fully irrigated land infact they were not liable to be

treated as fully irrigated lands having regard to the crop pattern of

9 935 fast 19898.16.odt

the said lands.

14. Though, it was sought to be canvassed, the learned

A.G.P. that implicitly relying on the sole sale instance, the reference

court has determined the market value of the acquired lands, no

such material was placed on record by the state before the

reference court and, thereafter, even before this court to show that

the sale instance at exhibit-17 was not a comparable sale instance

and, therefore, could not have been relied upon by the reference

court for determining the market value of the acquired lands.

15. The reference court has further appropriately classified

the acquired lands in the categories of semi-irrigated and non-

irrigated and has accordingly determined the market value of the

said lands and given the proportionate enhancement in the amount

of compensation. After having gone through the entire discussion

made by the learned reference court, I do not see any infirmity in

the conclusions so recorded by the reference court. The price

determined by the reference court of the acquired lands @ Rs.

3,00,000/- per hectare for the semi-irrigated lands and Rs.

2,00,000/- per hectare for the non-irrigated lands cannot be in any

sense said to be unreasonable or on higher side.

16. For the reasons stated above, I do not see any reason

to cause interference in the impugned judgment and award. The

appeals being without any merit deserves to be dismissed and are

10 935 fast 19898.16.odt

accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to the costs.

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

(P.R. BORA) JUDGE

mub