Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Bapusaheb Gopinath Fasale And ... on 17 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA 3204/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.3204 OF 2016
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Beed.
2) The Executive Engineer,
M.I.(L.S.) Div. Beed. = APPELLANT/S
(orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1) Bapusaheb Gopinath Fasale
2) Lakhuji Gopinath Fasale
3) Ankushrao Gopinath Fasale
All Age:Major, occ.Agril.
R/o Dawlawadgaon, Tq.Ashti
District Beed.
Through S.P.A. - Gopinath
Bapurao Fasale
age:Major, occu. Aglril.
R/o Dawlawadgaon, Tq.Ashti
District Beed. = RESPONDENT/S
(Orig. Petitioners)
-----
Mr.SM Ganachari, AGP for Appellants;
Mr.CK Shinde, Adv. for Respondent/s.
-----
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:05:32 :::
2 FA 3204/2016
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
17 th
July,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. The present appeal is filed
against Judgment and Award dated 24th June, 2011
in LAR No.76/2010 passed by Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Beed.
2) Two lands, which are the subject matter
of the present appeal, one admeasuring 70 Are and
another admeasuring 1 hectare and 82 Are, were
acquired for the purpose of construction of
village tank at Dawlawadgaon, Tq. Ashti, District
Beed. Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act) was published in the official Gazette on
16th February, 2006 and Award under Section 11 of
the Act came to be passed on 24 th June, 2007. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer had offered the
compensation @ Rs.700/- per Are. Dissatisfied
with the amount of compensation so offered, the
claimants preferred an application under Section
3 FA 3204/2016
18 of the Act claiming compensation @ Rs.2,500/-
per Are.
3) The Reference Court, on the basis of the
evidence brought before it, determined the market
value of the subject l ands @ Rs.2,000/- per Are
and accordingly enhanced the amount of
compensation. Aggrieved by, the State has
preferred the present appeal.
4) Shri Ganachari, learned AGP, assailed
the impugned Judgment and Award on several
grounds. The learned AGP submitted that the
Reference Court has erred in determining the
market value of the acquired lands on the basis
of the sale instances at Exhibits-14, 15 and 16,
which all were pertaining to small pieces of
lands. The learned AGP further submitted that
the land which was involved in Exhibit-14, was
admeasuring 40 Ares; whereas the lands which were
the subject matter of Exhibits 15 and 16, both
were admeasuring only 15 Ares each.
4 FA 3204/2016
. The learned AGP submitted that on the
basis of the sale instances pertaining to the
small pieces of lands, the market value of the
lands admeasuring more than 2 hectares and 52
Ares, could not have been determined at par with
the said lands by the Reference Court. The
learned AGP further submitted that in other
respect also, i.e. nature, quality and
potentiality, the sale instances, which were
relied upon by the Reference Court, were not of a
comparable lands.
. The learned AGP submitted that the
Reference Court has unreasonably enhanced the
amount of compensation. He further submitted
that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had
correctly offered the compensation @ Rs.700/- per
Are and no interference was required in the
amount of compensation so offered by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer. The learned AGP
further submitted that the Reference Court has
also erred in awarding the interest under
Section 34 of the Act from the date of
5 FA 3204/2016
possession. He, therefore, prayed for setting
aside the impugned Judgment and Award.
5) Shri Shinde, learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent - original claimants supported
the impugned Judgment and Award. The learned
Counsel submitted that though the sale instances
which were relied upon by the claimants, were all
of small portions of lands, the Reference Court
while determining the market value of the subject
land has given appropriate deductions and has
correctly determined the market value of the
acquired lands. The learned Counsel submitted
that no interference is, therefore, warranted in
the impugned Judgment and Award. He, therefore,
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6) Two grounds are raised in exception to
the impugned Judgment and Award. Firstly, that
the Reference Court while determining the market
value of the subject lands, has relied upon the
sale instances pertaining to the small pieces of
6 FA 3204/2016
lands. Three sale instances were placed on
record by the claimants. The land which was the
subject matter of Exhibit-14 was admeasuring 40
Ares and was sold for the consideration of
Rs.1,00,000/- by registered sale deed executed on
30th November, 2002. The said land was thus sold @
Rs.2,500/- per Are. The lands which were the
subject matter of Exhibits-15 and 16, both were
admeasuring 15 Ares each and were sold
respectively for the consideration of Rs.
40,000/- and Rs. 45,000/-, rate of which comes to
Rs.2,666/- per Are and Rs.3,000/- per Are
respectively.
. The sale instances, which have been
relied upon by the Reference Court, were of the
years 2002 and 2003. By giving appropriate rise
in the price and by considering the notional
increase in the market value, the market value
of the said lands would have been more than
Rs.3,000/- per Are on the date of issuance of the
notification in the year 2006. Considering that
the subject land was large piece of land, the
7 FA 3204/2016
Reference Court, after giving allowances to the
said negative factor, has correctly determined
the market value of the said lands at the rate of
Rs.2,000/- per Are. From the material on
record, it is quite evident that the lands under
acquisition, were seasonally irrigated lands and
the sale instances which were brought on record
were also pertaining to the seasonally irrigated
lands.
7) After having considered the aforesaid
aspects and the discussion made by the Reference
Court in that regard, it does snot appear to me
that the Reference Court has committed any error
in determining the market value of the subject
lands @ Rs.2,000/- per Are.
8) However, in so far as the another
objection raised by learned AGP as about the
interest awarded under Section 34 of the Act is
concerned, it appears to me that the Reference
Court has committed an error in awarding the same
8 FA 3204/2016
from the date of possession of the lands. In view
of the law laid down by the Full bench of this
court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Kailash Shiva Rangari - 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457,
interest under Section 34 of the Act could not
have been granted from the date of possession.
To that extent, the award needs to be modified.
9) For the reasons stated herein above,
following order is passed, -
ORDER
i) The impugned award in so far as
it relates to grant of interest under
Section 34 of the Act, stands quashed
and set aside;
ii) The interest under Section 34
of the Act shall be paid from the date
of award under Section 11 of the Act;
iii) The First Appeal stands allowed
in the aforesaid terms. Pending civil
9 FA 3204/2016
application, if any, stands disposed of.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
