Bombay High Court
Nandu Bandu Rathod (Jadhao) vs State Of Mah Thru Collector, ... on 5 July, 2017
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
fa1110.08+.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1110 OF 2008
Manoj Kisan Jadhao,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1108 OF 2008
Nandu Bandu Rathod (Jadhao),
Aged about 28 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 2
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1109 OF 2008
Subhash Kalu Jadhao,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 3
FIRST APPEAL NO.1111 OF 2008
Subhash Vishnu Rathod,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1112 OF 2008
Digambar Motiram Jadhao,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 4
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1113 OF 2008
Tulshiram Kesho Jadhao,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1128 OF 2008
1] Vijay Kisan Jadhao,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 5
2] Manohar Kisan Jadhao,
Aged about 22 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Mahagaon,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1129 OF 2008
Kisan Chanda Naik
Aged about 60 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 6
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1130 OF 2008
Motiram Keshao Naik,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1131 OF 2008
Sitaram Jairam Jadhao (since deceased
through his legal representatives)
1] Dattu s/o Sitaram Jadhao,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ: Cultivator.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 7
2] Ramesh s/o Sitaram Jadhao,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ: Cultivator.
3] Sau. Gangabai w/o Rohidas Rathod,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Household.
4] Sau. Jamunabai w/o Datta Rathod,
Aged about 27 years,
Occ: Household.
All are residents of Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1132 OF 2008
Pramod Kisan Jadhao,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 8
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2008
Raghunath Kalu Jadhav,
Aged about 34 years,
Occ: Cultivator,
R/o Ghamapur,
Tah. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:05:22 :::
fa1110.08+.J.odt 9
CORAM: DR. (SMT.) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE: th
5 JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] As all these appeals are arising out of one and same
judgment of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad dated
27.08.2007, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2] Brief facts of the appeals are as follows:
Appellants herein are the original claimants whose
lands came to be acquired in Land Acquisition Proceeding
No.6/47/1996-1997, by virtue of notification dated 23.03.1997
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and by
common award dated 19.06.2000. Being not satisfied with the
amount of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer, appellants had earlier approached the Reference Court
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhanced
amounts of compensation in respect of their acquired lands.
The Reference Court, to some extent enhanced the compensation.
However, being not satisfied with the said enhancement, they
have approached before this Court, by filing various appeals under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3] As per the contention of the appellants, their lands
were fertile, having black soil and high potentiality. They used to
take crops like Cotton, Jowar, Tur, Mung, Sugarcane etc. and
some of them had orange, so also, other valuable trees in their
lands. It is their further case that these lands were situated in
village Ghamapur, which is near the other developed villages like
Gulsawangi and Dhanki. Vasant Co-operative Sugar Factory,
Pushpavanti Sugar Factory and Babasheb Naik Spinning Mill were
also adjacent to village Ghamapur. Therefore, these lands were
having great potential and their market price was much higher
than the one, which is awarded by the Reference Court. It is their
contention that none of the material aspect, which has bearing on
the market price of the acquired land, was considered by the Land
Acquisition Officer. Moreover L.A.O. has categorized these lands
in five different categories depending on their land revenue and
awarded different rates of compensation. It is submitted that such
classification or the categorization of the lands, on the basis of
land revenue is totally unjustified. The Reference Court has
however, maintained the same categorization and awarded
marginal increase in the amount of compensation. It is urged that
the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation for
different categories of the land in the range of Rs.16,000/- to
Rs.30,000/-, whereas the Reference Court has enhanced the same
in the range of Rs.42,000/- to Rs.55,000/-. Reference Court has
awarded the meagre amount of Rs.5000/- per hectare to the lands
in all the groups, which had their independent source of irrigation
namely the well. According to learned counsel for the appellants,
considering the fact that for the acquisition of the land, situated at
village Kurali, which is near to the village Ghamapur, the
Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the rate of
Rs.83,000/- per hectare and as the lands of the appellants were
also acquired for the same project at Amdapur, Tah. Umarkhed,
they are also entitled to the same amount of compensation.
