Vinaykumar Maniram Chavan vs State Of Maha Thr Collector And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5517 Bom

0308 FA  602/2006                                              1                                        Judgment




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 602/2006 


Vinaykumar Maniram Chavan,
Aged about 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Dapori, Tq. Dapori, 
Distt. Ratnagiri,
Permanent R/o. At Post - Malsoor,
Tq. Patur, Distt. Akola.                                                            APPELLANT

                                             .....VERSUS.....

1]        State of Maharashtra,
          Through the Collector, Akola.

2]        The Executive Engineer,
          Minor Irrigation Div. No.2,
          Akola.                                                                     RESPONDE NTS


Shri A.M. Ghare, for appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutake, AGP for respondents.


                 CORAM  : DR. SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

                  DATE     : AUGUST 03, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT :  

This appeal is preferred by the original claimant

challenging the judgment and award passed by the 3 rd ad-hoc

0308 FA 602/2006 2 Judgment

Additional District Judge, Akola in L.A.C. No. 147/1993 on

23/12/2005, being aggrieved by the inadequate amount of

compensation awarded by the reference court.

2] Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows :

By virtue of Notification, under section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, "Act") issued on 10/04/1991, the

land bearing survey No.88/1-B admeasuring 2 H 02 R belonging to

the appellant, came to be acquired by the respondents for

construction of Vishwamitra Project. This Notification u/s.4 was

followed by the Notifications issued under section 6 and 9 of the Act

and ultimately by the award passed on 30/04/1993. As per the

award, the compensation granted to the appellant was at the rate of

Rs.8,000/- per hector. However according to appellant, the actual

price of the said land was Rs.50,000/- per Acre as it was his

contention that his land was irrigated by well water. It was having

black soil and good fertility.

3] Hence being aggrieved by the meager amount of

compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O., the appellant approached

0308 FA 602/2006 3 Judgment

the Reference Court u/s.18 of the Act seeking enhanced amount of

compensation for the land, well and trees therein.

4] This petition came to be resisted by the respondents

vide their written statement at Exh.14, contending inter alia that

the LAO has, after considering all the relevant factors, determined

the market price of the acquired land and the trees and the well

therein. Hence, no interference is warranted in the same.

5] On these respective pleadings of the parties, the

reference court was pleased to frame the necessary issues at Exh.15.

In support of his case, appellant examined his power of attorney

holder and placed on record various documentary evidence.

6] In the light of this evidence and taking into

consideration the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the

appellant on the compensation awarded by this court at the rate of

Rs.15,000/- per acre in respect of the land belonging to Nemichand

Choudhari, which was acquired for the same Project, vide Reference

Case No. 30/14/1998-99, the reference court added 5% increase

0308 FA 602/2006 4 Judgment

thereof and enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.37,500/-

per hector. The Reference Court also enhanced the compensation

awarded towards various trees, however was pleased to reject the

claim for compensation for the well.

7] This judgment of the Reference Court is challenged in

this appeal by learned counsel for appellant, by submitting that the

enhancement awarded by the Reference Court is very meager,

especially considering that the Reference Court has granted only 5%

increase on the purchase price awarded in the case of Nemichand

Choudhari. It is urged that, the increase should have been at the

rate of 10%, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its various

judgments. Even as regards the compensation awarded for the trees,

it was submitted that the market price determined by the reference

court is not proper and correct.

8] Per contra, learned AGP has pointed out that the

enhancement awarded by the reference court is much higher from

Rs.8,000/- per hector to Rs.37,500/- per hector, and therefore,

there is no need to further enhance the same. Having regard to the

0308 FA 602/2006 5 Judgment

fact that the land of Nemichand Choudhari was acquired as per the

Notification issued in the year 1998-99 and there was only

difference of one year to the acquisition of land of the appellant, it

is submitted that Reference Court has rightly awarded the increase

of 5% on purchase price.

9] In the light of these rival submissions advanced by

learned counsel for both the parties, the only point which arises for

my determination is whether the enhancement of the compensation

granted by the Reference Court is just, legal, adequate and fair?

