Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Sukhdeo K.Patil(Decd)Lrs ... on 26 September, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
F.A.No.458/2004
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.458 OF 2004
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jagaon .. Appellants
Versus
. Sukhdeo Kashiram Patil
(deceased), through Heirs :
1. Narmadabai w/o Sukhdeo Patil,
Age 50 years,
2. Kailash Sukdeo Patil, age 29 years
3. Chandrakant Sukdev Patil, age 25,
4. Sau. Shobhabai w/o Rajendra Patil
Age 23 years
5. Pramilabai d/o Sukdeo Patil,
Age 19 years
All residents of Kurangi, Taluka
Pachora, District Jalgaon ..Appellants
Versus
- WITH -
FIRST APPEAL NO.459 OF 2004
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jagaon .. Appellants
Versus
. Vishnu Kashiram Patil,
Age 41, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Kurungi, Taluka
Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ..Respondent
Mr S.P. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for appellants
Mr A.B. Kale, Advocate for respondents
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:48:49 :::
F.A.No.458/2004
2
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : 26th September 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Since both these appeals are arising out of the common
judgment and award delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at
Jalgaon on 20.4.2000 in L.A.R. No.278 and 277 of 2000, I have heard
the common arguments and I deem it appropriate to decide both
these appeals by a common judgment.
2. The lands which are the subject matter in the present appeals
were acquired for percolation tank at village Kurungi, Taluka Pachora,
District Jalgaon. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') in that regard was
published in the government gazette on 6.12.1990, whereas the
award under Section 11 of the Act came to be passed on 3.4.1993.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value
of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.9,500/- per hectare and
accordingly, offered the amount of compensation to the respective
claimants. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so offered,
the claimants filed the applications under Section 18 of the Act
seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. The
applications so submitted to the Collector, Jalgaon were forwarded by
him to the Civil Court for adjudication. The learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the reference Court')
accordingly adjudicated the matters.
F.A.No.458/2004
3. Before the reference Court, the claimants had claimed the
compensation at the value of Rs.1 lakh per acre. In order to
substantiate the claim so raised, the claimant in L.A.R. No.278/2000
deposed before the Court. The claimant in L.A.R. No.277 of 2000 had
given the power of attorney to claimant in L.A.R.No.278 of 2000
namely Kailas Sukdeo Patil to depose on his behalf also. In addition to
oral evidence of said Kailas, the claimants examined one Subhash
Kashinath Patil as their witness, who had purchased 19 - Aar land
from one Geeta Bhila Patil vide registered sale deed on 25.4.1990 for
a consideration of Rs.17,000/-. The said land was situated at village
Pardhade. In the evidence of said Subhash Patil, the said sale-deed
was duly proved and was exhibited at Exh. 16. The claimants had
also examined one more witness by name Ravindra Ghanshyam
Chaudhari, who had carried out the valuation of the trees and had
accordingly issued the valuation report.
4. No witness was examined by the State, nor any sale deed or like
document was produced on record by the State.
5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record by the appellants, the reference Court determined the market
value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare for
non-irrigated land and Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare for irrigated land and
accordingly, enhanced the amount of compensation. For the trees,
the reference Court has awarded separate compensation. Aggrieved
by the said judgment and award, State has filed the present appeals.
F.A.No.458/2004
6. Mr Deshmukh, learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellant-State
questioned the impugned judgment on various grounds. He
submitted that the sale instance, which has been relied upon by the
reference Court is of village Pardhade, which is at a distance of 3 to 4
Kms. from village Kurungi, where the acquired lands are situated. The
learned A.G.P. submitted that the reference Court has erred in
awarding the compensation on the basis of aforesaid sale deed of the
land situated at a different village. He further submitted that the
learned reference Court did not appreciate that sale instance relied
upon by the claimants was pertaining to a small piece of land
admeasuring 19 -R and as such, the market value of the acquired land
could not have been determined on the basis of the value received to
such small piece of land. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that
nothing is brought on record by the claimants evidencing that no sale
had taken place pertaining to the land situated at village Kurungi at
the relevant period, so as to place reliance on the sale instance
pertaining to the land situated at a different village. He further
submitted that reference Court has unreasonably enhanced the
amount of compensation. He further argued that the reference Court
has also erred in awarding the separate compensation for the trees.
Learned A.G.P. further argued that the reference Court has manifestly
erred in awarding the compensation for the pot kharab land at the
value of jirayat land at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare. For all
these grounds, learned A.G.P. prayed for setting aside the impugned
judgment and award and redetermine the amount of compensation.
