Prashram Vithoba Nagre, Buldhana vs The State Of Mah. Thr. The Special ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5936 Bom

                                              1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No. 124 of 2009

Appellant              :          Sangita Govindrao Dukare, aged Major,

                                  Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Shivni Armal,

                                  Tahsil Deolgaon Raja, Dist. Buldana

                                  versus

Respondents            :          The State of Maharashtra, through the 

                                  Special Land Acquisition Officer, Buldhana



Shri S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant 

Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent 

                                  ------

First Appeal No. 126 of 2009

Appellant : Parashram Vithoba Nagre, aged about 54

years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Shivni

Armal, Tahsil Deolgaon Raja, District

Buldhana

versus

Respondents : 1) The State of Maharashtra, through the

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Collector

Office, Buldhana

2) The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation

Division, Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana

Shri S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant

Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 14th August 2017

Oral Judgment

1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment after hearing them together, for the reason that the appellants

have relied upon the same sale instance vide index entry no. II dated

26.9.1989 in order to prove their claim for enhanced compensation in

respect of their respective lands acquired for the purpose of Chikhli Small

Irrigation Project covered by one and the same notification.

2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellants and learned

Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents and on going

through the record of the case, following point arises for my

determination:

Whether the respective cases of the appellant deserve to be

remitted back to the Reference Court for deciding them afresh ?

3. It is seen from the record that the Reference Court did not

place any reliance upon the sale instance dated 26.9.1989 vide index

entry no. II and it could not find sufficient material to make comparison

of the acquired land with the land involved in the sale instance. In fact,

what was produced by these appellants, was only a sheet containing index

entry no. II in respect of sale instance dated 26.9.1989 which made a

reference to existence of two wells on the land covered by the sale

instance which was admeasuring 20 R and which fetched a consideration

of Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. This sale instance vide Index No. II was

also relied upon by other claimants who had filed three appeals viz. FA

No. 858 of 2008; FA No. 854 of 2008 and FA No. 861 of 2008 wherein

the Reference Court similarly discarded the said sale instance. While

deciding those three appeals vide common judgment delivered on 25 th

May 2017, this Court in paragraph 18 observed thus :

"18. The appellants before this Court are struggling for

receiving just compensation for their acquired lands since

long. Material produced by them demonstrates that they are

entitled to some increase. Reference Court has accordingly

granted it to them. However, whether that increase is just or

not, cannot be looked into at this stage for want of

completed document of sale deed i.e. sale obtained by P. W.

Pundlik. I am, therefore, inclined to give an opportunity to

appellants to produce that document on record. If the said

document comes on record, recitals therein can definitely

help the Reference Court in finding out why rate of Rs.

1000/- per R or Rs. 1 lakh per hectare was paid by Pundlik."

4. The facts discussed earlier would show that even these two

appeals are covered by the judgment of this Court delivered in afore-

stated group of appeals on 25th May 2017 and, therefore, even these two

appeals would deserve their remittance to the Reference Court for

decision afresh in their respective Reference Applications, in accordance

with law. The point is answered as in the affirmative.

5. In the result, both these appeals are allowed. The impugned

judgment and order are quashed and set aside. The cases of the

appellants are remitted back to the Reference Court for decisions afresh

on their respective Reference Applications, in accordance with law. The

Reference Court shall finally dispose of these cases in accordance with law

at the earliest and in any case within nine months from the date of receipt

of this order by it. Both sides shall be at liberty to adduce additional

evidence in the matter. Parties to bear their own costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi