Bombay High Court
Nagnath Rama Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 July, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.:47 OF 2003
Kisan S/o Narayanrao Bhujbal,
Age 51 yrs, Occu. Agri.
R/o Bhosa, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector Latur. ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Respondent)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.:48 OF 2003
1. Madhukar S/o Tukaram Bhujbal,
Age 31 yrs, Occu. Agri.
R/o Bhosa, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
2. Bhaskar S/o Tukaram Bhujbal,
Age 33 yrs, Occu. Agri.
R/o Bhosa, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANTS
(Ori. Claimants)
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector Latur. ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Respondent)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.:49 OF 2003
Bajirao S/o Narayanrao Bhujbal,
Age 53 yrs, Occu. Agri.
R/o Bhosa, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
V E R S U S
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:14:51 :::
2
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector Latur. ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Respondent)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.:50 OF 2003
Pandit S/o Tatyarao Bhapkar,
Age 54 yrs, Occu. Agri.
R/o Bhosa, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector Latur. ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Respondent)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.:51 OF 2003
Laxman S/o Rama Chavan,
Age 41 yrs, Occu. Agri.
R/o Bhosa, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector Latur. ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Respondent)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.:52 OF 2003
Nagnath S/o Rama Chavan,
Age 46 yrs, Occu. Agri.
R/o Bhosa, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
V E R S U S
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:14:51 :::
3
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector Latur. ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Respondent)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.:57 OF 2003
Rajaram S/o. Rama Chavan,
Age 51 yrs, Occu. Agri.
R/o Bhosa, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector Latur. ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Respondent)
...
Mr. V. V. Ingale, h/f Mr. M. S. Patil Almalekar, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. A. M. Phule, A.G.P. for Respondent / State.
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 06th July, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award
dated 14th December, 2001 in LAR No.145 of 1993 alongwith six
connected reference petitions passed by the Joint District Judge,
Latur, the original Claimants have preferred these appeals to the
extent of quantum as awarded by the Reference Court.
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
2 Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are as
follows:
a) Agricultural lands owned and possessed by the
Appellants / Claimants came to be acquired by the
Government for construction of percolation tank at
village Bhosa. Notification under Section 4 was
published on 25th February, 1988 and the Special
Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the
compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of
Rs.13,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per Hectare. Being
dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation
awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
the Appellants / original Claimants filed reference
petitions as stated above. It has been contended in
those reference petitions that the acquired lands
were of good quality and fertility. They used to
receive net income of Rs.10,000/- per Acre per year
excluding the costs of cultivation. However, the
Reference Court has not considered all these
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
aspects and awarded meager amount of
compensation by treating the acquired lands as
Jirayat lands. It has also been contended that the
acquired lands are Bagayat lands and the
Appellants / Claimants used to take the Bagayat
crops including the sugarcane crop. The Appellants
/ Claimants have accordingly claimed the
compensation at the enhanced rate of
Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare.
b) The Respondent / State has resisted all the
reference petitions by filing the written statement. It
has been denied that the acquired lands are
Bagayat lands. It has been contended that the
acquired lands are dry lands. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer has considered the sale instance
of the lands situated in village Bhosa and awarded
the just and reasonable compensation.
c) The Appellants / Claimants have adduced oral and
documentary evidence in support of their
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
contentions. The Respondent / State has not
adduced any evidence. The Joint District Judge,
Latur vide its impugned judgment and award 14th
December, 2001 awarded the compensation at the
enhanced rate of Rs.40,000/- per Hectare. Hence,
these appeals.
3 The learned counsel for Appellants / Claimants submits
that though the Appellants / Claimants have produced on record 7/12
extracts Exhibits 12 to 17 and even though the Reference Court on
perusal of the said 7/12 extracts observed the Bagayat crops in the
acquired lands, awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate by
treating the acquired lands as Jirayat lands. The learned counsel
submits that the Appellants / Claimants mainly relied upon the sale
instance Exhibit 20. In the year 1988, the agricultural land situated at
village Bhosa itself, sold for a consideration of Rs.37,500/- per
Hectare. The land under sale instance is a Jirayat land and since the
acquired lands are Bagayat lands, the Appellants / Claimants are
entitled to double the amount of consideration amount as shown in
the sale instance Exhibit 20. However, the Reference Court has
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
discarded this sale instance Exhibit 20 on the ground that the land
under the sale instance is Bagayat land and not dry land as the
acquired lands. The Reference Court has discarded the sale instance
Exhibit 20 on the ground that the same is not worth to be considered.
The learned counsel submits that on perusal of sale-deed Exhibit 20,
it appears the transaction about the land under sale instance had
taken place much prior to the execution of the sale-deed and the sale-
deed, however, was executed on 12th December, 1988. There is a
recital in the sale instance about the receipt of the part consideration
prior to the execution of the sale-deed. Furthermore, the Appellants /
Claimants have also produced on record the certified copies of
mutation Exhibits 29 and 30 respectively to show that the sale
instances Exhibits 20 and 21 are not fake and not prepared with some
ulterior motive to help the agriculturists, whose lands came to be
acquired for construction of percolation tank of village Bhosa.
