Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah And Anr vs Suresh Deiwan Hange And Anr on 14 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FAST NO.25955/2012group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 25955 of 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Divn., Head Quarter
Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Santram s/o Mahadev Hange,
Age Minor u/g of mother petitioner No.3.
2. Amit s/o Mahadev Hange,
Age Minor, u/g of mother petitioner No.3.
3. Saraswatibai w/o Mahadev Hange,
Age 45 years, Occupation Agriculture,
R/o. Hangewadi, Tq. Kaij,
District Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.Claimants)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 26008 of 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Divn., Head Quarter
Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori.Respondents)
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:19:35 :::
2 FAST NO.25955/2012group
VERSUS
Vishwanath s/o Laxman Hange,
Age 55 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Hangewadi, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.Claimants)
...
with
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 26011 OF 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Divn., Head Quarter
Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
Namdeo s/o Laimba Aghav,
Age 20 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Hangewadi, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.Claimants)
...
with
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.26014 OF 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Divn., Head Quarter
Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:19:35 :::
3 FAST NO.25955/2012group
1. Suresh s/o Deiwan Hange,
Age 30 yrs. Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Hangewadi, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
2. Shivaji s/o Dadu Sanap,
Age 40 yrs., Occu. & r/o as above.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.Claimants)
...
with
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.25999 of 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Divn., Head Quarter
Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori.Respondents)
VERSUS
Sampat s/o Narayan Hange,
Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
r/o Hangewadi, Tq.Kaij Dist. Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.Claimants)
...
with
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.26005 of 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Divn., Head Quarter
Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori.Respondents)
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:19:35 :::
4 FAST NO.25955/2012group
VERSUS
1. Narayan s/o Hari Hange,
Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
r/o Hangewadi, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. ( Died)
1(i) Kadubai w/o Narayan Hange, age 45 yrs.,
occu. Agri., R/o Nangewadi, Tq. Kaij Dist.
Beed.
(ii) Asaram s/o Narayan Hange, age minor,
Occu. Agri., r/o Hangewadi, Tq. Kaij,
Dist. Beed.
(iii) Kiran s/o Narayan Hange, Age minor,
u/g of Kadubai Narayan Hange, age 45
yrs., Occu. Agri., r/o Hangewadi, Tq. Kaij
Dist. Beed.
2. Shivaji s/o Hari Hange, age 45 years,
Occu. Agri., r/o Hangewadi, Tq. Kaij Dist. Beed
(DIED)
Legal Representatives:
2(i) Sumitra w/o Shivaji Hange,
Age 40 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o Hangewadi,
Tq. Kaij Dist. Beed.
2(ii) Dinesh s/o Shivaji Hange, age minor,
U/g of Sumitra w/o Shivaji Hange r/o as
above.
2 (iii) Shelesh s/o Shivaji Hange, age minor,
u/g of Sumitra w/o Shivaji Hange, r/o as
above.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.Claimants)
...
Mr. S.P.Sonpawale, AGP for appellants.
Mr. D.M.Hange, Advocate, for respective respondents /
claimants.
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:19:35 :::
5 FAST NO.25955/2012group
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : JULY 14th, 2017
***
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. In view of the order passed by this Court on
Civil Applications for condonation of delay, the present
appeals are taken up for hearing with the consent of
learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The lands which are subject matter in the
present appeals were acquired for construction of
percolation tank at Hangewadi, Taluka Kaij, district Beed.
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 ( hereinafter referred as `the Act' ) was published in
the official gazette on 19th September, 1996, and the
award under Section 11 came to be passed on 22nd July,
1999. Though the claimants had claimed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1250/- per
Are, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered the
compensation at the rate of Rs.240/- to Rs.250/- per Are.
Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so offered,
6 FAST NO.25955/2012group
the claimants preferred Reference Applications under
Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court, while
deciding the Reference Applications by common judgment
and award, determined the market value of the acquired
lands at the rate of Rs.900/- per Are and accordingly
enhanced the amount of compensation. Aggrieved
thereby, the State has preferred the present appeals.
3. Shri Sonpawale, learned A.G.P. appearing for
the State, submitted that only two sale instances were
placed on record by the claimants at Exh.23-C and Exh.24-
C. Learned Counsel submitted that the land which was the
subject matter of Exh.23-C was admeasuring 1 Hectare 16
Ares and was sold by registered sale deed executed on 7th
February, 1996, for consideration of Rs.53,000/-. Thus,
the said land was sold at the rate of Rs.456/- per Are.
Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the land which was
involved in Exh.24-C was sold by registered sale deed on
31st of January, 1991, for consideration of Rs.40,000/-.
It was admeasuring 35 R. and thus, it was sold at the rate
of Rs.1142/- per Are. Learned A.G.P. submitted that both
the lands were of village Waghe Babhulgaon whereas
7 FAST NO.25955/2012group
subject lands were situate at village Hangewadi. Learned
A.G.P. submitted that, in the circumstances, the Reference
Court could not have determined the market value of the
acquired lands on the basis of the sale deeds at Exh.23-C
and Exh.24-C. Learned Counsel further submitted that the
Reference Court has also relied upon the judgment
delivered in LAR No.18/2001 and 30/2001, arising out of
the acquisition made for percolation tank at Waghe
Babhulgaon. Learned A.G.P. submitted that in the said
matter, both the sale deeds which are considered in the
present matter i.e. Exh.23-C and 24-C, were considered,
and the Reference Court awarded compensation to the
claimants therein at the rate of Rs.800/- per Are.
