Bombay High Court
Pandit Tathu Chaudhari ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 21 September, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA No.484/2004 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.484 OF 2004
1. The State of Maharashtra,
(through, Collector, Jalgaon),
2. The S.L.A.O. Jalgaon,
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Laxman Ramchandra Pawar,ig
Age:35 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.485 of 2004
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Jalgaon,
2. The S.L.A.O., Jalgaon,
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Yadav Dagadu Chambhar,
Age:41 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.486 OF 2004
1. The State of Maharashtra,
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 01:03:12 :::
2 FA No.484/2004 & Ors.
through the Collector, Jalgaon
2. The S.L.A.O., Jalgaon,
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Shri Pandit Tathu Chaudhari,
(Deceased)
HEIRS
1. Smt. Sayabai Pandit Chaudhari,
Age:65 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Parola,
2.
Shri Vasant Pandit Chaudhari,
Age:42 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Tarad Kasabe, Tq. Shirpur,
Dist. Dhule,
3. Ashok Pandit Chaudhari,
Age:32 years, Occu.: Agril,
R/o. Parola, Shewale Galli,
Dist. Jalgaon,
4. Sau. Ushabai Raman Chaudhari,
Age:38 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Dharangaoj, Tq. Erandol,
5. Sau. Latabai Manik Chaudhari,
Age:35 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Kashoda, Tq. Erandol,
Dist. Jalgaon,
6. Chandrakalabai Rajendra Chaudhari,
Age:28 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Kapadane, Tq. & Dist. Dhule,
7. Suresh Pandit Chaudhari,
(Deceased)
HEIRS
8. Rambhabai Suresh Chaudhari,
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 01:03:12 :::
3 FA No.484/2004 & Ors.
Age:35 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Ajende, Tq. Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon,
Minor Gardian of,
Jotsanabai Suresh Chaudhari,
Age:11 years,
Dayaneshwat Suresh Chaudhari,
Age: 8 years.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Claimants)
===
Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, AGP for Appellants;
Mr. R.C. Patil, Advocate for Respondent/s.
ig WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1001 OF 2003
Shri. Pandit Tathu Chaudhari,
(Since deceased through his L.Rs.)
1.
Smt. Sayabai Pandit Chaudhari,
Age:75 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Parola,
2. Shri. Vasant Pandit Chaudhari,
Age:52 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Tarad Kasabe, Tq. Shirpur,
Dist. Dhule,
3. Ashok Pandit Chaudhari,
Age:42 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parola, Shewale Galli,
Dist. Jalgaon,
4. Sau. Ushabai Raman Chaudhari,
Age:48 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Dharangaon, Tq. Erandol,
5. Sau. Latabai Manik Chaudhari,
Age:45 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Kashoda, Tq. Erandol,
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 01:03:12 :::
4 FA No.484/2004 & Ors.
Dist. Jalgaon,
6. Chandrakalabai Rajendra Chaudhari,
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Kapadane, Tq. Dhule,
Dist. Dhule,
7. Suresh Pandit Chaudhari,
Deceased through his L.Rs.:-
7-A Rambhabai Suresh Chaudhari,
Age:45 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Ajenda,
Minor Gardians of,
7-B Jotsanabai Suresh Chaudhari,
Age:21 years,
7-C Dnyaneshwar Suresh Chaudhari,
Age: 18 years,
All R/o. Ajanda, Tq. & Dist.
Aurangabad.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Applicants)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through, The Collector,
Jalgaon,
2. The Special Land Acquisition,
Office, Jalgaon
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Opponents)
...
Mr. R.C. Patil, Advocate for Appellant/s.
Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, AGP for Respondents.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 01:03:12 :::
5 FA No.484/2004 & Ors.
RESERVED ON :18
August,2016.
th
PRONOUNCED ON: 21 September,2016
st
JUDGMENT:
1) Since in all these appeals challenge is
to the common Judgment and Award passed by Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Amalner on 28th March,
2002 in LAR Nos.152/1992, 188/1992 and 190/1992,
common arguments were heard in all these matters
and I deem it appropriate to decide these appeals
by a common reasoning.
2) First Appeal Nos.484/2002 to 486/2004
are filed by the State; whereas First Appeal
No.1001/2003 is filed by the original claimants.
