Shivajirao Ambadasrao Belkunde vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5266 Bom

                                                               FA 19 of 1994
                                            1


          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 




                                                                          
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                             FIRST APPEAL NO.19 OF 1994


     Shivajirao s/o. Ambadasrao Belkunde




                                                 
     (Died) through L.Rs.
     1.   Chandrakant s/o. Shivajirao Belkunde,
          Age:45 years, Occu: Agri.,
     2.   Gautam S/o. Shivajirao Belkunde,
          Age:39 years, Occu: Agri.,




                                         
     3.   Shrimati Kalwati w/o. Shivajirao Belkunde,
          Age:60 years, Occu: Agri.,
                             
     4.  Dayanand s/o. Shivajirao Belkunde 
         (Died)through his L.Rs.
                            
     4.1 Rajeshri w/o. Dayanand Belkunde
         Age:47 years, Occu:Agri.,
     4.2 Balaji s/o. Dayanand Belkunde
         Age:28 years, Occu:Agri.,
      

     4.3 Ram s/o. Dayanand Belkunde
         Age:26 years, Occu:Agri.,
   



     5.  Sow. Prabhavati w/o. Sopan Shinde
         Age:50 years, Occu:Agri.,
     6.  Sow. Chaya w/o. Govind Yadav
         Age:37 years, Occu: Agri.,





              All R/o. Khed (Nagur), Tq. Omerga.

                                                           ...Appellants
                                                             (Claimants)





                      VERSUS

     The State of Maharashtra through
     The Collector Osmanabad
                                         ...Respondent

                                         ...




    ::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2016 01:08:49 :::
                                                          FA 19 of 1994
                                     2


     MR. C.G. Solshe, Advocate for  Appellants.




                                                                    
     MR. K.N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent 
                            ...       




                                            
                                   CORAM:  P.R. BORA, J.

                                   RESERVED ON  : 04.08.2016
                                   PRONOUNCED ON : 15.09.2016




                                           
        
     JUDGMENT :

The Appellants have filed the present

1.

appeal, seeking enhancement in the amount of

compensation awarded by the Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Osmanabad (herein after referred to

decided on 20-11-1989 along with the L.A.R. No.

99 of 1985.

2. Two different lands owned by the

present Appellant; the one Survey No.10/1

admeasuring 4 hector 39 R, and other Survey No.

10/3 admeasuring 41 R, were acquired for Terna

Lower Dam Project. The notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

FA 19 of 1994

(herein after referred to as the "Act") in that

regard was published in the Government Gazette

on 02-12-1982. Possession of the aforesaid

lands was taken prior to the issuance of the

notification under Section 4 of the Act. The

award under Section 11 of the Act came to be

passed on 31st March, 1984. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer ("S.L.A.O." in short) fixed

the market value of the acquired land at the

rate of Rs.11,000/- per hectare and accordingly

determined the amount of compensation to be

offered to the Appellants. Being dis-satisfied

with the amount of compensation so offered, the

Appellants presented the Applications to the

Collector, Osmanabad to make a Reference under

Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the

amount of the compensation. The learned

Collector Osmanabad accordingly referred the

said reference applications to the Civil Court

FA 19 of 1994

for adjudication.

3. The Applicants had claimed the

compensation for their acquired lands at the

rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre before the

reference Court. In order to substantiate

their claim, the Appellants-claimants brought

on record four sale instances. No evidence was

adduced on behalf of the State. The Reference

Court on its assessment of the oral and

documentary evidence brought before it,

determined the market value of the acquired

lands at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre i.e.

Rs.15,000/- per hectare and accordingly awarded

the compensation to the Claimants along with

the Statutory benefits and the interest under

the provisions of the Act. According to

Appellants, the reference court did not award

adequate enhancement in the amount of

FA 19 of 1994

compensation. The Appellants-Claimants have,

therefore, preferred the present Appeal.

4. Shri. C.G. Solshe, learned counsel

appearing for the Appellants, submitted that

the reference Court has failed in properly

appreciating oral as well as documentary

evidence adduced by the Appellants-Claimants.

The learned counsel further submitted that the

Reference court has not considered the sale

instances brought on record in proper

perspective. The learned counsel further

submitted that the Reference court has also not

considered that the acquired lands were of

superior quality and the Appellants were taking

both the crops, Kharip as well as Rubbi in the

said lands.

