The State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Rama Dhondiba Patole And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 5312 Bom

                                             1                           3378-16FA


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                           
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                   
                        FIRST APPEAL NO.3378 OF 2016


      1.       The State of Maharashtra,




                                                  
               through The Collector, Beed,

      2.       The Executive Engineer,
               Irrigation Division, Beed,




                                          
               Dist. Beed.
                                                    ...APPELLANTS
                              ig                    (Ori.Respondents)

                       VERSUS
                            
      1.       Rama s/o. Dhondiba Patole,
               Age:55 years,

      2.       Bhona S/o. Tanhaji Patole,
      


               Age:40 years,
   



      3.       Babu S/o. Tanhaji Patole,
               Age:40 years,





               All Occu. Agril.,
               All R/o. Dongarkinhi,
               Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
                                                    (Ori.Claimants)





                                ...
      Mr.S.N.Morampalle, AGP for appellants.
      Mr. Choudhari Sushant B., Advocate for respondent nos. 1
      to 3.               ...

                                   CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.

DATE : September 16th, 2016 ...

                                              2                             3378-16FA


      ORAL JUDGMENT:




                                                                             
                                                     

1. The State has filed the present appeal taking

exception to the judgment and award passed in LAR

No.416/2011 on 20th of June, 2014, by the learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division, at Beed.

2.

The subject land was acquired for construction

of percolation tank at Dongarkinhi village, taluka Patoda,

district Beed. Total 79 Are land was acquired. The

subject land was situated at village Dongarkinhi itself.

Section 4 notification under the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act was published in the Government gazette

on 31st May, 2007, and the award under Section 11 came

to be passed on 22nd April, 2010. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer ( in short, 'S.L.A.O.') had offered the

compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.775/- per

Are The claimants had claimed the compensation at the

rate of Rs.2500/- per Are.

3. Being dissatisfied with the compensation so

offered by the S.L.A.O., the Reference Application was

3 3378-16FA

preferred by the claimants and it was adjudicated by the

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Beed. In order to

substantiate the claim so raised by them, the applicants

have placed on record three sale instances. No evidence

was adduced on behalf of the State. Learned Reference

Court, after having assessed the oral and documentary

evidence placed on record, determined the market value of

the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1800/- per Are and,

accordingly, enhanced the amount of compensation.

Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present

appeal.

4. Shri Morampalle, elarned A.G.P. submitted that

the Reference Court has grossly erred in appreciating the

evidence on record. Learned A.G.P. further submitted

that the sale instances which were relied upon by the

claimants were pertaining to the irrigated lands whereas

the acquired land is admittedly non irrigated land.

Learned A.G.P. further submitted that even if the market

value is to be determined on the basis of the sale

instances brought on record by the claimants, the same

ought to have been fixed to half of the price received to

4 3378-16FA

the lands which were the subject matter of the sale deeds

and as such, in any case, the market value of the acquired

land could not have been determined at the rate more

than Rs.1200/- per Are. Learned A.G.P., therefore,

prayed for setting aside the impugned award and re-

determine the amount of compensation.

5.

Shri Sushant B. Choudhary, learned Counsel

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

supported the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel

invited my attention to the discussion made by the

Reference Court in paragraph nos. 17, 18 and 20 of the

impugned judgments and submitted that the Reference

Court has appropriately considered the evidence on record

and has rightly determined the amount of compensation.

Learned Counsel submitted that no interference is

warranted in the impugned judgment and, thus, prayed for

dismissal of the appeal.

6. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that

three sale instances were placed on record by the

claimants. Admittedly, all the sale instances were

5 3378-16FA

pertaining to the agricultural lands situated at village

Dongarkinhi. The first sale instance was pertaining to a

land admeasuring 20 gunthas, which was a canal irrigated

portion, and was sold for consideration of Rs.2850/- per

guntha. Said sale deed is at Exh.16/1. The second

sale deed is at Exh.16/2 which pertains to the sale of land

admeasuring 41 gunthas for consideration at the rate of

Rs.1829/- per guntha.

ig This was also canal irrigated land.

The third sale instance was pertaining to semi irrigated

land admeasuring 22 Ares and was sold at the rate of

Rs.2045/- per Are. The Reference Court has observed

that the average market rate, considering the aforesaid

three sale instances was Rs.2241/- per guntha. The

Reference Court has further observed that the Land

Acquisition Officer, while passing the award under Section

11 of the Act, had noticed 14 sale instances wherein the

consideration received was ranging in between Rs.361/- to

Rs.2045/- per Are. The Reference Court has further

observed that the sale instances which were relied upon by

the claimants were of the period prior to issuance of

notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Reference

Court has further observed that considering the escalation

6 3378-16FA

in the prices of the lands, the acquired land could have

fetched consideration at the rate of Rs.1800/- per Are.

7. Though it was sought to be canvassed by the

learned A.G.P. that the Reference Court could not have

determined the market value at more than Rs.1200/- per

Are, the contention so raised cannot be accepted in view of

the evidence on record.

ig Even if it is accepted that the

sale instances were pertaining to irrigated and semi

irrigated lands, there may not be any difficulty in

determining the price of the acquired land which is non

irrigated land on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds.

The said exercise has been rightly done by the Reference

Court and has accordingly fixed the market value of the

acquired land at the rate of Rs.1800/- per Are. The

Reference Court has considered the plus and minus factors

of the acquired land in reference to the sale instances

placed on record. The Reference Court has further

considered that the acquired land is at the near distance of

Highway, the proposed Railway line and has thus good

potential. It has also been considered by the Reference

Court that two crops were being taken by the claimants

7 3378-16FA

from the acquired land and after having considered the

entire material record, the Reference Court has determined

the market value of the acquired land.

8. After having considered the submissions in

totality and considering the matrial on record, it does not

appear to me that the Reference Court has committed any

error in awarding compensation by determining the market

value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1800/- per Are.

No interference is, therefore, required in the impugned

judgment and award. The appeal being devoid of

substance, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly

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

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

...

AGP/3378-16fa