10] In this respect, if one has regard to the submissions

advanced by learned counsel for appellant before the Reference

Court and which are found reflected in para no.9 of its judgment, it

can be seen that the reliance was placed on the compensation

awarded in the case of Nemichand Choudhari in L.A.C. No. 51/1990

decided on 04/10/1991, wherein the compensation was enhanced

to Rs.15,000/- per acre and the said enhancement was confirmed by

this court by dismissing summarily F.A. No.219/1991, preferred by

Nemichand Choudhari, on 04/10/1991. The Reference Court has

0308 FA 602/2006 6 Judgment

accordingly accepted the market value as fixed in the case of

Nemichand and held the appellant entitled to get compensation at

the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre.

11] Further submission advanced before the Reference

Court by learned counsel for appellant was that the land of

Nemichand was acquired in the year 1988-89. Hence there should

be increase in the market value in subsequent award by 5%

escalation. The said argument was also accepted by the Reference

Court and 5% escalation was also granted.

12] Now, however learned counsel for appellant has, by

placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Delhi Development Authority -Vs- Baliram Sharma and

others, (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 533, submitted that

escalation should have been 10%. By pointing out to para no.7 of

the said judgment, it is submitted that in the said case, also the

Notification under section 4(1A) of the Act was issued on

24/11/1981, whereas earlier Notification was dated 17/11/1980

and hence though there was only a marginal difference of one year

0308 FA 602/2006 7 Judgment

between two Notifications, the Hon'ble Apex Court has thought it

just and appropriate to give 10% increase in the market value in

respect of the said land.

13] Learned counsel for appellant has also placed reliance

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Revenue

Divisional Officer - cum - Land Acquisition Officer -Vs- Shaik

Azam Saheb and others, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 395, to

submit that in this case also the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to

grant 10% escalation per year. According to learned counsel for

appellant, therefore, in this case also Reference Court should have

granted 10% escalation per year.

14] However, in my considered opinion, there is no such

rule of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in every case

escalation should be at the rate of 10% in the market price. As is

rightly submitted by learned counsel for appellant himself that,

higher the gap between the two Notifications, higher the escalation.

Here in the case it is pertinent to note that land of Nemichand was

acquired vide Reference Case No. 13/47/1988-89, whereas the land

0308 FA 602/2006 8 Judgment

of the appellant was acquired in Reference Case No. 19/47/1990-

91. Therefore, there is hardly a gap of one year only, between two

Notifications, and in such situation, escalation granted at the rate of

5% cannot be called as inadequate, so as to warrant interference

therein, especially when such escalation is granted on the basis of

submission of learned counsel for appellant before the Reference

Court and that too on the basis of the same case law of Delhi

Development Authority -Vs- Baliram Sharma, which is cited in

this appeal also. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no

interference is warranted in the impugned award of the reference

court, as regards the market price of the acquired land, especially

when the enhancement granted is more than four times the amount

awarded by the S.L.A.O..

15] It is then next submitted that the Reference Court has

not awarded any enhancement in the amount of compensation for

the well. However in this respect also, as S.L.A.O. has awarded the

amount of Rs.51,900/- which was awarded to the occupants of the

other lands, no interference is warranted on that score also.

 0308 FA  602/2006                                              9                                        Judgment



16]                  As  regards   the   compensation   for   the   various   trees,   it

must be noted that the Reference Court has considered the fact that

the lemon trees were just the saplings as they were newly planted

they were not fruit bearing trees. This fact was found from the

perusal of 7/12 extracts of the relevant years. The Reference Court

has also considered that Pomegranate trees were also seedling. The

Reference Court has further considered difference in the number of

trees in joint measurement report and the number of trees claimed

by the appellant and thereafter reasonably enhanced the

compensation for these various trees and awarded the fair amount

of compensation for the same also.

17] Thus, if one reads the entire judgment of the Reference

Court which granted the compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/-

per Acre with 5% increase in the market value from the date of

Notification and the amount of Rs.51,900/- towards the well and

Rs.1,72,700/- towards the trees, then in no way it can be said that

compensation amount needs to be enhanced further, it is neither

inadequate or not unfair.

 0308 FA  602/2006                                             10                                        Judgment




18]                 Appeal,   therefore   holds   no   merits.   Hence   stands

dismissed.




                                                                      JUDGE

Yenurkar