5. The learned counsel further submitted

that in certain other matters pertaining to the

FA 19 of 1994

acquisition for the same Lower Terna Project,

which were carried up to the High Court in

First Appeals, the High court has awarded the

compensation to the Appellants in the said

Appeals at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per acer.

The learned counsel has placed on record the

copies of the said Judgments, one of such

Judgment is delivered on 8th January 2008 in

First Appeal No.574/1992 with First Appeal

No.38 of 1993 (Coram: R.M. Borde J.)and the

other is delivered on 12th February, 2015 in

First Appeal No.3050 of 2008 with First Appeal

No.135 of 2000(Coram: M.T. Joshi J.).

6. The learned A.G.P. Shri. K.N. Lokhande

supported the impugned Judgment. He submitted

that the Reference Court has rightly determined

the amount of compensation and as such, no

interference is warranted in the impugned

FA 19 of 1994

Judgment and award. He therefore, prayed for

dismissal of the Appeal.

7. I have carefully considered the

submissions made on behalf of the parties. The

learned A.G.P. has not disputed the fact that

the lands which were the subject matter of the

Appeals decided by this Court, copies of which

are placed on record were also acquired for

Lower Terna Dam Project. It was however, his

submission that the said lands, were of

different villages. It was brought to my notice

that the lands which were the subject matter in

First Appeal No.574 of 1992 with First Appeal

No.38 of 1993 were situated at village Makani

whereas the lands which were the subject matter

in First Appeal No.3050 of 2008 with First

Appeal No.135 of 2000 were of village

Bhatangli. The learned A.G.P. submitted that

FA 19 of 1994

the lands which are the subject matter of the

present Appeals are of the village Khed-Nagur.

The learned A.G.P. submits that, the village

Makani is near to Lohara which has now become a

taluka place and village Khed-Nagur is at a

quite long distance from Lohara and as such,

the same rate as has been awarded for the lands

at village Makani and Bhatangali, can not be

awarded for the lands at village Khed-Nagur.

8. I am however, not convinced with the

argument so advanced by the Assistant

Government Pleader. In the case of Union of

India vs. Bal Ram and Another, reported in

(2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 747. The Hon'ble

Apex Court has held that, if the purpose of

acquisition is same, there may be not any

justification to make in distinction between

the land which are identical and similar

FA 19 of 1994

though, lying in different villages. In the

instant case, as I have mentioned earlier, it

is not in dispute that lands, which were

subject matter in the decided appeals, were

also acquired for the Terna Lower Dam Project.

There is no serious dispute that the nature and

quality of lands which are the subject matter

of the present appeal is as similar to the

lands, which were subject matter of the decided

appeals. In the circumstances, as held by the

Apex Court in the Judgment cited (supra), there

may not be any justification for making any

distinction between the lands which are

identical and similar though, lying in

different villages.

9. This Court [Coram R.M. Borde J.] while

deciding the First Appeal No.574 of 1992 with

First Appeal No.38 of 1993 has determined the

FA 19 of 1994

market value of the lands which were subject

matter of the said appeals at Rs.17,000/- per

acre. The said lands were also acquired for

Terna Lower Dam Project, vide notification

under Section 4 of the Act, issued on 02-12-

1982. In view of the facts as aforesaid that

the lands which are the subject matter of the

present appeal were also acquired vide the same

notification dated 02-12-1982, issued under

Section 4 of the Act and were acquired for the

same project, it would be appropriate to

determine the market value of these lands at

the rate of Rs.17,000/- per acre, as has been

determined by this Court in First Appeal No.574

of 1992 with First Appeal No.38 of 1993. The

Appeal, thus, deserves to be allowed to the

aforesaid extent. Hence, the following order.

FA 19 of 1994

O R D E R

1. The Appeal is partly allowed.

2. The amount of compensation is

enhanced from Rs.6,000/- per acre to

Rs.17,000/- per acre and appellants are

held entitled to receive the enhanced

amount of compensation with statutory

benefits and the interest, as provided

under relevant provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. The impugned award is modified

accordingly. No order as to the costs.

[P.R. BORA, J.]

cause title Kodgire bdv/fldr 2.9.16