4] As against it, submission of learned counsel for the
respondent is that both the Land Acquisition Officer and the
Reference Court has, after properly taking into consideration all
the aspects, including the potentiality and the market value of the
sale instances produced before them, had determined the amount
of compensation, which is just and fair, hence, no interference is
warranted in the impugned judgment and order of the Reference
Court.
5] Hence the only issue arising for my consideration in
these appeals is whether the compensation as enhanced by the
Reference Court is just, adequate and fair?
6] The perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court
goes to reveal that it has maintained the classification of the lands
in five different groups, as was done by the L.A.O. and this
classification was made on the basis of the land revenue of those
lands. Needless to state that the land revenue alone cannot decide
the market value of the land. The market value of the land
depends upon several other factors like its fertility, potentiality,
the location where they are situated, whether they are irrigated or
not etc. The market value of the land also depends upon the
prevailing market rate for which the sale instances are executed
and produced before the Land Acquisition Officer and also before
the Reference Court. Hence, it is now well settled that
classification of lands on the basis of land revenue is not the
correct and proper way to determine the amount of compensation
to be awarded to those lands. Especially in the present case, when
all these lands are situated at the same village and more or less
adjacent to each other or in the same vicinity and they are also
acquired for the same project, then the categorization of these
lands on the basis of the land revenue is totally unwarranted and
unjustified. Therefore, to that extent at the out set itself
interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award of
the Reference Court. As Reference Court has enhanced the
compensation for these various categories of the land in the range
of Rs.42,000/- to Rs.55,000/- per hectare, the highest
compensation, which was awarded at the rate of Rs.55,000/-
needs to be accepted now as base for determining the fair,
adequate and reasonable amount of compensation.
7] In this respect, the Reference Court has considered
various sale instances, the first and foremost being the sale
instance of the land admeasuring 0.40 hectare out of Survey
No.147 of village Narali executed on 31.12.1996 by one Rangrao
Shankarrao Jadhao in favour of Santosh Jadhao for consideration
of Rs.70,000/-.
8] There is one more sale-deed produced by the
appellants herein which pertains to the land admeasuring 0.40 R
out of Survey No.17 of village Jam. The said sale-deed was
executed by Nilkanthrao Kondbarao Pandagale on 26.12.1996 for
consideration of Rs.50,000/- in favour of Audhutrao Uttamrao
Naik.
9] The appellants had also placed on record the copy of
the award dated 30.08.2005 in Land Acquisition Proceeding
No.9/47/1999-2000 of village Amdapur, wherein the land bearing
Gat No.27 and 98 of the said village were acquired for
construction of houses for project affected persons. In the said
Land Acquisition Case No.349/2002, the compensation awarded
by the Reference Court was Rs.1,18,000/- per hectare.
The appellants had also relied on the certified copy of Index-II to
show that the land bearing Survey No.101, area admeasuring 1.62
hectare situated at Kurali was sold by registered sale-deed dated
07.10.2005 for consideration of Rs.1,92,000/-.
10] Then the appellants have also relied upon the award
passed on 19.06.2000 in Land Acquisition Case No.6/47/1996-
1997 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.82 of village
Ghamapur.
11] Thus, it can be seen that all of these sale instances
produced at Exh.30, 31 and 134 are of other villages and there
was not a single sale instance of village Ghamapur produced by
the appellants. The Reference Court has therefore, relied upon the
consolidated statement of sale instances considered by the Land
Acquisition Officer. Those sale instances were of the period five
years prior to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act and of the lands situate at Ghamapur only.
As rightly held by the Reference Court, when sale instances of the
same village were available, the sale instances of other adjoining
villages need not be considered to ascertain the market price of
the acquired lands.