Learned A.G.P. submitted that there was no reason,
therefore, for the Reference Court, in the present matters
to determine the market value at the rate of Rs.900/- per
Are. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the market value
ought to have been determined by the Reference Court on
the basis of the sale instances at Exh.23-C which was the
real comparable sale for determining the market value.
Learned A.G.P., therefore, prayed for modifying the award
and for re-determination of the market value on the basis
8 FAST NO.25955/2012group
of the sale deed at Exh.23-C.
4. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the
Reference Court has also erred in awarding interest under
Section 34 of the Act on the enhanced amount of
compensation from the date of possession whereas in view
of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari ( 2016(3)
Mh.L.J. 457), the same could not have been awarded from
the date of possession. Learned A.G.P., therefore, prayed
for setting aside the award to that extent.
5. Shri Hange, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents / original claimants, opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the State. Learned Counsel, taking
me through the discussion made by the Reference Court in
paragraph nos.15 and onwards, submitted that the
Reference Court has elaborately discussed the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record by the claimants
and has appropriately determined the market value of the
acquired lands at the rate of Rs.900/- per Are. Learned
Counsel submitted that the agricultural land which was
9 FAST NO.25955/2012group
subject matter of Exh.24-C was sold in the year 1991 at
the rate of Rs.1140/- per Are. Learned Counsel submitted
that though the said land was a small piece of land, the
said sale instance could not have been ignored by the
Reference Court while determining the market value of the
acquired lands. Learned Counsel submitted that the
Reference Court has rightly considered the said sale
instance and by giving weightage to the plus factors and,
thereafter, making appropriate deductions because the
sale instance was pertaining to a small piece of land, has
rightly arrived at the market value of the acquired lands at
the rate of Rs.900/- per Are. Learned Counsel submitted
that the appeals filed by the State are devoid of substance
and deserve to be dismissed.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the
respective parties. I have also perused the impugned
judgment and the other material placed on record.
Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that though the
Reference Court has made some discussion about the sale
instances placed on record by the claimants at Exh.23-C
10 FAST NO.25955/2012group
and Exh.24-C, ultimately the Court has relied upon the
earlier judgments in LAR No.18/2001 and LAR No.30/2001
pertaining to the acquisition made for construction of
percolation tank at village Waghe Babhulgaon. In the said
matter, the Reference Court has determined the market
value of the acquired lands therein at the rate of Rs.800/-
per Are. In the present matter also, the claimants were
relying upon the sale instance of the same village Waghe
Babhulgaon which are Exh.23-C and Exh.24-C. The
same sale instances were relied upon by the Reference
Court while deciding the Reference Applications
Nos.18/2001 and 30/2001. Nothing is placed on record
by the appellant State to show that the judgments in LAR
No.18/2001 and 30/2001 were challenged before the High
Court and/or are set aside or modified by the High Court.
In such circumstances, it appears to me that the Reference
Court has taken the said judgments as basis for
determining the market value of the lands acquired in the
present matters. It is, however, not understood as to
why the Reference Court has then determined the market
value of the present lands at the rate of Rs.900/- per Are.
When the sale instances from village Waghe Babhulgaon
11 FAST NO.25955/2012group
were relied upon by the present applicants also, the
Tribunal must have held the market value of the acquired
lands at the most at the said rate and if at all the
Reference Court was of the view that some more amount
is to be awarded in the present matter, must have made
some discussion and assigned some reasons in that regard
while enhancing the amount of compensation. On perusal
of the impugned judgment, it appears that there is no such
discussion and without making any such discussion, the
Reference Court has awarded the compensation in the
present matters by determining the market value of the
acquired lands at the rate of Rs.900/- per Are. It is, thus,
evident that the Reference Court, without any sufficient
evidence, has determined the market value of the acquired
lands at the rate more than Rs.800/- per Are. To that
extent, the appellant State has certainly made out a case
and the award to that extent needs to be modified.
7. In so far as interest part is concerned, learned
A.G.P. has brought to my notice the discussion made by
the Reference Court in paragraph no.25 of the said
judgment. In para No.25 the Reference Court has
12 FAST NO.25955/2012group
observed that the claimants are entitled for interest under
Section 28 and 34 of the Act, and the proportionate costs.
While passing the order, vide clause 6 of the order, the
Reference Court has awarded interest under Section 28 of
the Act. It is, thus, evident that the interest which has
been awarded by the Reference Court vide clause 7
pertains to interest under Section 34 of the Act. Reading
of order clause 7 reveals that the Reference Court has
awarded interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date
of taking possession of the land whereas, the same could
have been awarded by the Reference Court only from the
date of the award. The Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Shiva Rangari (cited supra), has categorically held
that the interest under Section 34 of the Act can only be
awarded from the date of award and not from the date of
possession. The mistake so committed by the Tribunal in
awarding interest under Section 34 of the Act also needs
to be corrected.
8. In view of the discussion made above, following
order is passed:
13 FAST NO.25955/2012group
ORDER
1. The impugned awards be modified by
determining the market value of the acquired lands at the
rate of Rs.800/- per Are and by awarding interest under
Section 34 of the Act from the date of the award under
Section 11 of the Act.
2. If the amount of compensation as awarded by
the Reference Court is already withdrawn by the
claimants, and if it is noticed that it is in excess of the
amount which would become payable to them after re-
determination of the compensation at the rate of Rs.800/-
per Are, it would be open for the State to recover the said
amount from the respective claimants.
3. The First Appeals stand partly allowed in
aforesaid terms. No costs.
( P.R. BORA, J. )
...
