Bombay High Court
Digambar Rajaram Patil Deceased ... vs The Collector, Jalgaon And Others on 11 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1376 OF 2014
Digambar Rajaram Patil
deceased through legal heirs
1. Kishor Digambar Patil
Age: 44 years, Occu. Agri
2. Ramdas Digambar Patil
Age: 35 years, Occu.Agri.,
3. Sau. Sandhyabai Kishor Patil
Age: 41 years, Occu. Agri.,
4. Sau. Mandabai Rajendra Mahajan
Age: 37 years, Occu.Agri.,
5. Vidyabai Ganesh Patil
Age: 29 years, Occu. Agri
6. Smt. Kamalbai Digambar Patil
Age: 63 years, Occu. Agri.
Nos. 1, 2 and 6
R/o. Nimbol, Tq. Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon,
Nos. 3, 4 and 5 R/o. Ainpur
7. Sudhakar Sitaram Patil
Age: years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Nimbaol, Tq. Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon = APPELLANTS
(Ori. Petitioner)
VERSUS
1. The Collector, Jalgaon
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:28:03 :::
2 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
Officer
Uppar Tapi Project, Hatnur (1),
Jalgaon
3. Executive Engineer,
Hatnur Project Division,
Jalgaon = RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1748 OF 2015
Kishor Digambar Patil
Age: 44 years, Occu.Agri,
R/o. Nimbol, Tq. Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon = APPELLANT
(Ori. Petitioner)
VERSUS
1. The Collector, Jalgaon
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer
Uppar Tapi Project, Hatnur (1),
Jalgaon
3. Executive Engineer,
Hatnur Project Division,
Jalgaon = RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1749 OF 2015
Digambar Rajaram Patil
deceased through legal heirs
1. Kishor Digambar Patil
Age: 44 yeras, Occu. Agri
2. Ramdas Digambar Patil
Age: 35 years, Occu.Agri.,
3. Sau. Sandhyabai Kishor Patil
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:28:03 :::
3 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
Age: 41 years, Occu. Agri.,
4. Sau. Mandabai Rajendra Mahajan
Age: 37 years, Occu.Agri.,
5. Vidyabai Ganesh Patil
Age: 29 years, Occu. Agri
6. Smt. Kamalbai Digambar Patil
Age: 63 years, Occu. Agri. = APPELLANTS
(Ori. Petitioner)
VERSUS
1. The Collector, Jalgaon
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer
Uppar Tapi Project, Hatnur (1),
Jalgaon
3. Executive Engineer,
Hatnur Project Division,
Jalgaon = RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1750 OF 2015
Rajesh Sudhakar Patil
Age: Major, Occu. :Agri
R/o. Nimbol, Tq. Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon = APPELLANT
(Ori. Petitioner)
VERSUS
1. The Collector, Jalgaon
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer
Uppar Tapi Project, Hatnur (1),
Jalgaon
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:28:03 :::
4 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
3. Executive Engineer,
Hatnur Project Division,
Jalgaon = RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Respondents)
====================
Adv.for Appellants : Mr. Vijay B. Patil, For
Appellant/s No 1 To 6. - claimants
Mr. CV Dharurkar, AGP for Resp.Nos. 1 & 2;
Mr. Chillarge Subhash S. Adv. For R/3.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
11 th
July,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1) First Appeal Nos.1748/2015; 1749/2015 &
1750/2015 are not board. Taken on Board.
2) With consent of learned Counsel
appearing for the parties, taken up for final
disposal.
3) The present appeals are filed against
common Judgment and Award passed by Joint
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon
(hereinafter referred to as the Reference
Court on 3rd February, 2011 in LAR No.
5 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
1849/2005 with connected LARs.
4) It is not in dispute that the present
appellants had not preferred any application
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, the Act), seeking enhancement
in the amount of compensation, as was offered
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
After some of the land acquisition reference
applications filed under Section 18 of the Act
by the other claimants, whose lands as well as
house properties were acquired for the same
project and under the same Notification, were
decided by the Reference Court, the present
appellants invoking the provisions under
Section 28-A of the Act, preferred the
applications to Collector, Jalgaon to re-
determine the amount of compensation.
