State Of Maharashtra vs Vilas Dattatraya Kulkarni
2017 Latest Caselaw 1872 Bom

                                   1                      FA 442.2002.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2002

             The State of Maharashtra.                ..Appellant..

             VERSUS

             Shri Vilas Dattatraya Kulkarni,
             Special Power of Attorney Dattatraya
             Vasudeo Kulkarni, age 60 yrs,
             Occ. Farmer, R/o Chinchkhede BK,,
             Tq. Edlabad, Dist. Jalgaon.      ...Respondent...
                                              (Orig petitioners)

                                  WITH 
                               FA/443/2002 

             The State of Maharashtra.                ..Appellant..

             VERSUS

         Shri Kumar Dattatraya Kulkarni,
         Special Power of Attorney Dattatraya
         Vasudeo Kulkarni, age 60 yrs,
         Occ. Farmer, R/o Chinchkheda (Bk),
         Tq. Edlabad, Dist. Jalgaon.         ...Respondent...
                                            (orig petitioners)
                               ...
               AGP for Appellants : Mr R B Bagul  
     Advocate for Respondents : Mr. L V Sangit h/f V J Dixit 
                               ...
                   CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.

Dated: April 20, 2017 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and

Award dated 11.4.2000 passed in L.A.R.Nos.391/2000

2 FA 442.2002.odt

and connected LAR No.390/2000 by 2nd Jt. Civil Judge,

S.D., Jalgaon, the Respondent-State has preferred this

appeal.

2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeals are

as follows :-

a] The respondent is the owner in possession of the

acquired land situated at village Chinchkhede Tq.

Edalbad, Dist. Jalgaon and the same was acquired by

the Government for the purpose of re-settlement of

Project Affected Persons of the same village due to

Hatnoor Dam. The Notification under section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act was published on 7.7.1983 and the

SLAO has awarded the compensation to the acquired

lands @ Rs.15,000/- per Hectare by treating the

acquired land in LAR No.391/2000 as Bagayat Group 2

and Rs.16,000/- per hectare by treating the land in LAR

No.390/2000 as Jirayat. Being dissatisfied with the

inadequate compensation awarded by the Reference

Court, the respondents-claimants preferred aforesaid

land reference petitions. It has been contended in the

said reference petitions that the S.L.A.O. has not

3 FA 442.2002.odt

considered the prevailing market price of the

agricultural lands of the vicinity and as such awarded

gross in-adequate compensation. It has also been

contended that, the S.L.A.O. has fixed the market price

of the respective lands by dividing them into different

classes without any base.

b] The appellant-State has strongly resisted the

reference petitions by filing written statement. It has

been contended that the SLAO has considered the

location of the acquired lands and also taken into

consideration other factors such as market price of the

lands, revenue assessment, and the SLAO has awarded

just and reasonable compensation. No interference is

required. There is no substance in the reference

petitions. The same are liable to be rejected.

c] The claimants have adduced oral and

documentary evidence in support of their contentions.

Respondent State has not adduced any evidence. The

2nd Jt. Civil Judge S.D., Jalgaon by its impugned

judgment and award dated 11.4.2000 awarded the

4 FA 442.2002.odt

compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.27,000/- per

Hectare for Jirayat land and double the amount for

Bagayat land. Being aggrieved by the same, the State

has preferred these two appeals.

3. The learned AGP submits that, the Reference

Court has awarded exorbitant amount of compensation

at the enhanced rate. The learned AGP submits that as

per the contents of the sale instance Exh.12, father of

the applicant sold his land for marriage of his daughter,

however, the claimants have failed to adduce any

evidence in that regard. The learned AGP submits that,

the Reference Court has considered the said sale

instance without any further evidence. The learned AGP

submits that, even though, said sale instance Exh.12 is

prior to the notification published under section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, the villagers came to know about

the acquisition of the land from the village for the re-

settlement of the Project affected persons and as such,

land sold by the father of the claimant's under sale

instance Exh.12 was not a bonafide and genuine

transaction. However, Reference Court has not

5 FA 442.2002.odt

considered this material aspect. Furthermore, the

Reference Court has also awarded compensation to the

house properties at exorbitant rate.

4. The learned counsel for respondent-claimant

submits that the Reference Court has rightly placed

reliance on the sale instance Exh.12 and as per the

contents of the sale instance Exh.12, if, the land under

sale instance was sold for marriage of the sister of the

claimant, then, certainly, the land under sale instance

would have fetch more price, if, the same would have

been sold without any necessity. The father of the

claimant, one year prior to the notification published

under section 4 in respect of the acquired land sold

major portion of the land gat no.113/1A admeasuring

2H 42R for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-. Reference

Court has rightly held that it is a bonafide and genuine

transaction. The S.L.A.O. as well as reference Court has

rightly treated the acquired land which is a subject

matter of the LAR No.390/2000 as a Bagayat Land. The

SLAO has awarded compensation of Rs.65,000/- for the

house property and reference Court has enhanced said

6 FA 442.2002.odt

compensation by adding Rs.10,000/-only. Thus, there

is no substance in the appeals and both the appeals are

liable to be dismissed.

5. On careful perusal of the evidence and judgment

and Award passed by the Reference Court, it appears

that, the Reference Court has relied upon the sale deed

exh.12. On perusal of the sale instance exh.12, it

appears that, the father of the claimant sold part of the

acquired land gat no.113/1A admeasuring 2H 42R for a

consideration of Rs.60,000/-. The learned Judge of the

Reference Court has rightly held that said sale instance

is genuine and bonafide transaction. There is no

evidence on record to draw inference that the villagers

came to know about the acquisition proceedings prior to

publication of section 4 notification in respect of the

acquired lands. It is not the case that, the possession of

the acquired land was taken by negotiations prior to

publication of section 4 notification and as such the

villagers came to know about the acquisition prior to

section 4 notification. Father of the claimant sold part

of the acquired land gat no.113/1a admeasuring 2H 42R

7 FA 442.2002.odt

for valuable consideration of Rs.60,000/- and as such,

the market rate of the lands in the said vicinity comes to

Rs.24,793/- Per Hectare. The learned Judge of the

Reference Court has rightly considered escalation for

one year and fixed the market price of the acquired land

at Rs.27,000/- per Hectare. I do not find any fault in

the impugned judgment and award.

6. So far as valuation of the house property is

concerned, considering the life of the house, the

Reference Court has rightly awarded compensation of

Rs.10,000/- more compared to the compensation

awarded by the S.L.A.O. to the house property. There is

no substance in both the appeals. Both the appeals are

thus liable to be dismissed. Hence, following order.

O R D E R

I. First Appeal Nos. 442/2002 and 443/2002 are hereby dismissed with costs.

II. First Appeals are accordingly disposed of.

III. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.

                                                     ( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
     aaa/-                                 ....