Bombay High Court
Superintendent Of Post Offices, ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 20 April, 2017
Bench: N.W. Sambre
Judgment 1 fa402.05(j).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.402/2005
Superintendent of Post Office, ...APPELLANT
Yavatmal, Division Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
--Versus ---
1. State of Maharashtra, through ...RESPONDENTS
Collector, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Darwha,
District Yavatmal.
3. Keshavrao Devrao Patil,
aged about 78 years, Occ. Cultivator,
R/o Digras, District Yavatmal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. R.S.Sundaram, Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.D.Sonak, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
None appears for respondent no.3 though served.
CORAM : N.W.SAMBRE,J.
DATED : 20.04.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Acquiring Body whereby 11 R 19 Meters
i.e. 2044 Sq. feet land at Digras was acquired for the construction of
Post Office building and staff quarters. The Notification under Section
4 came to be published on 25.05.1992 and the Land Acquisition Officer
Judgment 2 fa402.05(j).odt
awarded compensation of Rs.1,66,000/- pursuant to award dated
24.03.1995.
2. The claim for enhancement of compensation was moved by
the respondent no.3 which was allowed by the learned reference Court
vide its judgment and order dated 10.03.2005 enhancing the
compensation at Rs.150/- per sq. feet i.e. total enhanced compensation
of Rs.1,50,750/- and it was directed that an amount of Rs.7,807/- be
deducted therefrom.
3. Shri Sundaram, learned counsel for the appeallant would
urge that the learned reference court has failed to consider the fact that
about 70 years back the land was not converted to non-agricultural use
and which was a Nazul property. He would then urge that this land of
the claimant is not that of a co-owner but only of a possessor. Reliance
placed on sale instances in the year from 1989 to 1993 was without
any basis and as such, sought the quashing of the enhancement of
award.
4. None appears for the respondent no.3-claimant, whereas
Shri A.D.Sonak, learned AGP appears for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Judgment 3 fa402.05(j).odt
5. It is required to be noticed from the material available on
record; particularly, the depositions of the claimants namely Keshavrao,
Jagannath, Kishore Sarode, S. P. Aade that the claimant has established
his claim for enhanced compensation. The claimant in his deposition
has brought on record population of Digras town, availability of various
institutions and public facilities. He has also placed on record the
judgment in case of one Nirmalabai Ade, Exh. 21, whereby the
reference Court enhanced compensation at Rs.100/- per sq. feet and
the sale instances at the behest of Vatsalabai in favour of one Kishore
on October 13, 1992 for a consideration of Rs.48,000/- for 400 sq. feet
area vide Exh. 22. Another sale deed dated 09.09.1992, Exh. 23, of
one Mohan Chavan and Exh. 24 of one Bajirao Dudhe, Exh. 25 of
Ramesh Pawar, Exh. 26 of Jagannath Sawarkar. Nothing adverse could
be noticed from the cross examination of the said witnesses. The sale
deed which is relied upon was duly proved by examining the sellers -
Jagannath, Kishore and S.P.Ade.
6. The award of enhanced compensation by the reference
Court is based on substantial material in the form of evidence brought
on record. The claim of the appellant that since the respondent no.3
land owner was having only lease hold rights and not as land owner,
Judgment 4 fa402.05(j).odt
will be hardly of any consequence, as the law on the said issue is well
settled and even the leaseholder is also entitled for compensation.
7. In the aforesaid backdrop, no case is made out for
interference. The appeal fails and it is dismissed as such. No costs.
JUDGE
J.Andurkar..