Accordingly, the amount of compensation was
determined by the Collector, Jalgaon.
However, since the appellants were
6 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
not satisfied with the compensation so
determined by the Collector, the appellants
moved application to the Collector requesting
him to prefer the matter for adjudication to
the civil court. Accordingly, the said
applications were referred under Section 28(3)
of the Act for adjudication to the Civil Court
at Jalgaon.
5) The learned Reference Court, after
having assessed the oral and documentary
evidence brought before it, determined the
amount of compensation @ Rs. 225/- per sq.mtr
for open plot and Rs. 1200 per sq.mtr for
built up area on the basis of the award
earlier passed by it in LAR No. 2/1991 with
the connected LARs arising out of the same
acquisition proceedings. Dissatisfied with
the amount of compensation so determined by
the Reference Court, the appellants have
7 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
preferred the present appeals.
6) Shri V.B.Patil, learned Counsel
appearing for the appellants, submitted that
the claimants in LAR No. 2/1991 to 4/1991 had
preferred appeal before the High Court and
thereafter to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the
Hon'ble Apex Court, vide its judgment
delivered on 11th November, 2010 in Civil
Appeal No. 2819/2005 with connected appeals,
has enhanced the compensation for the
constructed area @ Rs. 1200 per sq.mtr. The
learned Counsel submitted that in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the amount
of compensation needs to be enhanced in the
matters of the present appellants also.
7) The submissions made on behalf of the
appellants are resisted by Shri Chillarge,
learned Counsel appearing for the acquiring
8 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
body. The learned Counsel submitted that
under Section 28-A of the Act, the appellants
can seek re-determination of the compensation
on the basis of the award of the Reference
Court in the matters arising out of the same
acquisition proceedings and not on the
judgment of the High Court or the Hon'ble Apex
Court. In order to support his contention,
the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Bhagti (Smt.)(Deceased) Through Her Lrs. Jagdish
Ram Sharma Vs. State of Haryana - (1997) 4 SCC
473. The learned Counsel submitted that the
appeals filed by the appellants are devoid of
any substance and, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the appeals.
8) I have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the learned Counsel
appearing for the parties. I have also
perused the impugned Judgment and Award and
9 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
the other material placed on record. It is
not in dispute that the present appellants had
not preferred the application under Section 18
of the Act. The appellants preferred the
applications under Section 28-A of the Act
after the Reference Application arising out of
the same acquisition proceedings and under the
same notification were decided by the
Reference Court, claiming compensation as was
enhanced in the said matters by the Reference
Court. It is further not in dispute that the
Reference Court has accordingly enhanced the
amount of compensation in the maters of the
appellants also. Thereafter the appellants
have now come in appeals challenging the order
passed by the Reference Court alleging that in
some matters, wherein the claimants approached
the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has enhanced the amount of compensation for
the constructed area @ Rs. 1700 per sq.mtr.
10 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
The objection so raised by the appellants in
exception to the impugned Judgment and Award
is liable to be rejected at the threshold in
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Bagti (cited supra). In
the said matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that the claimants can seek re-
determination of the compensation on the basis
of the award of the Reference Court and not
the judgment of the High Court. Once the
appellants had availed the remedy under
Section 28-A(1) of the Act, it was not open
for them to claim any further enhancement in
the amount of compensation without filing any
appeal merely on the basis of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
appeals filed by some other claimants. I,
therefore, do not see any merits in the
appeals filed by the appellants.
11 FA NOS./1376/2014 & Ors.
9) In the result, following order is
passed, -
ORDER
i) The appeals are dismissed, however
without any order as to costs;
ii) Pending civil application, if any,
stands disposed of.
(P.R.BORA,J.)
bdv/
