Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Vijay Laxman Belote on 15 October, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
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 00:25:27 :::
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
