Kamalbai Tukaram Hambarde vs Statet Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 1706 Bom

                                         1
                                                              955 FIRST APPEAL 33 OF 2000.odt


              THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2000

Kamalbai w/o Tukaram Hambarde,
age 51 years, Occ - Household,
through Special Power of Attorney
Tukaram s/o Pandurang Hambarde,
age 60 yrs, Occ - agriculture,
R/o Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.                        ... APPELLANT
                                                        (Original Claimant)

                  V E R S U S


The State of Maharashtra.
(Copy to be served on the 
 Government Pleader, High Court 
  Bench at Aurangabad.)                           ... RESPONDENT


                                     ...
Mr. Thigale Girish K. (Naik), Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. G. O. Wattamsar, AGP for Respondent / State.
                                     ...


                                           CORAM  : V. K. JADHAV, J.

                                           DATE     :  13th April, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT: 
 
.                 Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by

the 4th Additional District Judge, Beed dated 14th October, 1998 in

LAR No.405 of 1994, the original Claimant has preferred this appeal.

955 FIRST APPEAL 33 OF 2000.odt

2 Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

a) The agricultural land owned and possessed by the

Claimant situated at village Solewadi, Taluka Ashti,

District Beed came to be acquired by the

Government for Solewadi Percolation Tank. Vide

Section 4 notification published on 27th September,

1990 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has

awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.100/-

per Are as per the award dated 22nd November,

1993. Being aggrieved by the inadequate

compensation awarded by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer, the Claimant has preferred LAR

No.405 of 1994 for claiming the compensation at

the enhanced rate of Rs.1,500/- per Are. It has

been contended in the said reference petition that

the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded

very meager amount of compensation and the

Special Land Acquisition Officer has not considered

the market price of the land in the said area.

955 FIRST APPEAL 33 OF 2000.odt

b) Respondent / State has strongly resisted the said

petition by filing the written statement. It has been

contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer

has awarded just and reasonable compensation by

considering the quality, locality and prevailing

market value of the acquired land. It has also been

contended that the Claimant has claimed the

compensation at the exorbitant rate.

c) The Claimant has adduced oral and documentary

evidence to substantiate his contentions and placed

reliance on the various sale instances. The

Respondent / State has not adduced any evidence.

The learned 4th Additional District Judge, Beed vide

its impugned judgment and award dated 14th

October, 1998, awarded the compensation at the

enhanced rate of Rs.625/- per Are. Hence, this

appeal.

3 The learned counsel for Appellant / original Claimant

submits that the Claimant has mainly relied upon sale-deeds Exhibits

955 FIRST APPEAL 33 OF 2000.odt

27, 30 and 32 respectively. The learned counsel submits that the

market value of the lands of village Pandhari was Rs.40,000/- per

Acre to Rs.60,000/- per Acre at the time of acquisition. The acquired

land was being irrigated on the water of well by means of electric

pump etc. The learned counsel submits that the Reference Court has

erroneously discarded the sale instances Exhibits - 27, 30 and 32.

The Appellant / Claimant has produced a map of village Pandhari

Exhibit - 17 wherein the acquired land Gat No.647 is shown just

adjacent to village Pandhari. However, the Reference Court has not

considered the same in its proper perspective. The learned counsel

submits that though the Tribunal in para 12 of the judgment has

observed that the acquired land was having facility of irrigation by

referring to 7/12 extract Exhibit - 16 and by observing the crop

pattern, awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.625/-

per Are only. The learned counsel submits that the Reference Court

ought to have awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per

Are.

4 The learned AGP for the Respondent / State submits that

the Reference Court has rightly discarded the sale instances Exhibits

955 FIRST APPEAL 33 OF 2000.odt

27, 30 and 32. So far as the sale instance Exhibit - 27 is concerned,

the same pertains to small portion of land and the purchaser's land

under said sale instance is adjacent to the land under sale instance.

Furthermore, right to share in the water was also sold under the said

sale-deed and as such, consideration was increased. The learned

Judge of the Reference Court has therefore, rightly held that the sale

instance Exhibit - 27 cannot be used as comparable sale instance for

determining the value of the acquired land. The learned AGP submits

that so far as sale instance Exhibit - 30 is concerned, the purchaser's

land is adjacent to the land under sale instance and thus, the land

under sale instance was convenient for him for cultivation purpose.

Furthermore, the land under sale instance Exhibit - 30 is situated

within the local limits of Ashti, which is a Tahsil place and as such, the

Reference Court has rightly discarded the said sale instance for

considering the market price of the acquired land. Similarly, the land

under sale instance Exhibit - 32 is not of same village where the

acquired land was situated. The learned AGP submits that

considering the evidence on record, the Reference Court has rightly

awarded the just and reasonable compensation at the enhanced rate

of Rs.625/- per Are. No interference is required. There is no

955 FIRST APPEAL 33 OF 2000.odt

substance in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5 On careful perusal of the map Exhibit - 17, it appears that

the acquired land Gat No.647 is situated at village Solewadi, which is

just adjacent to the land situated at village Pandhari. Though the sale-

deed Exhibit - 27 is for the smaller portion of land, the land under said

sale instance Exhibit - 27 is situated at village Pandhari and said sale-

deed was executed prior to Section 4 notification published in respect

of the acquired land. It appears that 6 Ares of land under said sale-

deed was sold for a consideration of Rs.12,000/- i.e. at the rate of

Rs.2,000/- per Are. Even if it is considered that the land under sale

instance fetch more price than the market price because the

purchaser's land is situated adjacent to the land under sale instance

and that the share in the water of the well also sold under the said

sale instance, the Reference Court should not have discarded the said

sale instance altogether from consideration. Similarly, the land under

sale instance Exhibit - 30 is concerned, though it is situated at Tahsil

place Ashti, admittedly, the acquired land is situated at a distance of 4

kilometers from Ashti and the distance between the acquired land and

the land under sale instance Exhibit - 30 is about 3 kilometers. It

appears from the contents of sale-deed Exhibit - 30 that the land has

955 FIRST APPEAL 33 OF 2000.odt

been sold for a consideration of Rs.1,000/- per Are. So far as the land

under sale-deed Exhibit - 32 is concerned, the same is also for a

consideration of Rs.1,000/- per Are. The purchaser's land under sale-

deed Exhibit - 30 is adjacent to the land under sale-deed and even

the same is considered, even then there was no reasons for the

Reference Court to discard the sale instance Exhibits 30 and 32 in its

entirety.

6 The Reference Court in para 12 of the judgment has

considered the facility of irrigation available to the acquired land and

further considered the 7/12 extract Exhibit - 16 indicating the pattern

of crop. The Reference Court has therefore, rightly considered the

acquired land having irrigation facility. However, the Reference Court

has merely awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of

Rs.625/- per Are. In view of the sale instances Exhibits - 27, 30 and

32, I find it just and reasonable to award the compensation at the

enhanced rate of Rs.825/- per Are instead of Rs.625/- per Are. The

Appellant / Claimant is thus, entitled for a compensation in respect of

acquired land on the basis of market value at the rate of Rs.825/- per

Are with all statutory benefits as admissible. Hence, the following

order:

955 FIRST APPEAL 33 OF 2000.odt

O R D E R

I. The appeal, is hereby partly allowed with

proportionate costs.

II. The judgment and award passed by the 4th

Additional District Judge, Beed dated 14th October,

1998 in LAR No.405 of 1994, is hereby modified in

the following manner:

"The Respondent do pay the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.825/- per Are with all admissible statutory benefits and the interest thereon."

             III.     Appeal is accordingly disposed of.



                                                        [ V. K. JADHAV, J. ] 
ndm