Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Parmeshwar Bhimrao Mundhe on 21 December, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
(Group A of 22 First Appeals)
FIRST APPEAL NO.1858 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Lalitabai w/o. Shrihari Mundhe,
Age: 55 years, Occu.:Agril & H.H.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, TQ. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1859 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
2 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
Parmeshwar s/o. Bhimrao Mundhe,
Age: 45 years, Occu.:Agril & H.H.
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq.Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1860 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Balasaheb s/o. Bhimrao Mundhe,
Age:50 years, Occu.:Agril,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1861 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector),
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
3 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
Suryakant s/o. Bhaurao Mundhe,
Age:40 years, Occu.:Agril,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1862 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Vishnu s/o. Dnyanoba Ghuge,
Age:32 years, Occu.:Agril.
& Service,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1863 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
4 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Janardhan s/o. Murlidhar Holambe,
Age:22 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1864 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Meenabai w/o. Dadarao Alapure,
Age: 42 years, Occu.:Agril & H.H.
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1865 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
5 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Mahadeo s/o. Vithal Mundhe,
Age: 40 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1866 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Amol s/o. Balasaheb Mundhe,
Age: 22 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1867 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
6 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
[Udhav s/o. Vithal Mundhe
Died His L.Rs. As under]
Padminbai w/o. Udhav Mundhe,
Age: 30 years, Occu.:Agril. & H.H.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1868 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Dattatraya s/o. Harishchandra Takras,
Age: 26 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1869 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
7 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Balkishan s/o. Dnyanoba Chilme,
Age: 29 years, Occu.:Agril,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1870 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Dattatraya s/o. Bhaurao Mundhe,
Age: 35 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1871 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
8 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Anant s/o. Bhaurao Mundhe,
Age: 38 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1872 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Deelip s/o. Rangnath Mundhe
Age: 45 years,
2. Amol S/o. Deelip Mundhe,
Age: 19 years,
Both Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondents
(Ori. Claimants)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1873 OF 2016
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
9 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Madhukar s/o. Trimbak Mundhe,
Age: 50 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1874 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Balasaheb s/o. Bhaurao Mundhe,
Age: 30 years, Occu.:Agril,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1875 OF 2016
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
10 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Bhaurao s/o. Mukinda Mundhe,
Age:80 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1876 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Sugriv s/o. Rambhau Nagargoje,
Age: 45 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq.Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
11 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1877 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Vithal s/o. Rama Mundhe,
Age: 60 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1878 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Thakubai Babarao Alapure,
Age:50 years, Occu.:Agril & H.H.
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq.Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
12 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1879 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., (Local Sector)
Division, Latur,
(Group A o
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Lahu s/o. Dadarao Karad,
Age: 29 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
(Group B of 8 First Appeals)
FIRST APPEAL NO.1547 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Uttam s/o. Namdeo Mundhe,
Age:55 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
13 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1548 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Sakhubai w/o. Dnyanoba Ghuge,
Age: 60 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1549 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Dnyanoba s/o. Mukundrao Rakh,
Age:40 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
14 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1550 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Suryakant s/o. Waman Mundhe,
Age: 30 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1551 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Gangadhar Abarao Mundhe,
Age: 50 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
15 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1552 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Lalitabai @ Kawitabai
w/o. Shrihari Mundhe,
Age: 55 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1553 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Vithal s/o. Rama Mundhe,
Age:50 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2017 01:12:52 :::
16 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1554 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.I., Latur,
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, M.I.W. Latur
...Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Parvatibai w/o. Vithal Mundhe,
Age:55 years, Occu.:Agril.,
R/o. Wanjarwadi, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur ...Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
-----
Mr.S.P.Sonpawale and Mr.S.P.Tiwari,AGPs for
Appellant-State in respective matters ;
Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for Respondents-claimants;
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA,J.
RESERVED ON: 13th October,2017
PRONOUNCED ON: 21st December, 2017
JUDGMENT:
1) First Appeal No.1858/2016 to FIRST
APPEAL No.1879/2016 (total 22 appeals) are filed
17 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
by the State against common judgment and order
passed by Ad hoc Additional District Judge-4,
Latur in LAR No.62/2005 to 66/2005, 69/2005,
70/2005, 126/2005, 134/2005, 136/2005, 137/2005
139/2005 to 141/2005, 145/2005 to 147/2005,
150/2005,151/2005,180/2005,220/2005 and 314/2006,
decided on 3rd July, 2007; whereas First Appeal
No.1547/2016 to First Appeal No.1554/2016 (Total
8 appeals) are filed by the State against the
common judgment and order passed by the same Ad
hoc Additional District Judge-4, Latur in LAR No.
