Bombay High Court
Vitthal Mohan Nimse L.Rs. ... vs The State Of Mah on 19 July, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 FA 313.2003.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 313 OF 2003
Vitthal Mohan Nimse deceased through L.Rs.:
1. Satyabhamabai w/o Vitthal Nimse,
age 59 yrs, Occ. Household and Agri,
2. Balasaheb s/o Vitthal Nimse,
age 41 yrs, Occ. Agri.
3. Appasaheb s/o Vitthal Nimse,
age 38 yrs, Occ. Agri,
4. Sulbha Vitthal Nimse,
age 34 yrs, Occ. Agri,
5. Arun S/o Vitthal Nimse,
age 25 yrs, Occ. Agri,
R/o Darewadi, Tq. &
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Appellants..
(orig petitioners.)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent..
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr Babanrao N Palve
AGP for Respondent : Mr B V Virdhe
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: July 19, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
20.6.2002 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, S.D.,
Ahmednagar, in LAR No.62/1990, the original claimants
aaa/-
2 FA 313.2003.odt
have preferred this appeal.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal are as
follows :-
a] Agricultural lands owned and possessed by the
appellants-claimants came to be acquired by the
Government for the purpose of Mechanised Infantry
Regiment Centre. Notification under section 4 (1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the official
gazette on 16.8.1985. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer has awarded the compensation @ Rs.125/- per
Aar for the acquired lands. Being dis-satisfied by the
inadequate compensation awarded by the SLAO, the
appellants-claimants preferred the aforesaid reference
petitions for grant of compensation at the enhanced rate
@ Rs.25,000/- per acre corresponds to Rs.625/- per
aar. It has been contended in the claim petition that the
Special Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into
account all sale instances, actual market price,
potentiality, proximity and other aspects and thereby
awarded unreasonable and inadequate compensation.
aaa/-
3 FA 313.2003.odt
b] Respondent-State has strongly resisted the said
claim petition by filing written statement. It has been
contended that, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken
into account all the aspects such as sale instance,
actual market price and awarded just and reasonable
compensation.
c]. The appellants-claimants have adduced the
evidence in support of their contentions. Respondent-
State has not adduced any evidence. The learned Jt.
Civil Jude S.D. Ahmednagar, by its impugned judgment
and award partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded the compensation as claimed by the
appellants-claimants. However, according to the
appellants-claimants in the main LAR No.67/1990
which has been decided by the Court prior to impugned
judgment and award, wherein, the Reference Court has
awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of
Rs.1,360/- for the seasonally irrigated lands. Though,
the appellants-claimants claims that, their acquired
land is irrigated land, in the alternate, claims that they
aaa/-
4 FA 313.2003.odt
are entitled for the compensation at the same rate as
awarded by the reference court in the said LAR
No.67/1990 for seasonally irrigated lands.
3. The learned A.G.P. submits that, reference court
has awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate as
claimed by the appellants-claimants, and as such, the
present appeal is not maintainable. The learned A.G.P.
submits that, so far as compensation awarded by the
Reference Court to enhance the rate in main L.A.R.
No.67/1990 is concerned, the appellants-claimants have
not amended their claim petition to claim the
compensation at the same rate and on the other hand,
the appellants-claimants have not pressed their
application seeking amendment on the basis of the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in
the said LAR No.67/1990. There is no substance in the
appeal and the appeal as such is liable to be dismissed.
4. It appears from the impugned judgment and award
that, though the reference court has considered the
aaa/-
5 FA 313.2003.odt
compensation awarded at the enhanced rate in L.A.R
No.67/1990 in respect of the acquired lands for the
same project, refused to award the compensation at the
same enhanced rate only for the reason that the
appellants-claimants have restricted their claim to the
extent of the rate Rs.625/- per aar and as such,
reference court has allowed the claim petition in toto. It
is well settled that, reference petitions before the Court
below are required to be considered as original
proceeding and reference court can come to an
independent conclusion for determination of the market
value. There is no limitation on the power of the Court
to award adequate, just and reasonable compensation
and State is bound to pay similar compensation to all
the claimants.
5. On perusal of the pleadings, evidence and the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, it
appears that the certified copy of the judgment and
award passed in LAR No.67 of 1990 came to be placed
before the Reference Court vide Exhibit 21 alongwith the
aaa/-
6 FA 313.2003.odt
evidence adduced by the parties in the said matter. In
addition to this, the Appellants/Claimants have also
adduced oral evidence. Even the Reference Court in
para 7 of the judgment has observed that on the basis
of the evidence adduced in main LAR No.67 of 1990
coupled with the oral evidence of the Petitioner, the
Reference Court is going to decide the petition.
However, it further appears that the Reference Court
has declined to consider the judgment and award
passed in said LAR No.67 of 1990 for the reasons that
the Applicants/Claimants have self determined the
value of the acquired land.
6. It is now well settled that the proceedings before
the Reference Court to be considered as original
proceedings and the Court can come to the independent
conclusion for determination of the market value. There
is no limitation on the power of the Court to award
adequate compensation and the State is bound to pay
the similar compensation to all the Claimants. In the
instant case, the judgment and award passed in LAR
aaa/-
7 FA 313.2003.odt
No.67 of 1990 has attained the finality and from the
same award, the Claimants in LAR No.67 of 1990 getting
some more compensation for the acquired lands
whereas the Appellants/Claimants in the present appeal
are getting less compensation for no reason. Though the
evidence recorded in LAR No.67 of 1990 placed before
the Reference Court alongwith the judgment and award
passed in LAR No.67 of 1990 vide Exhibit 21 and the
parties to the reference petition have given consent to
consider the said evidence recorded in LAR No.67 of
1990, the Reference Court has not awarded the
compensation as per the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court at the enhanced rate in said LAR No.67
of 1990 simply for the reason that the Appellants/
Claimants have restricted their claim. The Reference
Court has recorded the finding that the acquired land is
seasonally irrigated land and the Respondent/State has
not filed any cross-appeal against the said finding
recorded by the Reference Court. In LAR No.67 of 1990,
the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at
the rate of Rs.67,400/- per Acre i.e. Rs.1,68,500/- per
aaa/-
8 FA 313.2003.odt
Hectare for the seasonally irrigated land. The Claimants
are entitled for the compensation at the same enhanced
rate.
7. In the case of Bhag Singh and ors. Vs. Union
Territory of Chandigarh, reported in, AIR 1985 S.C.
1576, the Supreme Court held that keeping in view the
provisions of Section 25 of the Act, there is now no
limitation on the power of the Court to award adequate
compensation and the State is bound to pay similar
compensation to all the Claimants.
8. In view of the above discussion and in view of the
ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, the Appellants/
Claimants are entitled for the compensation as
determined by the Reference Court in LAR No.67 of
1990, which has already attained the finality. Thus, the
impugned judgment and award requires modification.
Hence, the following order:
aaa/-
9 FA 313.2003.odt
O R D E R
I. The appeal is hereby partly allowed. No
costs.
II. The judgment and award passed by the
Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,
Ahmednagar dated 20th June, 2002 in
LAR No.62 of 1990, is hereby modified in
the following manner:
"Opponent / State shall pay the
compensation to the Claimants
for the acquired land at the rate
of Rs.67,400/- per Acre i.e.
Rs.1,68,500/- per Hectare."
III. The Appellants / Claimants are entitled
for all the statutory benefits as awarded
by the Reference Court.
IV. Award be drawn up as per the above
notification.
V. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
sd/-
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
