State Of Maha vs Sahebrao Shamrao Patil
2017 Latest Caselaw 4772 Bom

                                                                                fa489.03
                                           -1-


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2003


 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          (Notice to be served on the
          Collector, Jalgaon)

 2.       The Special Land Acquisition Officer III
          UTP Hatnur, District Jalgaon                        ...Appellants

                  versus

 Sahebrao Shamrao Patil,
 Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculture
 R/o. Deogaon, Tq. Chopda
 District Jalgaon                                             ...Respondent

                                     .....
 Mr. A.M. Phule, A.G.P. for the appellant
 None for the respondent
                                     .....

                                                 CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 20th JULY, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. Being aggrieved by the common judgment award dated

15.04.1991 passed by the learned 2 nd Joint C.J.S.D. Jalgaon in L.A.R.

No. 373 of 1984 and other connected matters, the State has preferred

this appeal.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:-

a) The agricultural land Gat No. 87 owned and possessed by the

respondent claimant to the extent of 0.21 R situated at village Deogaon

fa489.03

came to be acquired by the Government alongwith other lands for

construction of Deogaon minor Hatnur right bank canal. Notification

under section 4 was published on 21.5.1981. The S.L.A.O. had awarded

the compensation at Rs.15,000/- per hectare for the acquired land of

respondent claimant. Being dissatisfied with the inadequate

compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O., the respondent claimant

preferred aforesaid L.A.R. for grant of compensation at the enhanced

rate. It has been contended in the said reference petition that the land

Gat No. 87 is Bagayat land and the S.L.A.O. has committed error in

holding the said land as Jirayat land. It has also been contended that

the acquired land is superior and fertile land. The S.L.A.O. has

considered the sale instances showing the lower price and ignored the

sale instances showing higher price. It has also been contended that

the acquired land is situated near Tapi river. The respondent/claimant

accordingly claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre.

b) The appellant State has strongly resisted the said reference

petition by filing written statement. It has been contended that the

claimant has not accepted the amount of compensation under protest

and further he has not preferred any claim before the S.L.A.O. under

section 9 of the Act. As such, the claim is barred under section 25(2) of

the said Act. The S.L.A.O. has considered the situation of the quality

and assessment of the land alongwith other relevant factors and

awarded just and reasonable compensation.

fa489.03

c) The claimant has adduced oral and documentary evidence in

support of his contentions. However, the appellant State has not

adduced any evidence. Learned IInd Joint C.J.S.D. Jalgaon, by its

impugned judgment and award dated 15.4.1991 allowed the claim

petition and thereby awarded the compensation at the rate of

Rs.63,500/- per hectare by treating the acquired land of the respondent

claimant as Bagayat land. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has

preferred this appeal.

3. The learned A.G.P. for the appellants State submits that the

reference court has treated the acquired land of respondent claimant as

Bagayat land, without any basis. The respondent original claimant has

placed his reliance on the sale deed Exh.28. The said sale instance is

of another village and admittedly, the said village Adawad is situated at

a distance of 6/7 kilometers away from the village Deogaon, where the

acquired land is situated. Learned A.G.P. submits that the reference

court has erroneously relied upon the said sale instance and awarded

the compensation at an exorbitant rate.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent sole is absent.

5. On perusal of pleadings, evidence and the judgment and award

passed by the Reference Court, it appears that in para 6 of the

fa489.03

judgment, the reference Court has considered 7x12 extract pertaining to

Gat No. 87, Exh.22 produced by the respondent claimant on record.

On perusal of same, it appears that the respondent owner had

cultivated Banana plant in the year 1981-82 in Gat No. 87 and he was

getting bagayat crops in the said land as per the crops showing in the

7x12 extract. I do not find any fault in the findings recorded by the

reference court that the land Gat no. 87 is Bagayat land.

6. It appears that the respondent claimant has relied upon sale deed

Exh.28. Respondent claimant has honestly stated about the distance

between village Deogaon where the acquired land is situated and

village Adawad, where the land under sale instance is situated. The

distance between two villages is about 6/7 kilometers. According to the

respondent/claimant, the lands of both the villages as well as their

prices are similar. It is the contention of the claimant that the acquired

land is situated on Jalgaon-Chopda road. The respondent claimant has

also pointed out to the reference court that S.L.A.O. himself has stated

in the award that there are no sufficient sale instances available at

village Deogaon. In view of same, it appears that the reference Court

has rightly relied upon the sale instance Exh.28 which is of adjacent

village Adawad. It further appears that the said sale instance is of the

year 1975 whereas Section 4 notification in respect of the acquired land

was published on 21.5.1981. The reference court has carried out the

deduction as the land under sale instance is from different village and

fa489.03

the land has been sold alongwith the well. However, the learned

Reference court has failed to make any addition in the consideration

amount so far as the said gap of 6 years is concerned. The reference

court has considered the acquired land as Bagayat land and accordingly

awarded just and reasonable compensation at the rate of Rs.63,500/-

per hectare, as against claim of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare to the

respondent-claimant. I do not find any fault in the judgment and award

passed by the Reference Court. The reference court has awarded just

and reasonable compensation by relying upon the sale deed Exh.28.

Further the reference court has rightly treated the acquired land as

Bagayat land.

7. In view of the above, I find no substance in the appeal. There is

no merit in the appeal, as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The

appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

( V. K. JADHAV, J.)

rlj/