Executive Engineer M.S.E.B. Beed vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1710 Bom

                                          1
                                                        957 FIRST APPEAL 254 OF 2001 ORS.odt


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


                             FIRST APPEAL NO.:254 OF 2001

The Executive Engineer,
Civil Construction Division No.4,
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Parali, Beed.                                             ... APPELLANT

           VERSUS

1.         Maruti S/o Daulatrao Mundhe,
           Age: 50 years, Occu: Agri.,
           R/o Talegaon-Dabi,
           Taluka Ambajogai,            Original Claimant / Plaintiff.
           District : Beed.

2.         The State of Maharashtra,
           (Through Gov. Pleader High Court,
            Aurangabad)                                   ... RESPONDENTS

                                   ***
Mr. S. S. Choudhary, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr.S.P.Sonpawle, AGP for Respondent No.2.
                                   ***

                                        WITH
                             FIRST APPEAL NO.:256 OF 2001

The Executive Engineer,
Civil Construction Division No.4,
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Parali, Beed.                                             ... APPELLANT

           VERSUS

1.         The State of Maharashtra,
           (Through Gov. Pleader High Court,




     ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:13:11 :::
                                           2
                                                           957 FIRST APPEAL 254 OF 2001 ORS.odt


            Aurangabad)

2.         Manik S/o Sonaji Mundhe,                  Appeal abated as against
           Age: 70 years, Occu: Agri.,               R.2 vide R's Courts order
           R/o Talegaon-Dabi,                        dated 6-1-09.
           Taluka Ambajogai,
           District : Beed.                   Original Claimant / Plaintiff.
                                                     ... RESPONDENTS

                                   ***
Mr. S. S. Choudhary, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.S.P.Sonpawle, AGP for Respondent No.1.
                                   ***

                                         AND
                             FIRST APPEAL NO.:259 OF 2001

The Executive Engineer,
Civil Construction Division No.4,
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Parali, Beed.                                                ... APPELLANT

           VERSUS

1.         Tukaram S/o Shankar Parve,
           Age: 65 years, Occu: Agri.,
           R/o Talegaon-Dabi,
           Taluka Ambajogai,                  Original Claimant / Plaintiff.
           District : Beed.

2.         The State of Maharashtra,
           (Through Gov. Pleader High Court,
            Aurangabad)                                      ... RESPONDENTS

                                   ***
Mr. S. S. Choudhary, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. N. P. Bangar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr.S.P.Sonpawle, AGP for Respondent No.2.
                                   ***




     ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:13:11 :::
                                               3
                                                             957 FIRST APPEAL 254 OF 2001 ORS.odt


                                                  CORAM  : V. K. JADHAV, J.

                                                  DATE      :  13th April, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT: 
 

.                  Being   aggrieved   by   the   common   judgment   and   award 

passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ambajogai dated 5 th

March, 2001 in LAR No.6 of 1990 alongwith connected reference

petitions, original Respondent No.2 / acquiring body has preferred

these appeals.

2 Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are as

follows:

a) The lands under acquisition are situated at village

Talegaon and Tokewadi from Tehsil Parli

(Ambajogai), District Beed and the said lands have

been acquired for construction of Ash Tank of

Thermal Power Station, Parli vide notification under

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published

in the Government Gazette on 23rd October, 1986.

The lands under acquisition under these petitions

are dry lands. The Special Land Acquisition Officer

957 FIRST APPEAL 254 OF 2001 ORS.odt

has awarded the compensation within the range

from Rs.236/- per Are to Rs.245/- per Are. Being

aggrieved by the inadequate compensation

awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,

the Claimants have preferred the aforesaid land

acquisition reference petitions.

b) It has been contended in the said reference

petitions that though the lands under acquisition are

the Jirayat lands, but those lands are black cotton

soil and extremely fertile. However, the Special

Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the

fertility and productivity of the lands and determined

the market price at very lower side. It has been

contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer

has not considered the sale instance of the highest

consideration from the same village and wrongly

classified the lands under different groups. It has

also been contended that the prevailing market

value of the lands under acquisition was

Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per Acre. However, the

957 FIRST APPEAL 254 OF 2001 ORS.odt

Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined the

market price at the rate of Rs.236/- per Are to

Rs.245/- per Are, which is inadequate. The

Claimants have contended that the acquired lands

are hardly 4 kilometers away from Parli town and 3

kilometers away from Thermal Power Station. The

Special Land Acquisition Officer has not considered

the potentiality of the lands to be made irrigated and

further the N.A. potentiality of the acquired lands.

c) The Appellant / acquiring body and the Respondent

/ State strongly resisted those reference petitions by

filing the written statement. It has been contended

that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has taken

into consideration the prevailing market value of the

lands under acquisition. In addition of the

advantage and potentiality, the Special Land

Acquisition Officer has also taken into consideration

the sale instances of the relevant period while

determining the market price. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer has awarded just and

957 FIRST APPEAL 254 OF 2001 ORS.odt

reasonable compensation. The Claimants have

adduced oral and documentary evidence in support

of their contentions and also placed reliance on the

various sale instances. The Appellant / acquiring

body and Respondent / State have not adduced any

evidence.

d) The Reference Court has awarded compensation at

the enhanced rate of Rs.500/- per Are. Being

aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.2 /

acquiring body has preferred these appeals.

