Tulsidas Shamrao Gaikwad vs State Of Mah., Thr. Collector, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9611 Bom

        J-fa1141.10.odt                                                                                                   1/6 


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


                                     FIRST APPEAL No.1141 OF 2010


        Tulsidas s/o. Shamrao Gaikwad,
        Aged about --- years,
        Occupation : Cultivator,
        R/o. Kotha Fattepur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
        Distt. Yavatmal.                                                            :      APPELLANT

                           ...VERSUS...

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

        2.    The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
               Bembla Project, Yavatmal,
               having its office in the New 
               Administrative Bldg., Collectorate,
               Yavatmal.

        3.    The Executive Engineer,
               Bembla Project, Vidarbha Irrigation
               Development Corporation,
               Awdhutwadi, Yavatmal, 
               Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal.                                                :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Smt. Vijaya Thakare , Advocate for the Appellant.
        Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
        Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 14 DECEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal questions the legality and correctness of the

J-fa1141.10.odt 2/6

judgment and order dated 13th February, 2009 rendered in Land

Acquisition Case No.42/2005 by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal.

The appeal has been filed on the ground that the compensation granted

by the Reference Court is inadequate.

2. I have heard Smt. Vijaya Thakre, learned counsel for the

appellant, Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Asstt. Government Pleader for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for

respondent No.3. I have gone through the record of the case including

the impugned judgment and order.

3. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is :

Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper ?

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

whose two pieces of lands bearing survey No.19/2 and 19/3, situated at

Village Rustampur were acquired for submergence of Bembla project vide

Section 4 notification published on 4.2.1999, that the compensation

though enhanced by the Reference Court was inadequate. It must be

noted here that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the

compensation at the rate of Rs.59,072/- per hectare which was enhanced

to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare by the Reference Court while deciding the

application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned

counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court did not

properly appreciate the evidence of similarity of the lands involved in the

J-fa1141.10.odt 3/6

sale instance vide Exh.-53 as well as sale instance dated 19.4.1994. She

submits that the sale instance vide Exh.-53 was of village Kopra and the

sale instance dated 19.4.1994 (unexhibited document) was from village

Kolhi which village was also adjacent to village Rustampur. She submits

that both these sale instances disclosed the value of the lands in the

vicinity to be at Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare. She submits that this value of

the lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired land has been accepted

by this Court in the group of appeals starting with first Appeal

No.1263/2009 Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs.

Manohar s/o. Nanaji Mate and others, decided on 26.7.2012 as correct.

Therefore, according to her even the lands involved in this appeal

deserves to be assessed at the same rate.

5. Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3 however

disagrees. He submits that there are dissimilarities between the land

involved in this appeal and the lands involved in the sale instances relied

upon by the appellant. So, he submits that no interference with the

findings recorded by the Reference Court is called for.

6. Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Asstt. Government Pleader for the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 makes a similar submission as Shri P.B. Patil

learned counsel for respondent No.3.

7. I would have accepted the submission of learned counsel for

the appellant had there been a proved fact that the distance between the

acquired land in the present case and the land involved in the sale

J-fa1141.10.odt 4/6

instances vide Exh.-53 and the one which is dated 19.4.1994 was less

than 1 Km. I would have also accepted those submissions if it was shown

by the appellant that the acquired land which is from village Rustampur

is adjacent to the lands involved in the aforestated sale instances which

are respectively from the villages Kopra and Kolhi. The case of the

appellant, as seen from the evidence available on record, that the

distance between these two lands was about ½ Km. has been specifically

denied by the respondent No.3. Therefore, the burden was cast upon the

appellant to have proved this fact by bringing on record cogent evidence.

The appellant in fact adduced in evidence two maps vide Exhs.-39 and 47

in order to prove the assertion that all these lands were adjacent to each

other and that the distance between them was also not much. But, a

careful perusal of both these maps would show that such is not the truth.

The distance between the acquired land and the land involved in the sale

instance dated 19.4.1994 appears to be great and in any case village

Kolhi where that land was situated was not adjacent to the land acquired

in the present case. These maps show that it were village Fattepur which

was adjacent to the acquired land. These maps also do not show that

village Kopra was adjacent to the acquired land. There is no other

evidence adduced by the appellant to either prove the distance or

proximity or any other similarity of the acquired land with the lands

involved in the sale instance vide Exh.-53 or the sale-deed dated

19.4.1994. Therefore, both these sale instances would not be of much

J-fa1141.10.odt 5/6

relevance in order to determine the true market value of the acquired

lands in the present case. This is what has been held by the Reference

Court and rightly so.

8. After having held so, the Reference Court proceeded to

determine the market value of the acquired land by taking into

consideration all the sale-deeds adduced in evidence, which were both

pre-notification and post notification and then adopting the method of

guesswork, the Reference Court determined the market value of the

acquired land to be at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. The guesswork so done

by the Reference Court is certainly not beyond permissible limits and it is

rooted in the assessment made on the basis of the sale instances of

various lands in the vicinity and the distances between the acquired land

and those lands. Therefore, I find that determination of the market value

of the acquired land in the present case made by the Reference Court is

just and proper and it is representative of the true market value.

9. As regards the judgment dated 26.7.2012 delivered by this

Court in the group of appeals starting with First Appeal No.1263/2009, I

must say that this judgment decides no case involving lands situated at

village Rastumpur and therefore, this judgment would be of no use to the

appellant.

10. In the result, I find that the compensation granted by the

Reference Court at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare is just and

proper. No interference with the impugned judgment and order is called

J-fa1141.10.odt 6/6

for. The point is answered accordingly.

11. The appeal stands dismissed.

JUDGE okMksns