The State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Laximan Ramkisan Choure And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 5376 Bom

                                             {1}
                                                                     fa 995.16 & ors.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                               
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             FIRST APPEAL NO.995 of 2016




                                                       
     1.       The State of Maharashtra,
              through: The Collector, Beed
     2        The Executive Engineer,




                                                      
              Minor Irrigation (L.S.) division, Beed                    Appellants


              Versus




                                         
     1        Laximan s/o Ramkisan Choure
                             
              age: 40 years, occu: Agri
              R/o Ukhada-Chakla, Tq.Shirur Kasar
                            
              Dist. Beed


     2        Ramesh S/o Asruba Khedkar
      

              Age: 35 yers, occu: & R/o As above                      Respondents

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.993 OF 2016

1 The State of Maharashtra, through: The Collector, Beed 2 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (L.S.) division, Beed Appellants

Versus 1 Bhaurao S/o Namdeo Selke, Age: 50 years, Occu: Agri., R/o Munguswada, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

                                              {2}
                                                                     fa 995.16 & ors.odt

     2        Ramnath S/o Bhaurao Selke




                                                                               
              age: 35 years, occu: & R/o As above.




                                                       
     3        Arjun S/o Bhaurao Selke
              age: 32 years, occu. & R/o As above




                                                      
     4        Eknath S/o Bhaurao Selke
              Age: 30 years, Occu. & R/o as above.                    Respondents


                                            WITH




                                           
                             FIRST APPEAL NO.994 OF 2016



                             
              The State of Maharashtra,
              through: The Collector, Beed
                            
     2        The Executive Engineer,
              Minor Irrigation (L.S.) division, Beed                    Appellants


              Versus
      


              Paraji S/o Bhivsen Selke
   



              age: 45 years, occu: agri.,

R/o Ukhanda-Chakla, Tq. Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed Respondents

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.996 OF 2016

1 The State of Maharashtra,

through: The Collector, Beed 2 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (L.S.) division, Beed Appellants

Versus Vishnu S/o Ramdas Nemane

{3} fa 995.16 & ors.odt

Age: 22 years, occu: Agri.,

R/o Ukhanda-Chakla, Tq. Shirur Kasar Dist. Beed Respondents

Mr.G.O. Wattamwar, Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants Mr.R.T. Deshmukh advocate for the respondents _______________

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J (Date : 19th September, 2016.)

ORAL JUDGMENT

Since all these appeals are arising out of a common

Judgment & Award passed by the Third Adhoc District Judge,

Beed on 13.4.2006 in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)

No.164/2006 with the connected LARs, common arguments were

heard in all these matters and I deem it appropriate to decide all

these appeal, by a common reasoning. First Appeals Nos.993 of

2016, 994 of 2016 and 996 of 2016 were not on Board. They are

taken on Board with the consent of the parties.

2 The lands, which are subject matter of the present appeals

were acquired for construction of minor irrigation tank at Ukhanda

Chakla, Tq. Shirur,Dist. Beed. The Notification under section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as 'The Act') was

published in the official gazette on 27.2.1998. Possession of the

acquired lands was taken on 29.2.1996 i.e. prior to issuance of

{4} fa 995.16 & ors.odt

notification under section 4. Award under section 11 of the Act

came to be passed on 29.2.2000. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer (SLAO for short) fixed the market value of the acquired

land at Rs.235/- per R and accordingly, offered the amount of

compensation to the respective claimants.

3 Dis-satisfied with the amount so offered by the SLAO, the

claimants preferred applications to the Collector Beed, invoking

section 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement in the amount of

compensation. All these applications were forwarded by the

Collector to the Civil Judge at Beed for adjudication. The

claimants had claimed averagely Rs.50,000/- per acre for their

acquired lands.

4 In the proceedings before the Reference Court, the

claimants adduced common evidence which was recorded in LAR

No.164/2006. All the Reference Applications were clubbed by the

Reference Court and were commonly adjudicated.

5 It was the contention of the claimants before the Reference

Court that, the acquired lands were adjoining to each other and

the SLAO had awarded compensation to the respective claimants

under a common Award No.50/96.

{5} fa 995.16 & ors.odt

6 The State had resisted the claims so raised by the

landholders on various grounds. According to the State, the

claimants had claimed exorbitant amount. It was further

contended that, the SLAO had assessed the amount of

compensation, after having visited and inspected the acquired

lands and after having considered the comparable sale instances

in the locality, prevailing on the date of issuance of Notification

under section 4 of the Act.

7 The claimant in LAR No.164/2006 viz. Ramnath deposed on

behalf of all the claimants. The 7/12 extracts of the respective

lands were filed on record. According to the claimants, the

acquired lands were well irrigated and each of the claimants was

taking cash crops like wheat, pulses, gram in the said land. It was

also their contention that the claimants were taking crops like

sugar cane, wheat also, in their respective lands. In order to

substantiate their claims, the petitioners placed on record three

stale instances respectively at Exh.10, 11 and 12. Neither oral

evidence was adduced by the State Government, nor any sale-

deed was placed on record.

8 The learned reference Court, after having assessed the oral

and documentary evidence placed on record before him,

{6} fa 995.16 & ors.odt

determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.750/- per

R and accordingly enhanced the amount of compensation.

Aggrieved by the Award so passed, the State has preferred the

present appeals.

