Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra & Others vs Rajaram Kasan Ghate on 6 July, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2005
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO.14 OF 2006
FIRST APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2005
1 State of Maharashtra,
Through
Collector, Yavatmal
2 The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, benefited Zone,
Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal
3 Executive Engineer,
Arunavati Project, Digras,
Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal .. APPELLANTS/
ORI. RESPONDENTS
// VERSUS //
Rajaram Kisan Ghate,
aged about 50 years,
Occ. Cultivator & Serivce,
R/o. Mahalungi, Tq. Arani,
Dist. Yavatmal ..RESPONDENT
ORI.PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:16:20 :::
2
CROSS OBJECTION NO.14 of 2006
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2005
Rajaram Kisan Ghate,
aged about 50 years,
Occ. Cultivator & Serivce,
R/o. Mahalungi, Tq. Arani,
Dist. Yavatmal .. CROSS-OBJECTOR
RESPONDENT-ORI.
PETITIONER ON R.A.
// VERSUS //
1 State of Maharashtra,
Through
Collector, Yavatmal
2 The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, benefited Zone,
Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal
3 Executive Engineer,
Arunavati Project, Digras,
Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal ..RESPONDENTS
APPELLANTS/ORI
RESPONDENTS
ON R.A.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri. Bissa, AGP for Appellant Nos 1 &2.
Shri. S.U.Nemade, Advocate for Claimant/Respondent
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 06.07.2017.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:16:20 :::
3
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 The State has challenged the judgment and
decree dated 29.4.2003 passed by the Civil Judge
Senior Division, Pusad in Land Acquisition Case No. 147
of 1997. The Reference Court granted enhance
compensation on various counts to the respondents of
Rs. 5,13,000/-.
2 The respondent has filed Cross Objection seeking
permission to produce additional documentary
evidence. The additional evidence sought to be
produced is in the form of maps of Old & New Digras
Tahasil; maps of Arni Tahsil; village Mahalungi and
village Mahagaon. According to the Cross Objector the
maps will demonstrate that the acquired land is just
adjacent to the main road and surrounded by various
villages and agricultural lands. According to him, the
maps will help this court to determine true marketable
value of the acquired land.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:16:20 :::
4
3 The appellants have challenged the Award on the
ground that the Reference Court has ignored the prices
of lands of the adjacent places and the enhanced
compensation is exorbitant. It is alleged that the
compensation granted by the Reference Court is
shockingly on higher side.
4 Learned counsel for the respondent strenuously
contends that lesser area of the acquired land was
shown than the one which was actually acquired and
thereby the respondent / claimant was put to heavy
loss. Learned counsel states that the claimant could not
produce the re-measurement map in evidence before
the Trial Court, since he had misplaced it. Eventhough,
the re-measurement map was available with the
Government, it was not placed before the Reference
Court for the reasons best known to it. Learned counsel
for the claimant has produced before me for perusal a
re-measurement map based on joint measurement
carried out on 31.12.1995. He requests that the re-
measurement map may be taken into consideration at
this stage. In my view, since the joint measurement
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:16:20 :::
5
map is not being part of record and it was not exhibited
in evidence, the same can not be taken into
consideration for the purpose of deciding present
appeal. Prima facie, this map shows that much more
area of the land belonging to the claimant was acquired
than that has been shown in additional Award vide Exh.
29. Therefore, proving this map in evidence would be a
judicial necessity in order to dispense with proper
justice.
5 I find that the Reference Court has not properly
considered the existence or otherwise of second Well in
the acquired land. There is some evidence available on
record which needs to be properly considered in order
to record definite findings in this regard which as of now
do not appear.
6 For these reasons, I am of the view that the
impugned judgment and order can not be sustained in
law and this is a fit case for being remanded to the
Reference Court for decision afresh in accordance with
law.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:16:20 :::
6
In the result following order:
ORDER
i) Appeal and Cross Objection both are allowed with
costs.
ii) The impugned judgment and order are hereby
quashed and set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the Reference Court
for decision afresh, in accordance with law, in the light of
the observations made hereinabove.
iv) Leave to produce additional evidence is granted to
the claimant including leave to file re-measurement map
based on joint measurement.
v) The Reference Court is requested to dispose of the
Reference Application as early as possible, preferably
within six months from the date of appearance of the
parties before it.
vi) Parties to appear before the Reference Court on
24.7.2017.
JUDGE
belkhede, PA
