The Executive Engineer Minor ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5412 Bom

                                         1           FA No.3194/2016 & Ors.

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                       
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          FIRST APPEAL NO.3194 OF 2016.




                                              
      The Executive Engineer,
      Minor Irrigation Division,
      Sinchan Bhavan, Anandnagar,




                                             
      Osmanabad.                      ...APPELLANT
                                      (Ori.Resp.No.2)
             VERSUS             




                                      
      1.       The State of Maharashtra
               through Collector,
               Osmanabad.    
      2.   Nivrutti Parappa Shinde,
           Age:60 years, Occu.: Agri.,
                            
           R/o. Ghatangri, Tq. & Dist. 
           Osmanabad.   
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                                         (Ori.Resp.No.1 &
      

                                          Ori.Claimant)
                             WITH
   



                           FIRST APPEAL NO.3195 OF 2016

      The Executive Engineer,





      Minor Irrigation Division,
      Sinchan Bhavan, Anandnagar,
      Osmanabad.                                 ...APPELLANT
                                                (Ori.Resp.No.2)





                       VERSUS

      1.       The State of Maharashtra
               through Collector,
               Osmanabad.

      2.       Bhagwat Mahadeo Shinde,
               Age:55 years, Occu.: Agri.,
               R/o. Ghatangri, Tq. & Dist.
               Osmanabad.




    ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2016 00:08:10 :::
                                              2             FA No.3194/2016 & Ors.


      3.       Shivdas Baji Shinde,




                                                                             
               (Died) his L.Rs.




                                                     
      3A) Anruth S/o. Shivdas Shinde,

      3B) Somnath S/o. Shivdas Shinde,
          R/o. Ghantangri, Tq.& Dist. 




                                                    
          Osmanabad.                   ...RESPONDENTS
                                       (Ori.Resp.No.1 &
                                        Ori.Claimant)
                            WITH




                                      
                           FIRST APPEAL NO.3196 OF 2016

      The Executive Engineer,
                             
      Minor Irrigation Division,
      Sinchan Bhavan, Anandnagar,
                            
      Osmanabad.                                       ...APPELLANT
                                                      (Ori.Resp.No.2)
                       VERSUS
      

      1.       The State of Maharashtra,
               through Collector,
   



               Osmanabad.

      2.   Anatrao S/o. Pandurang Shinde,
           Age:55 years, Occu.:Agri.,
           R/o.Ghatangri, Tq. & Dist.





           Osmanabad.                    ...RESPONDENTS
                                        (Ori.Resp.No.1 &
                                         Ori.Claimant)
                           ...





         Mr.G.B. Rajale, Advocate for Appellant.
         Mr.G.O. Wattamwar, AGP for Respondent 1. 
         Mr.J.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                       -----
                                   CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

20 th

September,2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard. By consent of the learned

Counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for

final disposal.

2) Since all these appeals are arising out

of the common judgment and award passed by the 4 th

Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Osmanabad

on 30th April, 2012 in LAR No.232/2006 with the

connected References, common arguments were heard

in all these matters and I deem it appropriate to

decide all these appeals by a common reasoning.

3) The lands, which are the subject matter

of the present appeals, were acquired for the

purpose of submergence of Bedki Nala Tank to be

constructed at village Ghatangri, Tq. And

District Osmanabad. Notification under Section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the

Act) in that regard was published on 29th April,

1993, whereas Award under Section 11 of the Act

came to be passed on 31st January, 1998. The

Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short SLAO)

had fixed the market value of the acquired lands

at @ Rs. 15000/- per acre and has accordingly

offered the amount of compensation to the

respective claimants. Dissatisfied with the

amount of compensation so offered, the claimants

preferred applications under Section 18 of the

Act to Collector, Osmanabad, which were in turn

forwarded to the Civil Court (hereinafter

referred to as Reference Court) for

adjudication.

4) Before the Reference Court, the

claimants had claimed compensation @

Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. In order to substantiate

the claim so raised by them, the claimants have

adduced their own oral evidence and had also

placed on record one sale instance (Exhibit-29).

The acquiring body did not adduce any oral or

documentary evidence. The learned Reference

Court, after having assessed the oral and

documentary evidence brought before it,

determined the market value of the acquired land

@ Rs. 40,000/- per acre and accordingly enhanced

the amount of compensation. The claimants had

also claimed separate compensation towards the

trees and wells etc. However, the said claim was

rejected by the Reference Court. The Reference

Court has made entitled the claimants for

statutory benefits and the interest under the

provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the same,

the acquired body has filed the present appeals.

5) Shri Rajale, leaned Counsel appearing

for the acquiring body, has assailed the impugned

judgment and award on the ground that the

Reference court, without considering the fact

that the sale instance, which was relied upon by

the claimants, was pertaining to the land

situated at village Ambejawalgi, whereas the

acquired lands were from village Ghatangri. The

learned Counsel further submitted that the land,

which was the subject matter of Exhibit-29, was

an irrigated land and was also superior to the

acquired lands in quality.

6) Learned Counsel further submitted that,

ignoring all these aspects, the Reference court

has determined the amount of compensation on

higher side. Learned cousel, therefore, prayed

for setting aside the judgment and award and to

re-determine the amount of compensation by re-

evaluation of the evidence on record.

Alternatively, the learned Counsel submitted that

the compensation be fixed at the same rate which

the SLAO has offered to the claimants.

7) Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing

for the original claimants in all these matters,

has supported the impugned judgment and award.

The learned Counsel submitted that the Reference

Court has very conservatively enhanced the amount

of compensation. According to the learned

Counsel, the claimants were, in fact, entitled

for some more compensation than awarded by the

Reference court. The learned Counsel, therefore,

prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

8) I have carefully considered the

submissions advanced by the learned Counsel

appearing for the respective parties. I have

also perused the impugned judgment and other

material on record. After having gone through

the impugned judgment and the other material on

record, apparently it does not appear to me that

any interference may be required in the impugned

judgment and award.

9) Admittedly, the acquiring body did not

adduce any oral or documentary evidence and the

only evidence, which was before the Reference

Court was the oral testimony of the respective

claimants and the sale instance at Exh.29. The

Reference Court has elaborately analyzed the

evidence which was brought on record and

considering the plus and minus factors, as

determined the amount of compensation. The sale

deed at Exh. 29 is a crucial document in the

present matter. It was the sale deed executed on

2nd September, 1991 for the land situated at

village Ambejawalgi admeasuring 94 Ares for the

consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Admittedly, the

said land was irrigated land. In the impugned

judgment, the Reference Court has elaborately

discussed as to in what way the market value of

the acquired lands has been determined on the

basis of the said sale deed. Since the land,

which was the subject matter of Exh.29,was from

village Ambejawalgi, which was at the distance of

4 kms from village Ghatangri, some deductions are

made by the Reference Court. The Reference Court

has further observed that in view of the fact

that the acquired lands were jirayat land, same

rate as was received to the land involved in the

sale instance at Exh.29, could not have been

awarded for the said lands. After having

considered all these plus and minus factors, the

Reference Court has determined the market value

of the acquired land @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre.

10) Para 12 of the impugned judgment further

reveals that the judgment passed in LAR Nos.

261/2003 and 321/2003 by the 3rd Joint Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, was also taken

into account by the Reference Court while

determining the market value of the acquired

lands. In the said matters, the compensation was

awarded @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre for the dry land.

It is further brought to my notice that the

lands, which were the subject matter in the said

Reference Application were also from village

Ghatangri and were acquired by the same

notification for the same project of submergence

of Bedki Nala Tank. Nothing has been brought on

record by the appellants whether any appeal has

been preferred against the judgment and Award

passed in aforesaid LAR Nos.261/2003 and

321/2003. It appears that considering the fact

that in the earlier matters pertaining to the

lands acquired for the same purpose vide the same

notification, the concerned Reference Court has

awarded the compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per acre,

the Reference Court found it appropriate to award

the compensation at the same rate.

11) After having considered the discussion

made by the Reference Court, it does not appear

to me that the reference Court has committed any

apparent error in determining the market value of

the acquired lands at the aforesaid rate. The

impugned judgment further reveals that the

References Court has objectively assessed the

entire evidence on record. Even though the

claimants were persuasive in claiming the

compensation towards trees, wells and structures

etc. in absence of any cogent and sufficient

evidence therefor, the Reference Court has

rejected all the claims in that regard.

12) After having considered the entire

material on record, it does not appear to me that

any interference is called for in the impugned

judgment and order passed by the Reference Court.

It further appears to me that the Reference Court

has adequately determined the market value of the

acquired lands and the market value so determined

by the Reference Court cannot be, in any way,

said to be arbitrary or on higher side.

13) The appeals are devoid of any merit and

deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly

dismissed. Pending Civil Applications, if any,

stand disposed of.

sd/-

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

title -Kodgire bdv/Jt.