3 The learned counsel for the Appellant / acquiring body

submits that the Reference Court has rightly discarded the various

sale instances relied upon by the Claimants. The Reference Court

has rightly discarded those sale instances on the ground that the

lands under those sale instances have been sold after Section 4

notification published in respect of the acquired lands. The learned

Judge of the Reference Court has observed that such sale instances

cannot be considered to determine the market price. The learned

counsel submits that though one sale instance dated 4th March, 1986,

957 FIRST APPEAL 254 OF 2001 ORS.odt

which came to be executed prior to Section 4 notification in respect of

the acquired lands, the Reference Court has wrongly placed its

reliance even though the Claimants have not examined the vendor or

vendee of the said sale instance. The said sale-deed dated 4 th March,

1986 though not exhibited relied upon by the Reference Court. The

learned counsel submits that the Reference Court has further placed

reliance upon the chart of the sale instances considered by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award and the sale

instance at serial No.16 pertaining to Block No.22, has been

erroneously considered by the Reference Court even though the said

sale-deed is not placed on record and the vendor and vendee of the

said sale instance were not examined before the Reference Court.

The learned counsel submits that the entire approach of the

Reference Court is incorrect, improper and illegal.

4 The learned counsel for Respondents / original Claimants

has brought my attention to the judgment and order passed by this

Court in First Appeal No.252 of 2001 alongwith connected appeals

mentioned therein. The lands of the Claimants in the aforesaid

appeals situated at village Talegaon, came to be acquired for the

same project of construction of Ash Tank of Thermal Power Station at

957 FIRST APPEAL 254 OF 2001 ORS.odt

Parli Vaijnath under the same notification under Section 4 published

by the State on 23rd October, 1986. This Court had an occasion to

discuss the entire evidence on record most particularly the sale

instances produced before the Reference Court in the present matter.

In para 9 of the judgment of said First Appeal No.252 of 2001

alongwith connected appeals, this Court has made the following

observations:

"9. Exhibit 24 is the sale instance of village Indapwadi dated 04/03/1987. It would show that the land therein was sold at the rate of Rs.857/- per Are. Other sale instances, however, do not appear to have been proved by examining the witnesses though the certified copies of the sale deeds were filed on record. We have the sale instance of village Tokewadi dated 14/3/1989 which would show that the land was at the rate of Rs.1600/- per Are. Under another sale instance of village Tokewadi bearing gat no.189, 190 and 192 were jointly sold on 04/03/1986 for a price of Rs.589/- per Are. The sale instance relied on by the respondent of village Talegaon dated 16/4/1986 would show that 44 Are of land was sold for a price of Rs.250/- per Are. The learned reference Court did not rely over the sale instances which were not proved as either the vendor or the vendee were not brought into the witness box. In view of the ratio of "Himmat Singh Vs. State of M.P." 2013 DGLS (Soft) 851, it is now clear that under the provisions of section 51-A of the Land

957 FIRST APPEAL 254 OF 2001 ORS.odt

Acquisition Act, the certified copy of the sale instances can be looked into. It would thus be clear that the sale instances of village Tokewadi dated 04/03/1986 would reveal that 2 hectare and 89 Are of land was sold at the rate of Rs.589/- per Are."

5 Furthermore, this Court has also dealt with earlier

judgment in another land acquisition reference bearing LAR No.8 of

1990 and held that there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the

acquiring body and accordingly dismissed the said appeal. In view of

the same, there is no reason to take any other view. There is no

substance in the present appeal and all the appeals are thus, liable to

be dismissed. Hence, the following order:

O R D E R

I) First Appeal No. 254 of 2001 (The Executive

Engineer, Civil Construction Division No.4,

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Maruti S/o

Daulatrao Mundhe and another), First Appeal

No.256 of 2001 (The Executive Engineer, Civil

Construction Division No.4, Maharashtra State

Electricity Board Vs. The State of Maharashtra and

957 FIRST APPEAL 254 OF 2001 ORS.odt

another), and First Appeal No.259 of 2001 (The

Executive Engineer, Civil Construction Division

No.4, Maharashtra State Electricity Board

Vs.Tukaram S/o Shankar Parve and another), are

hereby dismissed. No costs.

II) All the appeals are accordingly disposed of.

III) Pending civil applications stand disposed of.

[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ] ndm