Bombay High Court
Dadarao S/O Wamanrao Deosarkar vs The Collector Yavatmal & Ors on 3 April, 2017
Bench: N.W. Sambre
441.05fa
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2005
Shankarrao s/o Ganpatrao Deshmukh,
aged about 65 years, Occ: Cultivator,
R/o. Kanha, Tahsil Mahagaon,
District Yavatmal. ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The Collector Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Lower Pus Project
Pusad, Tahsil Pusad.
3. The Executive Engineer, Lower
Pus Project Pusad, Tahsil
Pusad, District Yavatmal. ..RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2005
Vithalrao s/o Nanarao Paul,
aged about 50 years, Occ: Cultivator,
R/o. Kanha, Tahsil Mahagaon,
District Yavatmal. ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The Collector Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Lower Pus Project
Pusad, Tahsil Pusad.
3. The Executive Engineer, Lower
Pus Project Pusad, Tahsil
Pusad, District Yavatmal. ..RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:49:20 :::
441.05fa
(2)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2005
Dadarao s/o Wamanrao Deosarkar,
aged about 50 years, Occ: Cultivator,
R/o. Kanha, Tahsil Mahagaon,
District Yavatmal. ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The Collector Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Lower Pus Project
Pusad, Tahsil Pusad.
3. The Executive Engineer, Lower
Pus Project Pusad, Tahsil
Pusad, District Yavatmal. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr K.S. Narwade, Advocate for appellants;
Mrs M.S.Naik, A.G.P. for respondents
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 3rd APRIL, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
All these appeals are under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
2. The appeals are heard together and decided
finally with the consent, as before the learned
441.05fa
Reference Court, the Reference under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act was decided after clubbing
all the land acquisition cases together. I am
informed that the evidence is also recorded in
common. As such, the appeals are disposed of by
this common judgment.
3. It is the case of land owners that they
are owners of land situated at village Kanha,
Tahsil Mahagaon, District Yavatmal, which was
acquired by the respondents for Lower Pus Project,
Pusad (Irrigation Project). According to the
appellants, Section 4 notification was gazetted on
20th October, 1992 and Section 6 on 19th April,
1993. Award under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act came to be declared on 2nd June,
1994 by awarding compensation of Rs.18,000/- per
hector, of which, enhancement is sought.
4. It is the case of present appellants that
the lands owned by them are highly fertile, in
which, they were growing cotton, tur, ground-nut,
sugar cane etc., which are cash crops and getting
441.05fa
net income of Rs.25,000/- per acre. It is also
claimed that location of the land in close
proximity to Tahsil place, sugar industry, spinning
mill is required to be appreciated.
5. In support of the claim, the appellants
have examined PW-1 Vitthal Paul at Exhibit-10, PW-2
Raju Deshmukh at Exhibit-11 and relied upon the
index extracts at Exhibits-14, 15, 16 and 17, water
tax receipt certificates and notices at Exhibits-18
to 24 and copy of award in L.A.C. No. 27 of 2001 at
Exhibit-26.
6. Mr. Narwade, learned Counsel for the
appellants submits that the enhancement of
compensation is required to be allowed in view of
sale instances which are brought on record,
particularly at Exhibit-15. He would also rely upon
the sale instance of Deorao Deshmukh dated 6th
June, 1989 of land Survey No. 33, whereby 1 Hector
26 Are land was transferred for Rs.78,000/- i.e.
Rs.26,000/- per acre. He would rely upon the index
certificate which was exhibited. In addition, he
441.05fa
would invite attention of this Court to the
testimony of witness Vitthal and also that of other
witness namely Raju Deshmukh.
7. Per contra, Mrs. Naik, learned A.G.P.
Would urge that the appeals lack merit and liable
to be dismissed, as the contents of the index which
is placed on record, were not proved. She would
then urge that in the evidence of witness Vitthal,
hardly any material is brought on record to prove
that the lands of the appellants are located
adjoining to the land of said Deorao Deshmukh.
According to her, no evidence is adduced so as to
show similarity of the lands by placing on record
the map or any other such material.
8. Considered rival submissions of the
respective parties. From the record, learned
Reference Court framed issues vide Exhibit-8.
Thereafter, upon appreciating the evidence of
Vitthal, one of the land owner, Raju Deshmukh,
party to the sale deed at Exhibit-14 dated 4th
October, 1996 enhanced compensation from
441.05fa
Rs.18,000/- per hector as was awarded by Land
Acquisition Officer to Rs.30,000/- per hector.
9. Though enhancement is sought to the extent
of Rs.1,25,000/- per hector by placing reliance
upon the index entry at Exhibit-15 and Exhibit-14
sale deed, in my opinion, hardly any support can be
drawn from the said documents so as to grant
enhancement.
10. The evidence of land owner Vitthal does
not speak of location of his land, in close
proximity of either mentioned in Exhibit-14 or
Exhibit-15. Neither any location plan nor any other
material including that of revenue record is
brought in the form of evidence so as to infer or
draw support that the lands of the present
appellants are located near the land, involved in
transaction at Exhibit-15. In view thereof, index
of sale deed at Exhibit-15 cannot be taken into
account for directing enhancement of compensation.
In addition, it is required to be noted that the
lands owned by the present appellants are not
441.05fa
proved by any cogent evidence to be located
adjoining to the land mentioned in Exhibit-15 index
extract.
11. Learned Reference Court, while considering
the revenue levied against the land mentioned in
Exhibit-15 with that of lands of present
appellants, it is noticed that revenue of the land
mentioned in Exhibit-15 is above Rs.10/-, whereas
if compared the revenue of the land of present
appellants is below Rs.2/- and as such, location
and quality of the land mentioned in Exhibit-15
cannot be inferred to be of the same quality and
location adjacent to each other. The said findings
recorded by the Reference Court, in my opinion,
appear to be in tune with the evidence available on
record.
12. No case for interference is made out. The
appeals, as such, fail and stand dismissed.
(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tupe
