The Executive Engineer (Civil And ... vs Shamrao Gundiba Bhogal, Died Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4191 Bom

                                    1                                FA78.2014

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                           FIRST APPEAL NO.78 OF 2014

The Executive Engineer, 
(Civil and Construction)
Maharashtra State Electricity 
Distribution Company, 
Near Tajmahal Talkies,
Dist. Osmanabad                                        .. APPELLANT 
                                                  (Orig. Respondent No.3)

              Versus


01.           Shamrao s/o Gundiba Bhogal (Died)
              Through Legal Heirs :

1A.           Girjabai w/o Shamrao Bhogal (Died)
              Through Legal Heirs (Respondent No.1B) :

1B.           Dimakhrao s/o Shamrao Bhogal, 
              Age : 35 years, Occu : Agri, 
              R/o. Lohata (East), Tal. Kallam, 
              Dist. Osmanabad                                .. RESPONDENTS 
                                                                 (Orig. Claimants)
02.           The State of Maharashtra, 
              Through The Collector, Osmanabad, 
              Dist. Osmanabad

03.           Sub Divisional Officer, 
              Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad                      .. RESPONDENTS 
                                                  (Orig. Respondent Nos.1 & 2)
                                    ............
                Shri. Uday S. Malte, Advocate for the appellant
              Shri. S. A. Wakure, Advocate for respondent No. 1
               Shri. R. B. Bagul, AGP for respondents No. 2 & 3
                                   ..............


                                            CORAM  :  P.R. BORA, J. 

DATED : JULY 7, 2017

2 FA78.2014

ORAL JUDGMENT :

. Present appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award

dated 27th June, 2012 passed by Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division at

Osmanabad in L.A.R. No.398/2002.

2. The land, which is the subject matter in the present appeal,

was acquired by the appellant for construction of sub-station at

village Hingangaon, Tal. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. Total 74 Are land

was acquired out of Gat No.60/4 situated at village Hingangaon. The

notification under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Act') was published in the Official Gazette on

15.05.1997 and the Award under Section 11 of the Act came to be

passed on 21st July, 1999. The Special Land Acquisition Officer

(hereinafter in short 'SLAO') had offered the compensation for the

acquired land at the rate of Rs.33,000/- per hectare. Dissatisfied with

the amount of compensation so offered, the claimants had preferred

an application under Section 18 of the Act to Collector, Osmanabad

and the same was forwarded to the civil court for adjudication. The

claimants had claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/-

per hectare. In order to substantiate the claim so raised by them, the

claimants themselves have deposed before the reference Court and

had also placed on record one sale instance at Exh.31. No oral or

3 FA78.2014

documentary evidence was adduced by the acquiring body or by the

State. The reference Court after having assessed oral and

documentary evidence brought before it, determined the market

value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare

and accordingly enhanced the amount of compensation. Being

aggrieved by the Judgment and Award, the acquiring body has

preferred the present appeal.

3. Shri. Malte, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant

assailed the impugned award on various grounds. The learned

Counsel submitted that, the tribunal has failed in appreciating that,

the sale instance which was relied upon by the claimants was of a

different village and the land, which was the subject matter of the

said sale deed, was not at all comparable with the subject land. The

learned Counsel submitted that, as has come on record the land

which was the subject matter at Exh.31 was abutting to the public

road and was irrigated land. In the circumstances according to the

learned Counsel the market value of the subject land could not have

been determined on the basis of the consideration received to the

land which is the subject matter of Exh.31. The learned Counsel

submitted that, on the contrary the SLAO had considered the overall

circumstances and after having physically visited to the acquired

4 FA78.2014

land, has determined the value of land and has accordingly offered

the compensation. The learned Counsel submitted that, the reference

Court has nowhere disclosed as to why it find it necessary to reduce

the value of the land, which was the subject matter of Exh.31 by only

30% while deciding the market value of the subject land on the basis

of the said land. The learned Counsel submitted that, no rational

criteria was applied and that has resulted in determining the market

value of the subject land on higher side. The learned Counsel

submitted that, in absence of any cogent and sufficient evidence

brought on record by the claimants to substantiate their claim, there

was no reason for the reference Court to enhance the amount of

compensation that too on such an higher side. The learned counsel

therefore prayed for setting aside the Award and to reconfirm the

amount of compensation as was offered by the SLAO.

4. Shri Wakure, learned Counsel appearing for the original

claimants supported the impugned Judgment and Award. The

learned Counsel submitted that, the tribunal has rightly considered

the evidence which was adduced by the claimants in the form of sale

instance at Exh.31 and has accordingly determined the market value

of the subject land. The learned Counsel submitted that, in fact the

compensation as has been enhanced by the reference Court is much

5 FA78.2014

less than it was expected by the claimants. The learned counsel

submitted that, no interference is required in the impugned

Judgment and Award.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf

of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. The

reference Court has determined the market value on the basis of the

sale instance which was produced on record by the claimants at

Exh.31. The said land was situated at village Shiradhon, Tal Kallam.

It was admeasuring 1 Acre and was sold by the registered sale deed

on 15.04.1997 for the consideration of Rs.1,37,000/- i.e. at the rate

of Rs.3,42,500/- per hectare. The learned tribunal in para 18 and 19

of the impugned Judgment has elaborately discussed as to how it has

determined the market value of the subject land on the basis of the

said sale instance. Though it is vehemently argued by the learned

Counsel Shri. Malte that the land involved in Exh.31 was irrigated

land and was abutting to the public road and was also belonging to

some another village and as such the same could not have been the

base for determining the market value of the subject land, I am not

convinced with the submissions so made. In absence of any other

evidence, the tribunal was left with no option to consider the said

sale deed which was duly proved by the claimants.

6 FA78.2014

6. Admittedly no evidence was adduced on behalf of the

acquiring body or the State. It further appears that, the tribunal has

not blindly relied upon the sale instance placed on record by the

claimants. The tribunal has rightly referred the Judgment of this

Court in the case of The Collector Yevatmal Vs. Laxman Jumale

reported in [2010 (3) ALL MR 342] to hold that, the market value of

the land from adjacent village can also be considered for determining

the market value. It further reveals that, having considered the fact

that, the land which was subject matter of Exh.31 was irrigated land

and was abutting to public road, the necessary deductions are

appropriately made by the reference Court while determining the

market value of the subject land. As has come on record though the

land which was the subject matter of Exh.31 was sold at the rate of

Rs.3,42,500/- per hectare. The reference Court has determined the

market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. less

than half of the amount, which was received towards consideration

to the land which was the subject matter of Exh.31. It is quite

evident that, the tribunal has considered the fact that, the acquired

land which was jirayat land could not fetch the same prize and so

straightway half of the amount was reduced by the tribunal. Further

having regard to the fact that, the said land was abutting to the road,

7 FA78.2014

the further deductions were made and accordingly the market value

of the subject land has been determined by the reference Court at the

rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. It does not appear to me that, the

tribunal has committed any error in determining the market value of

the acquired land or has determined it arbitrarily on higher side or

excessively.

7. It was rightly pointed out by Shri. Wakure the learned

Counsel appearing for the original claimants that the subject land

was adjacent to the village and was utilized for erecting sub station

and as such was having N.A. potentiality and it could have yielded

the same prize or even more than that as was determined by the

reference Court. After having considered entire evidence on record, it

does not appear to me that any interference is required in the

Judgment and Award impugned in the present appeal. The appeal

deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however,

without any order as to costs.

[ P.R. BORA, J ]

ggp