Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Dwarkabai Bhagwan Dadgujar on 21 September, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA No.456/2004 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.456 OF 2004
The Spl. Land Acquisition
Officer, U.T.P., Jalgaon = APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent)
VERSUS
1) Shri. Manji Kalu More,
(Deceased)
HEIRS
1) Prabhakar Manji More
2)
Age:58 years,
Chhabildas Manji More
Age:56 years,
(Deceased L.Rs.)
2-A) Vijay Chabildas More,
Age:34 years,
1-2-A-a) Latabai w/o. Vijay More,
Age: years
1-2-A-b) Radhakisan s/o. Vijay More,
Age:11 years, R/o. as above.
1-2-A-c) Sonal d/o. Vijay More,
Age:13 years, R/o. as above.
1-2-A-d) Laxmibai w/o. Chhabildas More,
Age:40 years,
R/o. Rammandir Chowk,
at Post Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon.
(As per Court's order dated
18-12-2009 in C.A. No.13415/
2009)
2-B) Raju Chabildas More,
Age:32 years,
2-c) Laxmibai Chabildas More,
Age:52 years,
All R/o. Ram Mandir Chowk,
Parola Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2-D) Pradip Chhabildas More,
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 01:03:19 :::
2 FA No.456/2004 & Ors.
Age:26 years,
2-E) Mandabai Suresh Ahire,
Age:30 years,
2-F) Sunandabai Rajendra Baviskar,
Age:25 years,
R/o. Delwadi Post. Kundan
Tq. Palghar, Dist. Thane.
(L.Rs. brought on record as
per Court's order dated
25-4-2008 in C.A.No.11078/2005)
3) Bhaskar Manji More,
Age:54 years,
4) Nadarbai Manji More,
Age:75 years,
5) Himmat Popat More,
6)
Age:36 years,
Madhukar Popat More,
Age:34 years,
7) Sadashiv Popat More,
Age:27 years,
8) Sushilabai D/o. Popat More,
Age:30 years,
9) Shevantabai Popat More,
Age:67 years,
(deceased L.Rs.)
9-A) Dagubai Popat More,
Age:60 years,
9-B) Himmat Popat More,
Age:39 years,
9-C) Madhukar Popat More,
Age:37 years,
9-D) Sadashiv Popat More,
Age:30 years,
9-E) Sushilabai Popat More,
Age:33 years,
At Post Tq. Parola,
Ram Mandir Chowk, Parola
Dist. Jalgaon.
(L.Rs. brought on record
as per Court's order dated
25.4.2008 in C.A.No.11078/2005.)
10) Dagubai Popat More,
Age:57 years,
11) Onkar Kalu More,
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 01:03:19 :::
3 FA No.456/2004 & Ors.
Age:55 years,
All R/o. Parola, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2) Nemidas Bhikasa Choukshi Trust
General Mukhtyar Shri
Nandkishor Narsingh Gujarathi,
Age:60 years, Occu.: Pensioner,
R/o. Parola, Gujarathi Galli,
Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon.
= RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Claimants)
ig WITH
FIRST APPAL NO.453 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through The Special Land
Acquisition Officer, U.T.P.,
Jalgaon. = APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent)
VERSUS
1) Shri Sitaram Vana Kumbhar,
Age:45 years, Occu: Farmer,
R/o. Bhokarbhari, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon. = RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL 454 OF 2004
The Spl. Land Acquisition
Officer, U.T.P., Jalgaon = APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent)
VERSUS
1) Suresh Budha Shimpi
Age:45 years, Occu.: Farmer,
2) Thagubai Budha Shimpi,
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 01:03:19 :::
4 FA No.456/2004 & Ors.
Both Resident of Bhokarbari,
Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Thagubai Budha Shimpi
(Died) L.Rs.
2/A) Shantaram Budhaji Shimpi
2/B) Suresh Budhaji Shimpi,
Both R/o. at and Post and
Tq. Parola Gujrathi Galli,
Parola, Near Chavan Hospital,
Parola, Dist. Jalgaon.
