Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Kashinath Ambaji Bevnale on 15 September, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1506 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T.I.T., Collector Office, Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Latur. ...APPELLANT
ig [Ori. Respondents]
VERSES
Rahim s/o. Abdul Bagwan,
Age-68 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Dighol, Tq. Shirur (A),
Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENT
[Ori. Claimant]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1507 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T.I.T., Collector Office, Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Latur. ...APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondents]
VERSES
Digambar s/o. Raghoba Wadkar,
Age-68 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Dighol, Tq. Shirur (A),
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:58 :::
2 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors.
Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENT
[Ori. Claimant]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1508 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T.I.T., Collector Office, Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Latur. ...APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondents]
VERSES
Mukinda s/o. Maruti Dasare,
Age-52 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Dighol, Tq. Shirur (A),
Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENT
[Ori. Claimant]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1509 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
P.T.I.T., Collector Office, Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Latur. ...APPELLANT
[Ori. Respondents]
VERSES
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2016 00:30:58 :::
3 FA No.1506/2016 & Ors.
Kashinath s/o. Ambaji Bevnale,
Age-66 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Dighol, Tq. Shirur (A),
Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENT
[Ori. Claimant]
-----
Mr.SP Deshmukh, AGP for Appellant;
Mr.VD Gunale, Adv. h/for Mr. SB Madde, Adv. For
Respondent/s
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
ig DATE :
15 th
September,2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. Admit. By consent of the learned
Counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for
final disposal.
2) All these four appeals are filed by the
State in exception to the common Judgment and
Award dated 29th October, 2013 passed in Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga in LAR No.96/2012
with connected LARs.
3) The lands, which are the subject matter
of the present appeals, were acquired for
construction of percolation tank No.2 at village
Dighol, Tq. Shirur Anantpal, District Latur.
Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) in
that regard was published in the Government
Gazette on 12th April, 2007. Award under Section
11 of the Act came to be passed on 22 nd September,
2010. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed
the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.619/-
per Are and accordingly offered the amount of
compensation to the respective claimants.
Dissatisfied with the compensation so offered,
the claimants preferred applications under
Section 18 of the Act to Collector, Latur, which
in turn, were forwarded for adjudication to the
Civil court. The claimants had claimed the
compensation @ Rs.17500/- per Are. In order to
substantiate the claim so raised, the claimants
had placed on record two sale-deeds at Exh.18 and
Exh.19, wherein the price received was, in one
matter @ Rs.8,177/- per Are; whereas in other, @
Rs.17,305/- per Are. The State has also placed
on record two sale instances respectively at
Exh.45 and Exh.46. The learned Reference Court,
after having assessed the oral and documentary
evidence brought on record by the parties,
determined the market value of the acquired lands
@ Rs.1804/- per Are and accordingly enhanced the
amount of compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the
State has filed the present appeals.
4) Shri Deshmukh, learned AGP, submitted
that the Reference Court has erred in determining
the market value at the higher rate without any
cogent evidence therefor. The learned AGP
further submitted that the sale instance at
Exh.45, which was brought on record by the State,
the consideration was received to the land, which
was the subject matter of the said sale-deed, @
Rs.555/- per Are; whereas in the another sale
instance at Exh.46, the consideration was
received @ Rs.1203/- per Are.
. The learned AGP further submitted that
even if the sale instance in which higher price
was received, was to be considered for awarding
the compensation to the claimants, the
compensation could not have been awarded at the
rate more than Rs.1203/- per Are. The learned
AGP, therefore, submitted that the Award needs to
be modified and the compensation amount needs to
be re-determined @ Rs.1203/- per Are instead of
Rs.1804/- as awarded by the Reference Court.
5) Shri Gunale, learned Counsel holding for
Shri S.B.Madde, supported the impugned judgment
and submitted that the Reference Court has
awarded the compensation relying on the evidence
brought on record by the State. The learned
counsel further submitted that in such
circumstances, in fact, the State ought not to
have preferred any appeal. The learned Counsel
further submitted that the claimants had, in
fact, placed on record the sale instances,
wherein the consideration was received @
Rs.8166/- per Are in one matter and Rs.17,305/-
per Are in another matter and the claimants were
entitled to receive the compensation at the said
rate. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
6) On perusal of the impugned judgment, it
is revealed that the learned Reference Court has
declined to rely upon the sale instance brought
on record by the claimants at Exh.18 and Exh.19
and has preferred to rely upon the sale instance
brought on record by the State, which is at
Exh.6. From the material on record, it is quite
clear that the acquired lands were semi-irrigated
lands. The sale instance at Exh.46, which was
relied upon by the State was pertaining to a dry
land, i.e. non-irrigated land. The consideration
in that transaction was received @ Rs.1203/- per
Are. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the
learned Reference Court has determined the market
value of the acquired lands, which, as stated
hereinabove, were semi-irrigated lands @ Rs.
1804/- per Are, i.e. 1 ½ times more than the
consideration which was received for the dry
land. It does not appear to me that the
Reference Court has committed any error in
determining the market value of the acquired
lands @ Rs.1804/- per Are. I reiterate that the
Reference Court has in fact discarded the sale
instances brought on record by the claimants and
has considered and relied upon the sale instance
at Exh.46, which was brought on record by the
Respondent/State. Though it was sought to be
canvassed that at the most the compensation ought
to have been determined at the same rate, as was
received to the land which was the subject matter
of the sale instance at Exh.46, the submission is
liable to be rejected for the reason that the
land which was the subject matter of Exh.46 was a
dry land and the lands, which are the subject
matter of the present appeals, were admittedly
semi-irrigated lands.
7) After having considered the material on
record and on perusal of the reasons assigned by
the learned Reference Court, it does not appear
to me that any interference is required in the
impugned Judgment and Award. The Reference Court
has not awarded any unreasonable compensation.
On the contrary, the market value determined by
the Reference Court is based on the evidence
brought on record by the State. The appeals are
devoid of any substances and deserve to be
dismissed and are accordingly dismissed, however,
without any order as to the costs. Pending civil
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
