Tukaram Anna Akat vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6635 Bom

                                       1       fa2650.17

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


                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2650 OF 2017


Tukaram s/o Anna Akat,
age 60 years, occ. Agriculture,
R/o Satuna (Khurd), Tq. Partur,
District Jalna                                    ... Appellant
                                                  Orig. Claimant


                 VERSUS


1] The State of Maharashtra,
    through Collector, Jalna,
    District Jalna,

2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
    (L.K.S.) Jalna,
    Tq. And Dist. Jalna,
3] The Executive Engineer, 
    Lowar Dudhana Project, Sailu,
    Jalna Division, Jalna,
    Motibag, Jalna, Dist. Jalna. ... Respondents 

                       .....
Mr. Kailas B. Jadhav, advocate for the appellant
Mr. S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2
Mr. V.C.Solshe, advocate for respondent no.3
                       .....


                                  CORAM : K.L.WADANE, J.

      
                               Reserved On        : 23.08.2017
                               Pronouncement on   : 31.08.2017




::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2017 01:30:57 :::
                                    2         fa2650.17

J U D G M E N T  :

Heard Mr. K.B.Jadhav, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. Admit.

Mr. S.S.Dande, learned A.G.P. for

respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. V.C.Solshe,

learned counsel for respondent no.3 waive service

of notice on admission.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for

the parties, the appeal is heard finally at the

admission stage.

4. The present appeal is filed by the

original claimant for enhancement in the amount of

compensation awarded to him in Land Acquisition

Reference No. 200 of 2000 by the learned District

Judge-3, Jalna on 29.11.2008.

5. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in

brief are, Land owned by the appellant bearing Gut

3 fa2650.17

No. 144, situated at village Satona (Khurd),

Taluka Partur, District Jalna to the extent of 92

Ares was acquired for Nimna Dudhana Project.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was

published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on

6.4.1995. The award was passed on 21.12.1998.

6. The present Reference was sent before the

Reference Court by the Collector, Jalna for

determination of market value of the acquired land

of the appellant on the date of Section 4

notification from village Satona Khurd, Taluka

Partur, District Jalna.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant

contended that the Special Land Acquisition

Officer has not given proper opportunity to the

appellant to put up his case. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value of

the acquired land ranging between Rs.295/- and

Rs.348/- per Are for dry land. The Special Land

4 fa2650.17

Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.25,689/- as

total compensation to the appellant. The

appellant has withdrawn the amount of compensation

under protest.

8. Being aggrieved by the amount of

compensation awarded by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer, the appellant preferred

Application under Section 18 of the Act to the

Collector, Jalna, who forwarded it for

adjudication to the District Judge, Jalna.

9. The Reference Court, after having assessed

the oral and documentary evidence on record before

it, determined the market value @ Rs.1,200/- per

Are for 0.78 Are dry land and Rs.60/- per Are for

0.14 Are Potkharab land. Thus the amount of

compensation awarded by the Reference Court is

Rs.93,600/- for dry land and Rs.840/- for

potkharab land i.e. total Rs.94,440/-.

10. The present appeal is filed by the

5 fa2650.17

appellant original claimant seeking enhancement in

the amount of compensation awarded by the

Reference Court. The appellant has claimed

compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per Are for dry land.

11. I have heard the arguments of both the

learned counsel for the parties and perused the

oral and documentary evidence produced on record

with the help of record and proceedings.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that the Reference Court has not

properly appreciated the sale instances brought on

record by the appellant. The award under challenge

is erroneous and is passed without proper

appreciation of evidence on record. The

enhancement awarded by the Reference Court is

grossly inadequate and not in conformity with the

market price prevailing on the date of publication

of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The

documents on record have not been considered by

the Reference Court. Therefore, the appellant is

6 fa2650.17

entitled for more compensation i.e. Rs.2,000/- per

Are for dry land, on the basis of judgment and

award dated 9.12.2011 passed in Land Acquisition

Reference No. 44 of 2010 by considering one single

unit.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellant has relied upon the judgment delivered

by this Court (Coram : P.R.Bora, J.) on 17.7.2017

in First Appeal No. 1779 of 2012 and group of

appeals and submitted that in Land Acquisition

Reference No. 59 of 2002 arising out of the same

acquisition proceedings and the same notification,

the Reference Court has awarded the compensation @

Rs.1,500/- per Are for dry land. It is further

contended that the said judgment has not been

challenged by the acquiring body or by the State

and, therefore, the appellant in the present

appeal is entitled to receive compensation at par

with the compensation awarded by the Reference

Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 59 of

2002. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for

7 fa2650.17

allowing the appeal by enhancing amount of

compensation to Rs.2,500/- per Are.

14. Learned counsel appearing for respondents

opposed the enhancement in compensation amount.

They have contended that the Reference Court has

considered the oral and documentary evidence on

record as well as documents on record properly and

has arrived at right conclusion while granting

compensation to the appellant and hence, no

interference is called for in the judgment under

challenge and as such the impugned award is final

and have prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

15. On careful consideration of the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for

the respective parties, it is not in dispute that

the land which is subject matter of the present

appeal was acquired for Nimna Dudhana Project.

The lands were acquired for the said project from

22 different villages. From the evidence on

record it can be believed that all these villages

8 fa2650.17

are adjacent to each other and are situated in

Circle.

16. Having considered the above position and

after considering the fact that in companion

appeal, this Court has determined the market value

of acquired lands from villages Devala, Kedar

Wakadi and Rani Wahegaon, the same criterion needs

to be applied for determining the market value of

the land involved in the present appeal. As

such, there is no reason to take different view

than the one taken by this Court in the judgment

(cited supra) and hence, the amount of

compensation needs to be enhanced.

17. It is not disputed that the land involved

in the present appeal is non-irrigated land. The

appellant is, therefore, entitled to receive

compensation @ Rs.1,500/- per Are for his non-

irrigated land and @ Rs.750/- per Are for

Potkharab land.

9 fa2650.17

18. Hence, I pass the following order.

(i) Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The appellant is entitled for

compensation @ Rs.1,500/- per Are for his

0.78 Are non-irrigated land i.e.

Rs.1,17,000/- and @ Rs.750/- per Are for

his 0.14 Are Potkharab land i.e.

Rs.10,500/-, Total Rs.1,27,500/-. The

Reference Court granted total compensation

of Rs.94,440/- and the Special Land

Acquisition Officer had granted

compensation of Rs. 25,689/-. The

Reference Court held the appellant

entitled for compensation of Rs. 68,751/-.

Thus the appellant is entitled to receive

enhanced amount compensation of

Rs.1,17,000/- minus Rs.68,751/- which

comes to Rs.48,249/-.

(iii) The appellant is also entitled

for statutory benefits and interest in

accordance with law.

(K.L.WADANE, J.)

dbm