12] If one has regard to those sale instances, which are
quoted by the Reference Court in its judgment in para 23 then it
can be seen that the sale instance at Sr. No.14 is the highest
exemplar. It is of the land bearing Survey No.85 admeasuring 0.40
hectare out of Survey No.85. The land was belonging to one Malo
Bhimrao Gadade and it was sold to Digambar Chunnilal Rathod
on 27.01.1994 for a consideration of Rs.52,500/- at the rate of
Rs.66,250/- per hectare. This sale instance being the highest
exemplar, the Reference Court, in my considered opinion, should
have considered the said sale instance and awarded the
compensation, at least, at the rate of Rs.66,250/- per hectare,
instead of accepting the categorization made by the Land
Acquisition Officer and granting compensation in the range of
Rs.42,000/- to Rs.55,000/-, plus giving additional amount of
Rs.5000/- per hectare to the lands having independent source of
irrigation.
13] In these appeals learned counsel for appellants has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Reference Court in Land
Acquisition Case No.94/2004 dated 13.04.2016. It is in respect of
the land bearing Survey No.65 situated at village Kurali.
The Reference Court has in the said judgment awarded the
compensation at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per hectare. According to
learned counsel for appellants, the respondent had not preferred
any appeal against the said judgment, and therefore that
judgment has attained finality.
14] It is not disputed that the village Kurali and
Ghamapur are situated adjacent to each other and the land
covered in Land Acquisition Case No.94/2004 was also acquired
for the same project. In view thereof, in my considered opinion,
the appellants also become entitled to get the same rate of
compensation that of Rs.83,000/- per hectare.
15] According to learned counsel for appellants as the
compensation at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per hectare was awarded
in Land Acquisition Case No.94/2004 for a dry crop land and as in
this case some of the acquired lands are irrigated lands, these
appellants become entitled to get 1.5 times more for irrigated
land.
16] However, considering that this Court is awarding
substantially a fair rate of Rs.83,000/- per hectare, and as the
appellants whose lands are irrigated i.e. having the well are also
getting additional sum of Rs.5000/- per hectare as awarded by the
Reference Court and also separate compensation for the orange
trees standing therein, it is not necessary to enhance the amount
of compensation at the rate of 1.5 times, but the amount of
Rs.5000/- which is awarded by the Trial Court to the irrigated
land can be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per hectare.
17] The appellants had also claimed compensation
towards the well, pipeline, bore, pump etc. However, the
Reference Court has, in the absence of any independent and
convincing evidence produced on record to that effect, rejected
their claims for enhanced compensation, and I do not find any
reason to interfere in that finding of the Reference Court.
18] As regards the compensation towards the orange
trees, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation
at the rate of Rs.68/- per tree and as the Reference Court found
that the age of those trees was only upto 4 years, the Reference
Court has enhanced it to Rs.100/- per tree only, towards
cultivation charges. However, needless to state that the said
amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court to
the orange trees is very meagre. Even if it is accepted that the
Reference Court has rightly refused to place reliance on the
evidence of the expert valuer examined by the appellants, as it
was not convincing, the Reference Court should have taking note
that some of the orange trees where of the age of four and half
years and some of six years also, therefore, they were on the verge
of fruit bearing, awarded just, fair and reasonable amount of
compensation. Having regard to the evidence on record in respect
of age of the orange trees, in my view the compensation at the
rate of Rs.800/- per tree would be just and reasonable, though the
appellant had claimed the compensation at a much higher and
exorbitant rate.
19] As a result, these appeals are partly allowed.
The impugned judgments and orders of the Reference Court are
modified to the extent that the appellants are held entitled to get
compensation at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per hectare for dry crop
land, whereas in respect of the lands, which are having
independent source of water namely the well, they will be entitled
to get the additional amount of compensation at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per hectare.
20] The appellants by name Kisan Naik, Raghunath
Jadhav, Motiram Naik and Subhash Rathod and Tulshiram Jadhao
are also entitled to get compensation for Orange trees at the rate
of Rs.800/- per tree.
21] Needless to state that the appellants are entitled to
get this enhanced amount of compensation, along with all the
statutory benefits thereon.
22] The appeals stand disposed of as partly allowed, in
above terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
NSN