4 The learned AGP submits that the Special Land
Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation by treating the
acquired lands as dry lands. So far as, the 7/12 extracts Exhibits 12
to 16 are concerned, though sugarcane crop is shown in the 7/12
extracts, the source of water is not shown. The irrigation facility is
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
only available in respect of the acquired land Gat No.171 vide 7/12
extract Exhibit 17. The learned AGP submits that the sale instance
Exhibit 20 is post notification sale instance and the Reference Court
has rightly discarded the said sale instance. As per the record, the
possession of the acquired lands was taken way back in the year
1986 and the Appellants / Claimants have admitted in their cross-
examination that the construction of the canal of village Raigavan and
the percolation tank of village Bhosa was completed within six months
difference. The learned AGP submits that the Reference Court has
awarded just and reasonable compensation. No interference is
required.
5 On careful perusal of the evidence and the judgment and
award passed by the Reference Court, it appears that the Reference
Court has unnecessarily discarded the sale instance Exhibit 20 from
consideration. On perusal of sale instance Exhibit 20, it appears that
one Veernath and Siddheshwar sold their land from Survey No.103 to
the extent of 81 Ares to one Pralhad Bhosale for a consideration of
Rs.30,000/-. It further appears from the contents of the said sale
instance that the land under sale instance is a dry land. The
Appellants / Claimants have also examined Witness No.1 Raosaheb
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
Jadhav, who happened to be a witness of the said sale instance
Exhibit 20. He has also deposed that the land under sale instance is
a dry land. He has further explained that the land under sale instance
is towards north of the village and the acquired lands are also situated
towards north of the village. He has further deposed that the quality
and fertility of the acquired lands is better than the land under the sale
instance. There is a distance of 2-3 kilometers in between the
acquired lands and the land under sale instance. The Respondent /
State has not adduced any evidence in rebuttal. However, it appears
that notification under Section 4 was published in respect of the
acquired lands in the month of February 1988 whereas the said sale-
deed executed in the month of December 1988. However, there is a
recital in the sale instance about the receipt of the part consideration
before execution of the sale-deed. Furthermore, mutation entries
came to be sanctioned on the basis of the said sale instance and the
same is marked as Exhibit 29. I do not think that the sale instance
Exhibit 20 is a fake sale instance prepared with a sole intention to
help the present Appellants / Claimants for getting the compensation
at the higher rates from the Government as well as in the Court.
However, it also appears that the sale-deed was executed in the
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
month of December 1988 and it is a post notification sale instance.
Considering the admission given by the Appellants / Claimants about
the construction of canal of Raigavan and construction of percolation
tank at Bhosa, it would be just and appropriate if 30% amount from
the consideration amount of sale instance Exhibit 20 is deducted to
determine the correct market value of the agricultural land at village
Bhosa. Thus, after carrying out the said deductions at the rate of
30%, the market rate of the agricultural Jirayat land comes to
Rs.25,900/- per Hectare rounded to Rs.25,000/- per Hectare. As per
the 7/12 extracts Exhibits 12 to 17, the crop pattern indicates that the
acquired lands are the Bagayat lands and as such, the Appellants /
Claimants are entitled for double of the amount as worked out
hereinbefore. Thus, the Appellants / Claimants are entitled for the
compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.50,000/- per Hectare
against the rate awarded by the Reference Court to the tune of
Rs.40,000/- per Hectare. The Appellant / Claimants are entitled for all
the statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court. The
impugned judgment and award thus, requires modification to that
extent. Hence, the following order:
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
O R D E R
I. First Appeal Nos.47 of 2003 (Kisan S/o Narayanrao
Bhujbal Vs. The State of Maharashtra), First Appeal
No.48 of 2003 (Madhukar S/o Tukaram Bhujbal and
another Vs. The State of Maharashtra), First Appeal
No.49 of 2003 (Bajirao S/o Narayanrao Bhujbal Vs.
The State of Maharashtra), First Appeal No.50 of
2003 (Pandit S/o Tatyarao Bhapkar Vs. The State
of Maharashtra), First Appeal No.51 of 2003
(Laxman S/o Rama Chavan Vs. The State of
Maharashtra), First Appeal No.52 of 2003 (Nagnath
S/o Rama Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra)
and First Appeal No.57 of 2003 (Rajaram S/o.
Rama Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra), are
hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs.
II. The common judgment and award passed by the
Joint District Judge, Latur dated 14th December,
2001 in LAR No.145 of 1993 alongwith six
connected reference petitions, is hereby modified in
the following manner:
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
"In LAR No.145 of 1993 (Kisan S/o
Narayanrao Bhujbal Vs. The State of
Maharashtra), LAR No.146 of 1993
(Madhukar S/o Tukaram Bhujbal and another
Vs. The State of Maharashtra), LAR No.147
of 1993 (Bajirao S/o Narayanrao Bhujbal Vs.
The State of Maharashtra), LAR No.148 of
1993 (Pandit S/o Tatyarao Bhapkar Vs. The
State of Maharashtra), LAR No.151 of 1993
(Laxman S/o Rama Chavan Vs. The State of
Maharashtra), LAR No.150 of 1993 (Nagnath
S/o Rama Chavan Vs. The State of
Maharashtra) and LAR No.149 of 1993
(Rajaram S/o. Rama Chavan Vs. The State
of Maharashtra), the Claimants are entitled
for the compensation at the enhanced rate of
Rs.50,000/- per Hectare for the acquired
lands."
III. The Claimants are entitled for all the statutory
935 FIRST APPEAL 47 OF 2013 & ORS.odt
benefits as awarded by the Reference Court.
IV. Rest of the judgment and award stands confirmed.
V. Award be drawn up as per the above modification.
VI. All the appeals are accordingly disposed of.
[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]
ndm
