Gmidc Through The Executive ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 4814 Bom

                                       1           FA Nos. 945/2014 & Ors.

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        FIRST APPEAL NO.945 OF 2014

  Godawari Marathawada Irrigation
  Development Corporation through
  The Executive Engineer,
  Latur Medium Project, Latur
  Dist. Latur                                  =        APPELLANT

                   VERSUS

  1.       The State of Maharashtra
           Through Collector Latur
           (Special L.A.O. No.1)
           Dist.Latur

  2.       Shivaji s/o. Venkoba Patil
           Age: 45 years, Occu.:Agri,
           R/o. Sone-Sangavi,
           Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur            =        RESPONDENTS

                               -----
           Mr. M.G. Kolse Patil, Advocate for Appellant;
           Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent/State.
           Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                               -----


                                      WITH
                          FIRST APPEAL NO.944 OF 2014

  Godawari Marathwada Irrigation
  Development Corporation through
  The Executive Engineer,
  Latur Medium Project Latur
  Dist. Latur                                  =        APPELLANT

                   VERSUS

  1.       The State of Maharashtra
           Through Collector Latur
           (Special L.A.O. No.1)
           Dist.Latur

  2.       Sheshrao s/o. Eknath Gore,




::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:52:48 :::
                                        2           FA Nos. 945/2014 & Ors.

           Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
           R/o. Tupadi, Tq. Nilanga,
           Dist. Latur                         =        RESPONDENTS

                               -----
           Mr. M.G. Kolse Patil, Advocate for Appellant;
           Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent/State.
           Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                               -----

                                      WITH
                          FIRST APPEAL NO.943 OF 2014

  Godawari Marathwada Irrigation
  Development Corporation through
  The Executive Engineer,
  Latur Medium Project Latur
  Dist. Latur                                  =        APPELLANT

                   VERSUS

  1.       The State of Maharashtra
           Through Collector Latur
           (Special L.A.O. No.1)
           Dist.Latur

  2.       Shahabuddin s/o. Surajsaheb Shaikh
           Age: Major, Occu.-Agri.,
           R/o. Shivani (Kothal),
           Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur     =     RESPONDENTS

                               -----
           Mr. M.G. Kolse Patil, Advocate for Appellant;
           Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent/State.
                               -----

                                      WITH
                          FIRST APPEAL NO.946 OF 2014

  Godawari Marathwada Irrigation
  Development Corporation through
  The Executive Engineer,
  Latur Medium Project Latur
  Dist. Latur                                  =        APPELLANT

                   VERSUS




::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:52:48 :::
                                        3          FA Nos. 945/2014 & Ors.

  1.       The State of Maharashtra
           Through Collector Latur
           (Special L.A.O. No.1)
           Dist.Latur

  2.       Rajesaheb s/o. Surajsaheb Shaikh
           Age: Mejor, Occu.: Agri.,
           R/o. Shivani (Kothal),
           Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur     =              RESPONDENTS

                               -----
           Mr. M.G. Kolse Patil, Advocate for Appellant;
           Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent/State.
                               -----

                                     WITH
                         FIRST APPEAL NO.1550 OF 2010

  Prabhakar s/o. Eknath Gore
  Age: 70 years, Occu: Agril.,
  R/o. Tupadi. Tq. Nilanga,
  Dist. Latur                                 =    APPELLANT
                                                (Orig. Claimant)
                   VERSUS

  1.       The State of Maharashtra
           Through Collector Latur

  2.       The Executive Engineer,
           Medium Project, Latur       =   RESPONDENTS
                                     (Orig. Respondents)
                               -----
           Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for Appellant;
           Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondents/State.
                               -----


                                     WITH
                         FIRST APPEAL NO.1552 OF 2010

  Sheshrao s/o. Eknath Gore
  Age: 65 years, Occu: Agril.,
  R/o. Tupadi. Tq. Nilanga,
  Dist. Latur                                 =    APPELLANT
                                                (Orig. Claimant)
                   VERSUS




::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:52:48 :::
                                          4            FA Nos. 945/2014 & Ors.

  1.       The State of Maharashtra
           Through Collector Latur

  2.       The Executive Engineer,
           Medium Project, Latur       =   RESPONDENTS
                                     (Orig. Respondents)
                               -----
           Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for Appellant;
           Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent/State.
           Mr. M.G. Kolse Patil, Advocate for Resp.No.2.
                               -----

                                     WITH
                         FIRST APPEAL NO.1553 OF 2010

  Keshav S/o. Eknath Gore,
  Age: 67 years, Occu.:Agril.,
  R/o. Tupadi, Tq. Nilanga,
  Dist. Latur                                     =    APPELLANT
                                                    (Orig. Claimant)
                   VERSUS

  1.       The State of Maharashtra
           Through Collector Latur

  2.       The Executive Engineer,
           Medium Project, Latur       =   RESPONDENTS
                                     (Orig. Respondents)

                               -----
           Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for Appellant;
           Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent/State.
           Mr. M.G. Kolse Patil, Advocate for Resp.No.2.