9 Shri Wattamwar, learned AGP appearing for the State

submitted that, the sale instances relying on which the Reference

Court has determined the market value of the acquired lands were

not comparable sale instances and could not have been relied

upon, for determining the market value of the acquired lands by

the Reference Court. Learned AGP submitted that, the sale deed

at Exh.12, which is referred to and relied upon by the Reference

Court was of a small piece of land admeasuring 21-R and was at

the longer distance from the acquired lands and as such could not

have been held as the basis for determining the market value of

the acquired land. The learned AGP submitted that, the land which

was the subject matter of the sale instance at Exh.12 was on the

bank of the river and was also adjacent to the road and as such,

was on a quite higher footing than the acquired lands which were

situated at the interior. The learned AGP has, therefore, prayed for

setting aside the impugned Judgment & Award and has further

prayed for redetermination of the amount of compensation on the

basis of evidence on record.

{7} fa 995.16 & ors.odt

10 Mr. R.T. Deshmukh learned counsel appearing for the

claimants, in all these appeals supported the impugned Judgment

& Award and submitted that no interference is warranted in the

impugned Judgment.

11 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

learned AGP appearing for the appellants State and the learned

counsel appearing for the original claimants. I have also perused

the impugned Judgment.

12 Perusal of the impugned Judgment reveals that, though

three sale instances were placed on record by the claimants, in

order to substantiate the claim so raised by them, the Reference

Court has preferred not to rely upon the sale instances at Exh.10

as well as Exh.11 and has considered the sale instance Exh.12 for

determining the market value of the acquired lands. In paragraph

Nos.18 to 22, the Reference Court has analyzed the evidence in

the form of sale instances. The discussion made by the Reference

Court in these paragraphs demonstrates that, the Reference Court

has declined to accept the sale instance at Exh.10 and 11 by

giving elaborate reasonings there-for.

13 The sale deed at Exh.10 was pertaining to 17-R seasonal

{8} fa 995.16 & ors.odt

irrigated land which was sold for consideration of RS.42,500/- by

a registered sale deed executed on 5.5.1996 along with share in

the well. The reference Court has not relied upon the aforesaid

sale instance by stating a reason that the subject land was

appearing to have been purchased for non-agriculture use and

from other angle also, that was not a comparable sale instance, so

as to fix the market value of the acquired land on its' basis. The

land which was the subject matter of Exh.11 was admeasuring

6-R and was sold by registered sale deed executed on 30.6.1997

for the consideration of Rs.18,000/- i.e. at Rs.3,000/- per R. The

Reference Court has not relied upon the said sale instance having

regard to the fact that, the subject land of the said sale instance

was also a small piece of land admesuring 6-R and as such was of

no use for determining the market value of the acquired land.

14 The third sale instance which was brought on record by the

claimants was at Exh.12. The land which was subject matter of

the sale deed at Exh.12 was from the same village Ukhanda

chakla. It was sold on a registered sale deed executed on

11.12.1995 for the value of Rs.40,000/- i.e. Rs.1,904/- per R. The

Reference Court has observed that, having regard to the fact that,

the land which was the subject matter of the sale instance at Exh.

12 was similar in quality of the acquired lands, the market value

{9} fa 995.16 & ors.odt

of the acquired lands was liable to be determined on the basis of

consideration received to the said land.

15 However, the Reference Court appears to have taken all

further precaution while determining the the market value of the

acquired lands and has not mechanically determined the market

value on the basis of consideration received to the land which was

subject matter of Exh.12. The reference Court has observed

that, the lands acquired are pure Jirayat lands, whereas the land

which was subject matter of sale instance at Exh.12 was on the

bank of the river and was also having facility of approach road

and in the circumstances, the Reference Curt by deducting the

value received to the land covered under the sale instance at Exh.

12 by 60% has determined the market value of the acquired

lands. As noted earlier, the land covered under the sale instance

at Exh.12 was sold at Rs.1,904/- per R, whereas the Reference

Court has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.

750 per R.

16 It is further noticed that though claimants had raised a plea

and had canvassed before the Reference Court that, the acquired

lands were irrigated lands and further that, they were taking cash

crops in the said lands. The reference Court refused to accept the

{10} fa 995.16 & ors.odt

said contention by referring to 7/12 extracts of the acquired lands

and the crop statements reflected through the said extracts. The

Reference Court has observed that, from the entries of the crops

reflected in 7/12 extracts, it is evident that the lands were Jirayat

lands.

17 I reiterate that, the State has not adduced any oral

evidence, or has also not placed on record any other sale instance

on the basis of which the Reference Court could have determined

the market value of the acquired land. In the circumstances, the

only option before the Reference Court was to determine the

market value by doing a guess work, considering the value

received to the lands covered under the sale instances placed on

record by the claimants.

18 After having considered the material placed on record, it

does not appear to me that, the Reference Court has committed

any error in determining the market value of the acquired land at

Rs.750/- per R and accordingly, in enhancing the amount of

compensation. On the contrary, from the discussion made by the

learned reference Court in the impugned Judgment, it is quite

evident that, whatever evidence was placed before the said Court

was objectively assessed by the said Court and on the basis of

{11} fa 995.16 & ors.odt

such evidence and by guess work and also taking into account the

negative factors, the reference Court has correctly fixed the

market value of the acquired lands and has accordingly enhanced

the amount of compensation. In the present appeals, nothing has

been brought on record to show that the market value, as has

been determined by the Reference Court is arbitrary or on higher

side. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to cause

interference in the impugned Judgment & award. Appeals are

devoid of any substance and deserve to be dismissed. The

appeals are accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as

to costs.

19 Pending Civil applications, if any, stands disposed of.

(P.R. BORA, J)

vbd