67/2005, 68/2005, 71/2005 to 75/2005 and LAR
392/2006 decided on 3rd July, 2007.
2) The 4th Additional Ad hoc District Judge-
4, is herein after referred to as the Reference
Court and the respondents in all these matters
are referred to as the claimants.
3) Since all these matters pertain to the
acquisition made for construction of Vanjarwadi
percolation tank, common arguments were advanced
18 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
in all these matters by learned AGP appearing for
the State and the learned Counsel appearing for
the claimants. I, therefore, deem it appropriate
to decide all these appeals by a common
reasoning.
4) Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to
as the Act) in so far as the lands involved in
First Appeal Nos.1858/2016 to 1879/2016 are
concerned was published in the official gazette
on 3.4.2001; whereas the lands, which are the
subject matters in First Appeal No.1547/2016 to
1554/2016 are concerned, Section 4 notification
in that regard was published on 6th July, 2002.
Award under Section 11 of the Act came to be
published in so far as the first group of the
appeals is concerned on 12.2.2004 and in relation
to the lands involved in the second group of
appeals, same was published on 10th March, 2004.
The Land Acquisition Officer determined the
market value in all these matters for the lands
19 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
falling in group 1 @ Rs.72,200/- per hectare and
for the lands falling in group 2 @ Rs.84,000/-
per hectare and accordingly the amount of
compensation was offered to the claimants.
5) Dissatisfied with the amount of
compensation so offered, the claimants filed the
applications under Section 18 of the Act, seeking
enhancement in the amount of compensation to
Collector, Latur, who in turn, forwarded all said
applications for adjudication the Reference
Court. In the application adjudicated by the
Reference Court, the claimants had claimed the
market value of the acquired lands @ Rs. 5,000/-
per Are. In order to substantiate their claims,
the claimants adduced their own oral evidence and
placed on record certain sale instances. No oral
or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of
the State. The State relied upon the list of the
sale instances considered by the Land Acquisition
Officer. The learned Reference Court, after
having assessed the oral and documentary evidence
20 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
placed on record by the parties, determined the
market value of the acquired lands @ Rs. 2,750/-
per Are and accordingly enhanced the amount of
compensation. The Reference Court also granted
the statutory benefits and interest as envisaged
under the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by,
the State has preferred the present appeals.
6) Shri S.P.Sonpawale and Shri S.P.Tiwari,
learned AGPs, appearing for the State in the
respective matters, assailed the impugned
judgments and Awards on various grounds. The
learned AGP submitted that without any cogent and
sufficient evidence on record, the Reference
Court has unreasonably enhanced the amount of
compensation. The learned AGP further submitted
that the market value of the acquired lands could
not have been determined by the Reference Court
on the basis of the sale instances brought on
record by the claimants since none of the said
sale instances can be said to be of the land
comparable with the acquired lands. The learned
21 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
AGP further submitted that on the contrary, the
Land Acquisition Officer, before making the
award, has physically visited the acquired lands
and has taken into account several sale instances
of the comparable lands occurred in the relevant
period.
7) Learned AGP further submitted that, the
Reference Court has erred in relying upon the
sale instances pertaining to small portion of
lands while determining the market value of the
acquired lands. The learned AGP further
submitted that the sale instances relied upon by
the learned Reference Court were also not from
the same village from where the subject lands
were acquired but were of the adjoining villages.
8) The learned AGP further submitted that
the compensation as was awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer was just and adequate
compensation and the learned Reference Court
could not have caused any interference in the
award so passed. The learned AGP, therefore,
22 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
prayed for setting aside the impugned judgments
and awards and to confirm the awards passed by
the Land Acquisition Officer.
9) The learned AGP further submitted that
in the common judgment and order passed in LAR
No.62/2005 with connected LARs, the learned
Reference Court has wrongly awarded the interest
under Section 34 of the Act from the date of
Section 4 notification. The learned AGP
submitted that in view of the Full Bench Judgment
of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari - 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457,
such interest can be awarded only from the date
of the Award under section 11 of the Act. The
learned AGP submitted that to the said extent,
the impugned awards certainly require to be
modified.