3) The lands, which are the subject matter
of the present appeals were acquired for
Bhokarbari irrigation project. The acquired
lands were of village Bhokarbari. Notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, the Act) in that regard was published
in the Government Gazette on 7th June, 1987;
whereas Award under section 11 of the Act came to
be passed on 28th August, 1990. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer had determined the market
value of the acquired lands at the rate ranging
from Rs.11,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per hectare and
has accordingly offered the amount of
compensation to the respective claimants.
.
Since the amount so offered was not
agreeable to the claimants, all of them had
preferred applications under Section 18 of the
Act to Collector, Jalgaon, who in turn, forwarded
all such applications for adjudication to the
civil court at Jalgaon (herein after referred to
as Reference Court). The claimants had claimed
compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare before
the Reference Court.
. In order to substantiate the contentions
raised in their respective applications, the
claimants in each of the reference applications,
had deposed before the Reference Court and the
claimants had also placed on record certain sale
instances. The State had also examined the
Circle Inspector viz. Gorakh Borkar to support
the contentions raised in its written statement
and has also placed on record certain sale
instances.
. 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.289/- per
Are, i.e.Rs.28,900/- per hectare. Aggrieved by
the State has preferred the present appeals.
. The claimant in LAR No.152/1992 has also
preferred an appeal as mentioned herein above
being First appeal No.1001/2003, seeking
enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded
by the Reference Court.
4) Shri Wattamwar, learned AGP, assailed
the impugned judgment on various grounds. The
learned AGP submitted that the sale instance at
Exh.37, which has been relied upon by the
Reference Court while determining the market
value of the acquired lands, was pertaining to
irrigated land and as such, the market value of
the acquired lands, which are admittedly non-
irrigated lands, could not have been determined
on the basis of the said sale instance.
. The learned AGP further submitted that
when for the irrigated land admeasuring 1 hectare
and 21 Ares, the consideration was received to
the tune of Rs.35,000/-, in no case, the market
value of the acquired lands, which are the non-
irrigated lands, could have been determined by
the Reference Court @ Rs.28,900/- per hectare.
The learned AGP further submitted that the
Reference Court has awarded compensation at the
same rate even to the potkharab lands.
. The learned AGP also objected to the
order passed by the Reference Court awarding the
interest from the date of possession of the land
instead of granting the same from the date of
award. The learned AGP, therefore, prayed for
setting aside the impugned Judgment and Award and
to re-determine the amount of compensation on the
basis of the evidence brought on record by the
State.
5) Shri R.C.Patil, learned Counsel
appearing for the claimants in all these matters
resisted the submissions advanced by the learned
AGP. The learned Counsel submitted that in so
far as LAR Nos.188/1992 and 190/1992 are
concerned, no interference is required in the
impugned Judgment and Award since the Reference
Court has awarded a very reasonable amount of
compensation.
. The learned counsel further submitted
that the land, which was the subject matter of
LAR No.152/1992 was fully irrigated land, and as
such, the Reference Court ought to have awarded
the compensation at the double rate of the
compensation awarded for the non-irrigated land.
The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for
enhancing the amount of compensation in so far as
LAR No.152/1992 is concerned and prayed for
dismissal of the appeals filed against the Award
passed in LAR Nos.188/1992 and 190/1992.
6) I have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the learned Counsel
appearing for the respective parties. I have
also perused the impugned judgment and the
evidence on record. The record shows that in
every reference application, the respective
claimants have adduced their oral evidence in
order to support the contentions raised by them
in their respective applications.
. In addition to their own oral evidence,
the claimants had commonly placed reliance on the
sale instance at Exh.26, which was brought on
record in the proceedings of LAR No.152/1992.
The sale instance at Exh.26 was pertaining to the
land admeasuring 20 Ares out of Gut No.216/2/5
situated at village Mhasve. The sale deed was
executed on 12th February, 1987 and the
consideration was received to the tune of
Rs.15,500/-,i.e. Rs. 77,500/- per hectare. It
was the contention of the claimants that village
Mhasve and Bhokarbari are at the very short
distance from each other and quality and
potentiality of the lands at both the villages
was quite similar to each other. The claimants
had, therefore, claimed the compensation at the
said rate. Whereas the State had also brought on
record one sale instance at Exh.37 executed on
10th January, 1986 in relation to Gut No.116/3
admeasuring 1 hectare and 21 Ares for the
consideration of Rs.35,000/-.
