State Of Maharashtra ... vs Shamrao Sonba Mandawkar
2017 Latest Caselaw 5948 Bom

        J-fa143.03.odt                                                                                                     1/6 


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


                                      FIRST APPEAL No.143 OF 2003


        1.    The State of Maharashtra,
               through the Collector, Yavatmal.

        2.    The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-
               Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal.

        3.    The Executive Engineer,
               Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
               Division, Near Sai Satyajyoti Mangal
               Karyalaya, Near Arni Road, Yavatmal.                                  :      APPELLANTS

                           ...VERSUS...

        Shamrao s/o. Sonba Mandawkar,
        Aged about 65 years,
        R/o. Deonala, A/P Jodmoha, Tq. Kalamb,
        Distt. Yavatmal.                                                              :      RESPONDENT


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader, for the Appellants
        Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the Respondent.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 16 AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order

dated 20.10.2001, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Yavatmal, in Land Acquisition Case No.172/1999. This is an admitted

J-fa143.03.odt 2/6

appeal filed in the year 2003 and is now overright for its final disposal

according to law.

2. I have heard Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Asstt. Government

Pleader for the appellants and Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for

the respondent. I have gone through the record of the case and the

paper book including the judgment and order.

3. The only point which arises for my determination is :

Whether the Reference Court has granted just and fair compensation in the present case ?

4. Upon going through the impugned award and the record of

the case, I find that there is no scope in this appeal to reach to a different

conclusion than the one arrived at by the Reference Court.

5. There are sale instances produced in evidence by the

claimant. These sale instances are at Exhs.34 and 35. The evidence of

the claimant as well as the map showing the situation of the acquired

land in the present case show that the acquired land was similar to the

lands involved in the sale instances vide Exhs.34 and 35. Those

sale-deeds were of the period which was of pre-notification time about

two and half years prior to issuance of Section 4 notification. Therefore,

the rise of about 10% per year could also have been taken into

consideration in the present case.

6. Having regard to such nature of evidence, the Reference

J-fa143.03.odt 3/6

Court accepted the sale instances vide Exhs.-34 and 35 as the reference

point for determination of the true market value of the acquired land and

adding further amount at the rate of 10% per year for the period of

about 2 and half years, determined the market value of the land to be at

Rs.75,000/- per hectare. I do not think that such an approach adopted

by the Reference Court could be termed as illegal or arbitrary.

7. In fact, this finding is born out from the record of the case

and, therefore, I do not see any reason to make any interference with the

same.

8. It is further seen that the Reference Court has also awarded

enhanced compensation for the teak wood trees and other trees about

which learned A.G.P. has taken an exception. He submits that the value

of these trees determined by the Reference Court is exorbitant. Learned

counsel for the claimant disagrees and he invites my attention to the

evidence of the Round Forest Officer, PW 3 Madhav Sawwalakhe.

9. So far as number of teak wood trees and other trees is

concerned, there is no dispute. There were 347 teak wood trees and 121

other trees and existence of these numbers of trees has been

acknowledged by the Land Acquisition Officer as well, if one refers to the

numbers mentioned in his award. The dispute is about valuation of

these trees carried out by the Reference Court. The Reference Court has

found value of each teak trees to be at Rs.500/- and the value of the

J-fa143.03.odt 4/6

other trees as of Rs.150/-. Such determination of the valuation of these

trees by the Reference Court is completely based upon the appreciation

of the evidence of PW 3 Madhav Sawwalakhe and the report submitted

by his office to his superior as per Exh.-27. Then, there is also a report of

the Agriculture Officer vide Exh.-24, which throws some light upon the

factors relevant for determination of the value of the trees. When the

evidence of PW 3 Madhav Sawwalakhe and the documentary evidence,

particularly the reports at Exhs.-24 and 27 are taken into consideration,

one would find that the value of the teak trees and the value of the other

trees could not have been assessed to be more than Rs.500/- and

Rs.150/- or less than these amounts respectively. As such, I find that the

valuation of the trees carried out by the Reference Court is also borne out

from the evidence available on record and there is no scope for making

any interference with the findings recorded in this regard by the

Reference Court.

10. In view of above, I find that on the substantive challenge

raised in this appeal by the appellant, the appeal deserves no

consideration and needs to be dismissed. However, the appeal would

require some consideration only on the limited aspect of what could be

seen as manifest error committed by the Reference Court while

delivering operative portion of the impugned award.

11. In the operative portion of the impugned award, the

J-fa143.03.odt 5/6

Reference Court has confused about grant of additional component at

the rate of 12% p.a. under the provision of Section 23(1)(A) of the Land

Acquisition Act and has committed a similar confusion while granting

interest at the rate of 9% p.a. under the provision of Section 28 of the

Land Acquisition Act. This confusion needs to be removed by modifying

suitably the operative portion of the impugned award.

12. In the result, the substantive challenge made in the appeal

stands dismissed and the appeal is partly allowed only on the limited

aspects of grant of additional component under Section 23(1)(A) and

grant of interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

13. It is directed that the appellants shall pay 12% p.a. as

additional component on the enhanced compensation amount from the

date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e.

13.8.1998 to the date of the award of the Collector i.e. 7.9.1999.

14. It is further directed that the appellants shall pay to the

claimant interest on the enhanced compensation amount at the rate of

9% p.a. for a period of one year from the date of award or to be specific

from 7.9.1999 to 6.9.2000 and thereafter shall pay such interest at the

rate of 15% p.a. from 7.9.2000 to the actual realization of the enhanced

compensation amount.

15. The impugned award stands modified in the above terms.

16. The appellants are at liberty to recover with interest from the

J-fa143.03.odt 6/6

claimant any amount which has been paid in excess of the amount

granted under this Order, subject to such claim, if made, being verified

for its correctness by the executing Court after giving due opportunity of

hearing to the claimant.

JUDGE okMksns