10) Shri V.D.Gunale, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondents - claimants in all
these matters, supported the impugned judgments
23 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
and awards. The learned Counsel submitted that,
in fact, the amount of compensation, as has been
enhanced by the learned Reference Court, is also
not to the satisfaction of the claimants, but the
claimants have under distress accepted the
decision rendered by the Reference Court. The
learned Counsel further submitted that the
claimants had brought on record the sale
instances of the comparable lands and accordingly
the compensation has been determined by the
learned Reference Court. The learned Counsel
submitted that since the Reference Court has not
determined the market value of the acquired lands
unreasonably, no interference is warranted in the
impugned judgments and awards. The learned
Counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
appeals.
11) Learned Counsel Shri Gunale was fair in
submitting that in the common judgments and
Awards wherein the Reference Court has awarded
the interest under Section 34 of the Act from the
24 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
date of Section 4 notification, may be modified
in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court
in the case of Shiva Rangari (cited supra) and
the claimants may not have any objection for such
modification.
12) I have carefully considered the
submissions made by the learned AGP on behalf of
the State and by Shri V.D. Gunale for the
claimants. I have perused both the common
Judgments and Awards which are impugned in the
present appeals and the evidence adduced in the
matters. It is not in dispute that the State did
not adduce any oral evidence nor any sale
instance i.e. certified copy of any such sale
deed was placed on record by the State. As
against it, the claimants adduced their oral
evidence in order to substantiate their claims.
The claimants did also place on record five sale
instances. It has to be stated that in both the
common Judgments and Awards same sale instances
were relied upon by the claimants and the same
25 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
are considered by the Reference Court. In view
of the fact that, there was no oral or
documentary evidence on behalf of the State, the
only option before the Reference Court was to
determine the market value on the basis of the
sale instances brought on record by the claimants
by examining whether they were of the comparable
lands and could have been relied upon for
determining the market value of the acquired
lands.
13) The sale instances which were placed on
record by the claimants are at Exhibits 25 to 29.
The sale instances at Exhibit 25 pertains to the
land Gut No.118 situated at village Davangaon. 5
Ares land was sold by vendor Bhagwat Nagargoje to
Santosh Nagargoje for the consideration of
Rs.23,000/- and the sale deed was registered on
07-09-2000. The aforesaid land was, thus, sold @
Rs.4,600/- per Are.
14) The land which is the subject matter of
26 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
Exhibit 26 was admeasuring 11 Ares out of Gut
No.109 situated at village Davangaon and was sold
by one Shri Baliram Nagargoje to Mahesh
Chintalkar for the price of Rs.33,000/- vide
registered sale deed executed on 01-12-2000. The
said land was thus sold @ Rs.3000/- per Are.
15) Exhibit 27 pertains to sale of 11 Ares
land situated at village Davangaon executed on
13-10-2000 for the consideration of Rs.33,000/-
i.e. @ Rs.3000/- per Are. The land which was the
subject matter of Exhibit 28 is situated at
Bitargaon and was admeasuring 21 Ares. It was
sold by registered sale deed executed on 19-1-
2000 for the value of Rs.60,000/- i.e. @
Rs.2,854/- per Are. The land which was the
subject matter of Exhibit 29 was admeasuring 11
Ares situated at village Bitargaon and was sold
by the registered sale deed executed on 08-1-2001
for the consideration of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the
said land was sold @ Rs.4545/- per Are.
16) Perusal of the impugned Awards shows
27 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
that the Reference Court has disagreed with the
market rate determined by the Land Acquisition
Officer of the acquired lands on various grounds.
As has been observed by the Reference Court,
though there were certain sale instances
available with the Land Acquisition officer, on
the basis of which the market value of the
acquired lands could have been adequately
determined, the Land Acquisition officer has
preferred to determine the market value of the
acquired lands on the basis of the ready reckoner
rates prevailing on the date of issuance of the
notification under Section 4 of the Act.
17) I have gone through the Awards passed by
the Land Acquisition Officer. The Awards reveal
that the Land Acquisition Officer divided the
acquired lands in two groups. It further reveals
that at the relevant time, the ready reckoner
rates of the lands categorized to be included in
Group-A was Rs.72,200/- per hectares, whereas for
the lands falling in category Group-B was Rs.
28 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
84,000/- per hectare. The land Acquisition
Officer, therefore, determined the market value
of the said lands respectively @ Rs.72,200/- per
hectare and Rs. 84,000/- per hectare. The
Reference Court has rightly disagreed with the
Land Acquisition officer. While determining the
market rates, the Reference Court has though
considered the sale instances brought on record
by the claimants, it is discernible that it has
not blindly accepted the said market rates at
which, the concerned agricultural lands, which
were the subject matters of the said sale
instances, were sold. The Reference Court has
carried out some guess work and has determined
the market value of the acquired lands @
Rs.2,750/- per Are.