. As noted herein above, according to the
State, the land which was the subject matter of
sale deed at Exh.37 was irrigated land. Perusal
of the judgment reveals that the Reference Court
preferred not to rely upon the sale instance
brought on record by the claimants at Exh.26.
The Reference Court has observed that the sale
instance at Exh.26 was pertaining to the land
situated at village Mhasve, which was not
adjoining village of village Bhokarbari. The
Tribunal has further observed that village
Vanjari Kh. was the adjoining village of
Bhokarbari and after crossing the boundaries of
village Vanjari kh, there is village Mhasve. It
was further observed by the Reference Court that
the sale instance at Exh.26 was pertaining to the
small piece of land admeasuring 20 Ares.
. The Reference Court preferred to rely
upon the sale instance brought on record by the
State at Exh.37. The land which was the subject
matter of the sale deed at Exh.37 was of village
Bhokarbari, i.e. from the same village where the
acquired lands were situated. It was 1 hectare
and 21 Ares land and was sold by the registered
sale deed executed on 10th January, 1986 for the
consideration of Rs.35,000/- i.e. @ Rs.28,926/-
per hectare. From the observations made by the
Reference Court in the impugned judgment, it is
further revealed that though it was the
contention of the State before the Reference
Court that the land which was the subject matter
of Exh.37 was irrigated land, in fact, the same
was non-irrigated land. In Para 17 of the
impugned judgment the Reference Court has
observed that the 7/12 extract of the said land
was revealing that the holder of the said land
was taking the crops of Jawar, Bajra, Wheat and
gram in the said land in Kharip season. The
Reference Court has further observed that though
in the 7/12 extract of the said land it was shown
that the holder of the said land was possessing
right to take water from the well constructed on
land Gut No.269, from the crops which were being
taken in the relevant period in the said land, it
was quite evident that no Bagayati crops were
being taken and thus it was non-irrigated land.
7) The Reference Court has further observed
that the land Gut No.268, which was the subject
matter of LAR No.152/1992, the land Gut no.276,
which was the subject matter of LAR No.188/1992
and the land Gut No.278, which was the subject
matter of LAR No.190/1992, were all Jirayat
lands. In the circumstances, the Reference Court
determined the market value of the acquired lands
@ Rs. 289/- per Are on the basis of sale instance
at Exh.37.
8) After having gone through the elaborate
discussion made by the Reference Court, it does
not appear to me that the Reference Court has
committed any error in determining the market
value as aforesaid. There seems no substance in
the objections raised by the appellant State that
the Reference Court has determined the
compensation of the non-irrigated land by
applying rates received to the irrigated land.
9) The another objection which was raised
by the State was that the Reference Court awarded
the compensation to the potkharab land at the
same rate, as was awarded to the non-irrigated
lands. The record reveals that in LAR
No.152/1992, the potkharab land is only to the
extent of 1 Are whereas in LAR No.190/1992, there
is no potkharab land. It is however true that in
LAR No.188/1992 21 Ares land is potkharab land.
. As per the settled norms for potkharab
land, the Reference Court should have awarded the
compensation @ Rs.146/- per Are. Thus, the
Reference Court has awarded the excess amount to
the tune of Rs.3066/- to the claimants in LAR
No.188/1992. Considering the fact that quantum
of the amount is meagre and further considering
the fact that the acquisition is of the year
1985, I am not inclined to cause any interference
in the compensation so awarded by the Reference
Court. Thus, there appears no substance in the
appeals filed by the State.
11) The appellant in FA No.1001/2003 has
prayed for enhanced amount of compensation
claiming that his acquired land was fully
irrigated land and as such, the compensation at
the double rate, as was awarded for the non-
irrigated land, ought to have been awarded to
him. However, from the evidence on record, which
has been properly discussed by the Reference
Court, I see no merit in the prayer so made by
the appellant in First Appeal No. 1001/2003. The
Reference Court has categorically observed that
7/12 extract of Gut No.268 was not reflecting
that any bagayati crop was taken in the said
land. Nothing has been brought on record by the
appellant in the present appeal so as to take any
contrary view as taken by the Reference Court.
I, therefore, do not find any substance in First
Appeal No.1001/2003. In the result, the following
order, -
ORDER
. All the aforesaid First appeals are
dismissed without any order as to costs. Pending
Civil application, if any, stands disposed of.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
Title -Kodgire
bdv/Jt.
