Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Govind Pandhari Lomate on 29 September, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA No.1065/16 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1065 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector,
Osmanabad, ...APPELLANT
(Ori. Respondent)
VERSUS
Govind Pandhari Lomate,
Age:28 years, Occu.:Agri.,
R/o. Tadgaon, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanbad. ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1066 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra,
through The Collector,
Osmanabad, ...APPELLANT
(Ori. Respondent)
VERSUS
1. Shivaji S/o. Sahebrao Lomate,
Age:35 years,
2. Janardhan S/o. Sahebrao Lomate,
Age:30 years,
Both Occu.:Agril,
R/o. Tadgaon, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1067 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra,
through The Collector,
Osmanabad, ...APPELLANT
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:27:33 :::
2 FA No.1065/16 & Ors.
(Ori. Respondent)
VERSUS
1. Ramhari S/o. Kundlik Lomate,
Age:45 years,
2. Shrihari S/o. Kundlik Lomate,
Age:40 years,
3. Shriram S/o. Kundlik Lomate,
Age:37 years,
4. Kakasaheb S/o. Kundlik Lomate,
Age:33 years,
All Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Tadgaon, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1068 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra,
through The Collector,
Osmanabad, ...APPELLANT
(Ori. Respondent)
VERSUS
Kalyan S/o. Murlidhar Lomate,
Age:30 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Tadgaon, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1069 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra,
through The Collector,
Osmanabad, ...APPELLANT
(Ori. Respondent)
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:27:33 :::
3 FA No.1065/16 & Ors.
VERSUS
Chandrakant S/o. Murlidhar Lomate,
Age:45 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Tadgaon, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1070 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra,
through The Collector,
Osmanabad, ...APPELLANT
ig (Ori. Respondent)
VERSUS
1. Kalidas S/o. Babasaheb Lomate,
Age:22 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Tadgaon, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
...
Mr. S.N. Morampalle, AGP for Appellant/s.
Mr. V.V. Ingale, Advocate for Respondent/s.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
RESERVED ON : 12
th
AUGUST,2016
PRONOUNCED ON: 29
th
SEPTEMBER,2016
JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. Admit. By consent of the learned
Counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for
final disposal.
2) The State of Maharashtra has filed the
present appeals, challenging the common Judgment
and Award passed by Joint civil Judge, Senior
Division, at Osmanabad on 28.6.2007 in LAR
No.53/1992 with connected Land Acquisition
References.
. Since all these appeals arise out of
common Judgment and Award passed by the court
below, common arguments were heard of the parties
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
construction of percolation tank at village
Tadgaon, Tq. Kallamb, District Osmanabad.
Notification in that regard under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) was published in the
Government Gazette on 21st July, 1988 whereas
Award under Section 11 of the Act came to be
passed on 31st December, 1990.
Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short,
S.L.A.O.) had fixed the market value of the
acquired lands @ Rs.7,800/- per acre and has
accordingly determined the amount of compensation
to be offered to the respective claimants.
Dissatisfied with the amount so offered, the
land-holders preferred the applications under
Section 18 of the Act to the Collector,
Osmanabad, who in turn forwarded the said
applications for adjudication to the Civil Court
at Osmanabad (hereinafter referred to as the
Reference Court).
4) Before the Reference Court the claimants
had claimed the compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per
acre. In order to substantiate the claim so
made, each of the claimants deposed before the
Reference Court on oath. In so far as evidence
as about the sale instance is concerned, common
evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimants.
The claimants had relied upon three sale
instances. Sale instance at Exh.21 pertains to
sale of the agricultural land admeasuring 9 Ares,
which was duly registered on 2nd April, 1986 and
the amount of consideration received to the
vendor was Rs.9,000/-. One Subhadrabai Salunke had
sold the said land to one Kalawatibai Salunke.
Sale instance at Exh. 22 was executed on 29 th
December, 1988. Vide the said sale deed, Ganpat
Gundiba Khot and Shivdas Kondiba Khot had sold
the said land by registered sale deed to Janak
Namdeo Giri for the consideration of Rs.10,000/-.
Whereas the land, which is the subject matter of
sale deed at Exh. 23 was admeasuring 3 ½ Ares and
was sold for the consideration of Rs.7,000/- by a
registered sale deed executed on 17.6.1988. The
land involved in the sale deed at Exh.21 was
situated at village Ghargaon. The land which was
the subject matter of Exh.22, was of village
Mauje Pimpri Shiradhod, whereas the land which
was the subject matter of Exh.23 was of village
Mauje Dhorala. The lands which are the subject
matter of the present appeals are from village
Tadgaon, Tq. Kallamb District Osmanabad.
5) The learned Reference Court, after
considering the oral and documentary evidence
brought before it, determined the market value of
the acquired lands @ Rs.20,000/- per acre and
accordingly enhanced the amount of compensation.