18) The impugned Awards reveal that though
the claimants had in some matters claimed their
agricultural lands to be perennially irrigated,
the Reference Court, on the basis of the evidence
on record, has rejected the said contention
29 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
observing that though the existence of well as
shown by the claimants in the said lands, no
further evidence was produced by the said
claimants to prove that well water being
perennially used and that cash crops were being
taken in the said lands. Similarly, though in
majority of the matters the claimants had claimed
separate compensation towards the trees, the said
contention has also been rejected by the
Reference Court for lack of sufficient evidence
brought on record by the claimants. It,
therefore, cannot be said that the Reference
Court placed implicit reliance on the evidence
produced by the claimants. On the contrary, what
reveals from the impugned judgments is proper
application of mind by the Reference Court in
determining the market value of the acquired
lands.
19) It was sought to be canvassed by the
learned AGP that the sale instances, which were
considered by the Reference Court were of the
30 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
adjacent village and not of the village from
where the subject lands were acquired. In view
of the settled legal position, the argument so
made by the learned AGP is liable to be turned
down. Moreover, in the award itself it has come
on record and the learned Reference Court has
also reiterated the said fact in the impugned
awards that the village map (Exhibit-54) clearly
shows that Davangaon, Vanjarwadi and Bitargaon
are the villages adjacent to each other and their
boundaries touch to each other. In the
circumstances, the Reference Court was fully
justified in not making any discrimination
between the land owners of village Vanjarwadi to
pay something more and less to the land owners of
village Bitargaon than the price determined of
the lands situated at village Vanjarwadi.
20) Further, if it is the case of the State
that the sale instances, which were considered by
the learned Reference Court were not of
comparable lands, the State has to explain as to
31 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
why it did not adduce the necessary evidence
either by examining the relevant witnesses or at
least by placing on record the certified copies
of the sale instances of such lands, which
according to the State could have been held
comparable to the acquired lands. Admittedly,
the State has not adduced any oral or documentary
evidence.
21) After having considered the entire
evidence on record, it does not appear to me that
the Reference Court has committed any error in
determining the market value of the acquired
lands @ Rs.2,750/- per Are. It has to be further
stated that even otherwise, in view of the recent
decision taken by the Government vide the
Government Resolution No.ladh.kZ&[email protected]@Hkkx&[email protected]&4 fn-
03 uksOgsacj] 2016 with Government Corrigendum dtd.23rd
February, 2017 to the said Government Resolution
issued by Revenue & Forest Department, Government
of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, the State
should not have prosecuted these appeals further
since the market rates of the subject lands,
32 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
determined by the Reference Court are not
exceeding the limit, as prescribed in the said
Government Resolution. As per the said
Government Resolution the State has decided not
to file appeals and if the appeals are already
filed, not to prosecute the said appeals further,
in the cases wherein the market rate as
determined by the Reference Court is not more
than four times of the ready reckoner rates
prevailing of the said land on the date of
issuance of Section 4 notification or on the date
of taking the possession. I reiterate that the
ready reckoner rates of the lands, which are the
subject matter in the present appeals were
respectively Rs.720/- and Rs.840/- per Are. The
market rate determined by the learned Reference
Court to the tune of Rs.2,750/- is thus
definitely within the said limit.
22) There is, however, substance in the
objection raised by the learned AGP that in the
group of 22 appeals, the Reference Court has
awarded interest under Section 34 of the Act from
33 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
the date of Section 4 notification. In view of
the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari, - (cited supra), such interest can only
be paid from the date of award under Section 11
of the Act. As I noted earlier, learned Counsel
Shri Gunale was fair enough in submitting that in
view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court,
referred to above, the impugned Awards are liable
to be modified to that extent. Thus, the
impugned Awards need to be modified only to the
said extent.
23) For the reasons stated above, following
order is passed, -
ORDER
i) First Appeal Nos.1858/2016 to
1879/2016 are partly allowed without any
order as to costs. The Awards impugned
in the said appeals stand modified to
the extent that the interest under
Section 34 of the Act shall be payable
34 FA 1858/2016 & Ors.
on the amount of compensation from the
date of award under section 11 of the
Act. The Awards be modified
accordingly;
ii) First Appeal Nos.1547/2016 to
1554/2016 stand dismissed without any
order as to costs. The Awards be
modified accordingly.,
iii) Pending civil applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
fldr 19.12.2017