F.A.No.458/2004
7. Mr Kale, learned Counsel appearing for the original claimants in
both the appeals supported the impugned judgment and submitted
that no interference be caused for the enhancement so awarded,
since the reference Court has awarded adequate compensation to the
claimants.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by
learned A.G.P. and learned Counsel appearing for the claimants. I
have also perused the impugned judgment and award and evidence
on record.
9. The land of the claimants acquired in L.A.R. No.278 of 2000 was
admeasuring 67 - R with 5 - R pot kharab land, whereas the land
admeasuring 97 - R was acquired of the claimant in L.A.R. No.277 of
2000. It is not in dispute that both the acquired lands were situated at
village Kurungi. As deposed by Subhash Kashinath Patil, the acquired
lands were quite fertile and of superior quality. As has further come
on record through the evidence of said Subhash Patil, both the lands
were irrigated lands and the cash crops were being taken in the said
lands. From the 7/12 extracts of the acquired lands, existence of well
is noticed in the said lands. It is asserted by the claimants that the
acquired lands were well irrigated lands and nothing has been brought
on record by the State so as to disbelieve the said statement.
Moreover, in the 7/12 extract, existence of well is noticed. 7/12
extracts also reflect that the crops like sugarcane were taken in the
acquired lands. From the evidence on record, it is quite evident that
F.A.No.458/2004
the claimants have successfully proved that the acquired lands were
irrigated lands. There is further no dispute that the State has not
adduced any oral evidence nor brought on record any document i.e.
any sale deed for bringing on record the prevailing market value of
the lands of similar nature and quality and situated in the vicinity. In
the circumstances, the only option before the reference Court was to
determine the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of oral
evidence adduced by one of the claimants and the sale deed placed
on record by the claimants at Exh.16. The land which was the subject
matter of Exh.16 was admeasuring 19 - R and was sold by the
registered sale deed executed on 25.4.1990 for a consideration of
Rs.17,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.89,422/- per hectare. Considering the
plus and minus factors of the acquired lands, the reference Court has
eventually determined the market value of the acquired land at the
rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare for non-irrigated land and
Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare for irrigated land. The reference Court has
elaborately discussed the aforesaid evidence and has also provided a
reasoning for its reliance on the sale instance so placed on record by
the claimants.
10. After having gone through the evidence 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 the rate of
Rs.65,000/- per hectare for non-irrigated land and Rs.1,30,000/- per
hectare for irrigated land. As has come on record through the
evidence of witness examined by original claimants, village Pardhade
F.A.No.458/2004
is at a short distance of 3 to 4 Kms. from Kurungi. Perusal of the
impugned judgment also reveal that the reference Court has not
mechanically determined the market value by placing implicit
reliance on the sole sale instance Exh.16, but has also considered all
other relevant factors. After having considered the entire material on
record, it does not appear to me that any error has been committed
by the reference Court in determining the market value of the
acquired land at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare for non-irrigated
land and Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare for irrigated land. The market
value so determined by the reference Court cannot be in any way said
to be unjust or arbitrary or without having evidence therefor. On the
contrary, as I noted herein above, the reference Court has considered
the plus and minus factors of the entire land and has determined the
market value of the said lands on the basis of the sale instance at
Exh.16.
11. In so far as the compensation awarded by reference Court for
the trees existing in one of the lands is concerned, the same also
seems to have been awarded on the basis of the valuer examined by
the claimants before the reference Court. I have gone through the
evidence of Mr Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari, who was an approved
valuer. Nothing has come on record in his cross-examination to
disbelieve the valuation report prepared by the said witness, on the
basis of which the reference Court has determined the compensation
payable to the claimants. It does not appear to me that the
compensation awarded in that regard is in any way unreasonable or
on a higher side.
F.A.No.458/2004
12. Though it was sought to be canvassed by learned A.G.P. that
the reference Court has grossly erred in awarding the compensation
to the pot kharab land at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare, I am not
inclined to cause interference in the amount of compensation so
offered for the pot kharab land at the said rate for the reason that the
pot kharab land was admeasuring only .05 hectare. Though the same
rate could not have been awarded by the reference Court to the said
pot kharab land, as was awarded to the jirayat land considering the
small quantum of the compensation awarded as aforesaid to the tune
of Rs.3,250/- only, according to me it may not be proper to cause
interfere in the amount of compensation so awarded, after the period
of about more than ten years.
13. After having considered the entire material on record, I see no
reason for causing any interference in the impugned judgment. Both
the appeals, therefore, deserve to be dismissed and accordingly are
dismissed. However, without any order to the costs.
( P.R. BORA, J.)
vvr