(L.Rs. of deceased respondent
brought on record as per Court
order dated 5-2-10 passed in
CA 10789/2004.) = RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Claimants)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.455 OF 2004
The Spl. Land Acquisition
Officer, U.T.P. Jalgaon = APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent)
VERSUS
Dwarkabai Bhagwan Badgujar,
Age:50 years, Occ: Farmer,
Resident of Bhokarbari,
Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. = RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
...
Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant/s.
Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, AGP for Respondents.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
RESERVED ON :18
August,2016.
th
PRONOUNCED ON: 21 September,2016
st
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 01:03:19 :::
5 FA No.456/2004 & Ors.
JUDGMENT:
1) Since in all these appeals challenge is
to the common Judgment and Award passed by Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Amalner on 12th March,
2002 in LAR Nos. 73/1992; 74/1992; 76/1992;
77/1992 and 79/1992, common arguments were heard
in all these matters and I deem it appropriate to
decide these appeals by a common reasoning.
2) 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.
3) Shri Wattamwar, learned AGP, assailed
the impugned judgment on various grounds. The
learned AGP submitted that the sale instance at
Exh.38, 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.
4) Shri Mukul Kulkarni, learned Counsel
appearing for the claimants in all these matters
resisted the submissions advanced by the learned
AGP. The learned Counsel submitted that no
interference is required in the impugned Judgment
and Award since the Reference Court has awarded a
very reasonable amount of compensation.
5) 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.28, which was brought on
record in the proceedings of LAR No.77/1992. The
sale instance at Exh.28 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.38 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.38. The land which was the subject
matter of the sale deed at Exh.38 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.38 was irrigated land, in fact, the same
was non-irrigated land.
6) The Reference Court has further observed
that the land Gut No.287, which was the subject
matter of LAR No.74/1992, the land Gut No.310/1,
which was the subject matter of LAR No.76/1992,
the Gut No.291, which is the subject matter of
LAR No.77/1992 and Gut No.296 which is the
subject matter of LAR No.79/1992, 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.38.
. In some of the acquired lands, the
existence of well is noticed by the Reference
Court. The Reference Court has, however,
examined the 7/12 extracts of each of the said
lands. And has recorded its observation that none
of the 7/12 extract of the acquired land was
demonstrating that any cash crop was being taken
from the said lands. The Reference Court has
further observed that from the entries in the
7/12 extracts of all these lands, it was revealed
that the respective land holders were cultivating
dry crops in kharip season in the said lands. The
Reference Court in para Nos. 22 to 26 of its
judgment has elaborately discussed the aforesaid
aspect and has ultimately recorded a finding that
all the acquired lands were jirayat lands.
7) 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.
. It is further revealed that the
Reference Court has awarded separate compensation
towards the fruit bearing trees existing in some
of the acquired lands and has also awarded
additional compensation for the wells existing in
some of the acquired lands. From the material on
record it does not appear to me that the
compensation awarded by the Reference Court
towards the fruit-bearing trees as well as
towards the wells in the acquired lands is, in
any way unreasonable or arbitrary. On the
contrary, from the discussion made by the
Reference Court, it is quite evident that the
compensation is awarded by the Reference Court
after considering the entire evidence on record
and after making the objective assessment of the
said evidence. I, therefore, do not find any
reason to cause any interference in the amount of
compensation so awarded by the Reference Court
towards the fruit bearing trees and the wells in
some of the acquired lands.
8) 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.
73/1992, the potkharab land is 10 Ares; in LAR
No. 74/1992 it is 20 Ares; in LAR No. 76/1992 it
is 1 Are, whreas in LAR No. 77/1992, it is 6
Ares. 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.5402/- to the claimants in the
aforesaid Referemce Applications. Considering
the fact that quantum of the amount is meager 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) 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.