The Reference Court also made the claimants
entitled to the statutory benefits under the Act,
i.e. 12% component, 30% solatium and interest
under Section 28 and 34 of the Act. Aggrieved by
the Award so passed, the State of Maharashtra
has preferred the present appeals.
6) Shri Morampalle, learned AGP appearing
for the State, criticized the the impugned
judgments on various grounds. The learned AGP
submitted that the sale instances, which are
relied upon by the Reference Court while
determining the amount of compensation, cannot be
said to be comparable sale instances so as to
determine the market value of the acquired lands.
The learned AGP further submitted that none of
the sale instances relied upon by the claimants
is of the lands situated at village Tadgaon or of
the adjacent village.
7) The learned AGP further submitted that
the S.L.A.O. Had determined the market value of
the acquired lands by taking into account overall
circumstances and by actually visiting the
acquired lands and as such, the Reference Court
should not have interfered in the price so fixed
by the S.L.A.O and the compensation so offered
by him. The learned AGP, therefore, prayed for
setting aside the impugned Judgment and Award
and to confirm the Awards passed by the S.L.A.O.
8) Shri Ingale, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents - original claimants,
resisted the submissions advanced by the learned
AGP. The learned Counsel submitted that in the
companion matters bearing LAR Nos.68/1992,
50/1992, 60/1992 and 67/1992, arising out of the
same project, which were subsequently decided by
the same Court, the compensation is determined @
Rs.30,000/- per acre. The learned counsel
submitted that the Awards passed in the said
matters are also challenged by the State by
filing First Appeal Nos.956/2016 and connected
appeals. The learned counsel submitted that in
fact in the present matters also, the Reference
Court must have awarded the compensation @
Rs.30,000/- per acre. The learned Counsel,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
. The learned Counsel further submitted
that in case this court rejects the appeals filed
by the State bearing First Appeal No.956/2016 and
connected appeals and confirms the Awards passed
by the Reference Court in the said matters, the
respondents in the present matters shall also be
extended the benefit thereof and the market value
of the lands of the respondents in the present
appeals shall also be determined @ Rs.30,000/-
per acre and amount of compensation be enhanced
in the present appeals. The learned counsel
submitted that this court can pass such order
invoking the provisions under Order 41 Rule 33 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his
contention, the learned counsel relied upon the
unreported judgment of this court (Coram:Sunil
P.Deshmukh,J.) in First Appeal No.315/1994 with
connected appeals on 19th November, 2014.
9) After having carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the learned AGP and the
learned Counsel appearing for the respective
parties and after having gone through the
impugned judgment and the evidence on record,
apparently, I do not see any reason to cause any
interference in the impugned Judgment and Award.
Admittedly, no oral or documentary evidence was
adduced by the appellant - State. Whatever
evidence was available on record was from the
side of the respondents - claimants. There were
three sale instances placed on record of the
Reference Court respectively at Exhibits-21 to
23. All the sale instances were of the period
prior to issuance of Section 4 notification
pertaining to the acquired lands. The price
received to the lands which were the subject
matters of the respective sale instances was
Rs.1,000/- in two matters and Rs.2,000/- per Are
in one matter. As has come on record, village
Ghargaon, village Mauje Pimpri Shiradhod and
village Tadgaon are adjacent to each other and
within the distance of 5 kms from eah other. In
the circumstances, it does not appear to me that
the Reference Court has committed any error in
determining the market value of the acquired
lands @ Rs.20,000/- per acre, i.e. at the rate of
Rs.500/- per Are.
10) From the discussion made by the
Reference Court, it is quite evident that the
evidence which was brought before it was
objectively assessed by the Court and considering
the plus and minus factors attached to the
acquired lands, ultimately, the market value of
the acquired lands was fixed by the Reference
Court. Since the Reference Court has awarded a
very reasonable amount by way of compensation and
the compensation assessed by the Reference Court
is based on the evidence on record, I do not see
any reason to cause any interference in the
impugned Judgment and Award. Appellant/State has
failed in pointing out any error on the part of
the Reference Court in determining the market
value of the acquired lands @ Rs.20,000/- per
acre. Similarly, there appears no substance in
the objection raised by the appellant that on
account of trees, compensation awarded by the
Reference Court is on higher side. The appeals
filed by the State are without any merit and
deserve to be dismissed and accordingly are
dismissed, however, without any order as to
costs. Pending Civil Application, if any,
stands disposed of.
11) The provisions of Order 41 Rule 33
cannot be invoked in the present matters in view
of the fact that the lands, which are the subject
matters of the present appeals and the lands
which are the subject matters in First Appeal
Nos. 956/2016 to 959/2016, were acquired under
different notifications and there are two
separate Awards under Section 11 of the Act in
respect of the lands involved in these two groups
of appeals. Moreover, there are two separate
judgments delivered by the Reference Court. The
request so made by the respondents, therefore,
cannot be accepted and deserves to be rejected.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
title - Kodgire
bdv/jt.
Fldr 22.9.16
