Bombay High Court
Jagannath S/O Gopaldas Taori & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 13 July, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 570 of 2005
Appellants : 1) Jagannath s/o Gopaldas Taori, aged
about 37 years, Occ: Cultivator
2) Sachin s/o Jagannath Taori, aged about
22 years, Occ: Cultivator
Both residents of Arvi, District Wardha
versus
Respondents : 1) The State of Maharashtra, through
the Collector, Wardha
2) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Upper Wardha Project, Wardha
3) The Executive Engineer, Upper Wardha
Left Bank Canal, Pipri, Wardha
Shri S. U. Nemade, Advocate for appellants
Shri S. B. Bissa, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2
Shri S. G. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent no. 3
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 13th July 2017
Oral Judgment
1. Being aggrieved by the lesser compensation given to the
appellants by the Reference Court in its judgment and order dated 7 th
March 2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 197 of 2001, the
appellants have preferred present appeal.
2. Two groups of the land of the appellants were acquired
compulsorily for the Canal Project of Upper Wardha Dam. One group of
land consisted of survey numbers 30/1, 30/2 and 30/3 with area of 1.56
HR land having been acquired and the other group consisted of land
bearing survey number 75/1 with 0.75 HR having been acquired. Section
4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 5 th September
1996. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the rates for irrigated
land comprising first group of land @ Rs. 50,000/- per hectare and
determined rate for dry crop land @ Rs. 37,500/- per hectare. No
damages for severance of the land were given by the Land Acquisition
Officer. The appellants felt that the compensation was inadequate and,
therefore, they preferred Reference Application under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act.
3. On merits of the case, the Reference Court determined the
market value of both the groups of land @ Rs. 70,000/- per hectare and
also awarded compensation of Rs. 5000/- as severance damages. Here
also, the rates of compensation so determined by the Reference Court
could not satisfy the appellants and, therefore, the appellants are before
this Court in the present appeal.
4. I have heard Shri S. U. Nemade, learned counsel for the
appellants; Shri S. B. Bissa, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri S. G. Jagtap, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3. I have also gone through the record of the case
including the impugned judgment and order. The only point that arises
for my determination is -
Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court is just and proper ?
5. It is seen from the impugned judgment and order that the
Reference Court has extensively relied upon three sale instances which
were also relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer. These sale
instances were about one year prior to Section 4 notification. They were
in respect of survey no. 63/2 dated 30.1.1995 and survey nos. 77/78
dated 17.10.1995. Both of them were from village Wardhmaneri.
Considering the sale consideration of these sale instances, the Reference
Court followed the highest amongst the two and determined the market
value of the acquired land to be at Rs. 70,000/- per hectare. The
reference Court determined such market value by considering both the
groups of land as non-irrigated one.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Reference
Court committed serious error of fact when it found that both groups of
land were non-irrigated which was against the evidence available on
record. Shri S. G. Jagtap, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, however,
disagreed. I find, on going through the evidence available on record, the
learned counsel for the appellants is right in his submission that first
group of land comprising of survey nos. 30/1, 30/2 and 30/3 belonged to
the category of irrigated land. The 7/12 extract at Exhibits 21, 22 and 23
clearly show this to be the position. Then, there is a clear-cut admission
given in this regard by D. W. 1, the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, I
find that the first group of land was of the category of irrigated land and
ought to have been considered accordingly for determination of its market
value.
7. However, this is not so in the case of second group of land
and there is no dispute about the same also.
8. Now, if we consider the sale instances of survey nos. 63/2
and survey nos. 77 and 78 dated 30 th January 1995 and 17th October 1995
respectively, we find that the sale instance dated 30 th January 1995 in
respect of survey number 63/2 laid down the example of highest
consideration than the other sale instances. Therefore, as held in the case
of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust & ors v. State of Punjab & ors reported in
(2012) 5 SCC 432, this Court will have to consider as most relevant sale
instance in respect of survey number 63/2 dated 30 th January 1995 for
the purpose of determination of true market value of the acquired land in
this case.
9. The sale deed dated 30th January 1995 was admittedly for a
dry crop land and the total consideration was of Rs. 100,000/- for 1.20
hectare of land that was sold under the sale deed. This would make the
rate of the land involved in that sale deed as Rs. 78,125/- per hectare.
This sale deed was about one year prior to Section 4 notification and,
therefore, we will have to make addition of 10% to the rate of land which
would make the rate of land involved in this sale as Rs. 85,937/- per
hectare in the year 1996, the year in which Section 4 notification was
issued.
10. Now, we would have to consider as to what should be the
market value of the first group of land, the irrigated land. The evidence
available on record, particularly the evidence of one of the claimants,
P.W. 1 Jagannath and also 7/12 extract tendered in evidence, would
show that such crops as jawar, cotton, gram, wheat so on and so forth
were being taken from the irrigated group of land. These crops were
taken in two seasons i.e. kharip and rabbi. Kharip season falls in
mansoon and rabbi season falls in winter period. This would reasonably
show that different crops were being taken from the irrigated group of
land twice a year. If this is so, I find no difficulty in enhancing the market
value by doubling the rate of land belonging to first group from Rs.
85,937/- to Rs. 1,71,874/- per hectare.
11. However, for the second group of land, a dry crop of land,
there would not be any change in the rate and it would be of Rs. 85,937/-
per hectare.
12. In the circumstances, I find that the acquired lands had
market value of Rs. 85,937/- and Rs. 1,71,874/- per hectare respectively
for categories of dry crop land and irrigated land, as discussed in
paragraphs 9 and 10 above and since the true market value has not been
determined by the Reference Court, this Court would have to modify the
Award accordingly. There being no dispute about the sum awarded for
severance damages, I do not see any reason to interfere with the
impugned Award in that regard.
13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. It is declared that
the appellants are entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 1,71,874/- per
hectare for first group of land comprising of survey numbers 30/1, 30/2
and 30/3 with area of 1.56 HR land with interest at the same rate and
same benefits as awarded by the Reference Court. It is further declared
that the appellants are also entitled to receive compensation Rs. 85,937/-
per hectare for other group consisting of land bearing survey number
75/1 with 0.75 HR with interest at the same rate as the Reference Court
has awarded along with other benefits. The impugned judgment and
order stand modified accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
Needless to say, the amount that may be finally paid to the appellants
would be after making the deduction of the amount already withdrawn by
them.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
