Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Prakash Sitaram Surnar on 4 July, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.407 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Latur. ... Appellant.
Versus
Prakash S/o Sitaram Surnar,
Age 35 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/o Rui, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur. ... Respondent.
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.458 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Latur. ... Appellant.
Versus
Motiram S/o Ram Uparwad,
Age 57 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/oRui, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur. ... Respondent.
...
WITH
FIRST APEAL NO.551 OF 2003.
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Latur. ... Appellant.
Versus
1. Baburao S/o Govindrao Hake,
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:51:48 :::
2
Age 66 years,
2. Ratnabai W/o Baburao Hake,
Age 50 years, Occ.Agri.
Both R/o Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.A.M.Phule, A.G.P. for the Appellant.
Mr.M.L.Dharashive, advocate for Respondents
absent.
...
CORAM : V.K.JADHAV,J.
Date : 04.07.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Being aggrieved by the common Judgment
and award passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Latur, dated 4.5.1991 in LAR
No.76/1991 with connected Land Reference
Petitions, the State has preferred three appeals
against the judgment and award passed in LAR
No.76/1991 (Motiram S/o Ram Uparwad Vs. The State
of Maharashtra). LAR No.110/1991 (Prakash S/o
Sitaram Surnar Vs. The State of Maharashtra) and
LAR No.171/1991 (Baburao S/o Govindrao Hake and
another Vs. The State of Maharashtra).
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present
appeals are as follows :
The agricultural land owned and
possessed by the original claimants came to be
acquired by the Government for the purpose of
construction of Upper Mannar Project at village
Rui, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur. Section 4
notification was published on 1.4.1986. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the
compensation for the acquired land at the rate of
Rs.7,200/- (Rupees seven thousand two hundred)
per acre equivalent to Rs.180/- per Are. Being
dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation
awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
the Respondents/original claimants preferred
aforesaid Reference petitions. It has been
contended in those Reference petitions that
village Rui is near to Taluka headquarter
AhmedpCa8651ur and, therefore, all the facilities
are available in the village. The acquired lands
are the best cotton soil fertile and having
depth of black soil of more than 20 ft. It has
been contended that the claimants used to take
double crops and drawing net annual income of
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per acre. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer has not
considered the value of the land and awarded the
compensation on the basis of the land revenue
assessment. The Respondents-original claimants
have claimed the compensation at the rate of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) per acre for
the acquired lands.
The Appellant State has strongly resisted
all the Reference Petitions by filing Written
Statement. It has been contended that the SLAO
has considered all the material aspect and has
awarded just and reasonable compensation. It has
been contended that the claimants are claiming
excessive and exorbitant amount of compensation.
The claimants have adduced oral and
documentary evidence in support of their
contention. The appellant State has not adduced
any evidence. The learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division) by its impugned judgment and award
dated 4.5.1991 partly allowed those Reference
petitions and awarded the compensation at the
enhanced rate of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand) per acre equivalent to Rs.375/- per
Are. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has
preferred these three appeals.
3. Learned A.G.P. submits that though the
Reference Court has discarded the sale instance
Exhs.64 and 66 respectively, awarded the
compensation at the enhanced rate only on the
basis of admissions given by the claimants about
the market value of the agricultural lands
situated in village Rui. The learned A.G.P.
submits that the sale instance Exhs.64 and 66 are
of the adjacent villages and both the sale
instances are post notification sale instances.
The learned Judge of the Reference Court has
observed that even though village Rui is
comparatively a big village, the claimants have
not placed on record the sale instance of village
Rui and accordingly, declined to consider the
aforesaid sale instances Exhs.64 and 66
respectively. The learned A.G.P. submits that
Reference Court has awarded the compensation at
the enhanced rate of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand) per acre without any basis.
4. On careful perusal of the evidence, the
impugned judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court, it appears that the Reference
Court has given weightage to the admissions given
by the claimants in the cross-examination.
Though the claimants have placed their reliance
on the sale instances Exhs.64 and 66
respectively, the claimants themselves have
admitted in the cross-examination that the
agricultural land situated in village Rui sold
previously at Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve
thousand) to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand) per acre. It thus appears that the
claimants have not pressed their claim as per
those sale instances Exhs.64 and 66. Thus,
considering the admissions given by the claimants
in their cross-examination, the Reference Court
has considered the market value of the acquired
land at the rate of Rs.375/- per Are which is
just double of the amount as awarded by the SLAO.
It appears that the Reference Court has awarded
just and reasonable compensation at the enhanced
rate of Rs.375/- per Are. I do not find any
fault in the finding recorded by the Reference
Court. There is no merit in the appeals.
Further the Government has now issued a G.R.
dated 3.11.2016, whereby the Government has
decided not to prefer appeal wherein the
Reference Court has awarded compensation less
than four times as against the compensation
awarded by the SLAO as per the ready reckoner
prevailing on the date of Section 4 notification.
It has also made clear in the said Government
Resolution that in case such compensation is
awarded at the enhanced rate by the Reference
Court, no appeal would be preferred and further
if any appeal is preferred and pending before the
Court, the same shall not be pressed.
5. In view of the discussion above, I do
not find any substance in the appeals, the
appeals are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the
following order :
ORDER
First Appeal No.407/2003 (The State of
Maharashtra Vs. Prakash S/o Sitaram Surnar),
First Appeal No.458/2003 (The State of
Maharashtra Vs. Motiram S/o Ram Uparwad), First
Appeal No.551/2003 (The State of Maharashtra Vs.
Baburao S/o Govindrao Hake and another) are
hereby dismissed.
No costs.
All the appeals are accordingly
disposed of.
(V.K.JADHAV,J.)
asp/office/Fa407.03