                                    -----
                               CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

20 th

July,2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard. First Appeal Nos.1550/2010;

1552/2010 & 1553/2010 are not on Board. Taken on

Board.

2) The present appeals are arising out of

the award pertaining to the lands acquired for

Masalga Medium Project. Four appeals are filed by

the acquiring body, objecting to the amount of

compensation enhanced by the Reference Court,

whereas three appeals are filed by the original

claimants, seeking enhancement in the amount of

compensation, as has been awarded by the

Reference Court.

3) As noted above, the lands, which are the

subject matter in the present appeals were

acquired for the Masalga Medium project.

Notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as

the Act) in that regard was published in the

official Gazette on 1st October, 1992. Award

under Section 11 of the Act came to be passed on

13th April, 1996. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer offered the compensation for the acquired

land by determining the market value of the said

lands @ Rs. 38,235/- per hectare for dry land.

Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so

offered by the SLAO, the claimants had filed the

Reference Applications, seeking enhancement in

the amount of compensation, which were forwarded

for adjudication to the District court at Nilanga

(hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court).

The claimants had claimed the compensation @ Rs.

1,00,000/- per hectare for Jirayat land and Rs.

2,00,000/- per hectare for the irrigated land.

In addition to their own testimony, the claimants

had placed on record certain sale instances in

order to substantiate their claims. No oral or

documentary evidence was adduced by the State of

by the acquiring body. The learned Reference

Court, after having assessed the oral and

documentary evidence brought on record before it,

determined the market value of the acquired lands

@ Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare and accordingly

enhanced the amount of compensation. Aggrieved

by, as noted above, the acquiring body and the

original claimants both have filed the present

appeals.

4) Shri M.G.Kolshe-Patil, learned Counsel

appearing for the acquiring body, submitted that

the reference court has enhanced the amount of

compensation unreasonably, discarding the

evidence on record. The learned Counsel

submitted that, in fact, when all the claimants

were served with notice under Section 5 of the

Act, at the first instance, they were supposed to

appear before the SLAO and place on record the

necessary evidence. The learned Counsel submitted

that none of the claimants availed the said

opportunity and resultantly, on the basis of the

material collected by the SLAO, he determined the

market value of the acquired land and awarded the

amount of compensation. The learned Counsel

submitted that the claimants had, therefore, lost

their right to raise any objection as regards to

the amount of compensation offered by the SLAO.

5) The learned Counsel further submitted

that the Reference Court has wrongly relied upon

the sale deed at Exh. 23. The learned Counsel

further submitted that the land which was the

subject matter of Exh. 23, was admittedly from

different village and there is no discussion in

the impugned judgment as to whether the said land

was in any way comparable with the subject lands

in nature and quality etc. The learned Counsel

submitted that without making any discussion, it

was not open for the Reference Court to rely upon

the said sale instance for determining the market

value of the acquired lands. The learned Counsel

further submitted that the Reference Court has

further grossly erred in totally discarding the

observations made by the SLAO in the award under

Section 11 of the Act.

6) The learned Counsel further submitted

that the sale instances which were relied upon by

the claimants before the Reference Court, were

duly considered and discarded by the SLAO while

making the Award under Section 11 of the Act. The

learned Counsel submitted that in the impugned

judgment, the Reference Court has not even

touched to the said aspect and has not recorded

any other finding or recording any such opinion

that the sale instances were wrongly kept out of

consideration by the SLAO. The learned Counsel

submitted that though the Reference Court in its

judgment has referred to the decision given by

this Court in First Appeal No. 2716/2008, while

determining the amount of enhanced compensation,

has totally ignored that, in the said appeal this

court has confirmed the decision of the Reference

Court awarding the compensation to the lands

involved in the said matters @ Rs. 30,000/- per

acre for dry land. The learned Counsel submitted

that since the impugned judgment is delivered

without proper appreciation of the evidence on

record, the same deserves to be quashed and set

aside. The learned Counsel submitted that the

SLAO had properly determined the market value of

the acquired lands and there was no reason for

the Reference Court to cause any interference in

the award so passed under Section 11 of the Act.

7) The learned Counsel in order to support

the contentions raised by him, relied upon the

following judgments, -

a) 2011 AIR SCW 3582 - Trishala Jain & anr Vs. State of Uttaranchal and anr;

b) (2011)1 SCC 330 - The Special Dy.Collector, Land Acquisition CMDA Vs. J.Sivaprakasam and Ors.

c) AIR 1983 Bom.313 - State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishwanathrao Parshuram Mali;

d) AIR 2004 SC 1179 - Panna Lal Ghosh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector;

e) 2013 AIR SCW 4591 -Ramanlal Deochand Shah and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

8) As against it, Shri B.N.patil, learned

Counsel appearing for the original claimants in

all these matters, submitted that the Reference

Court has failed in awarding a just and fair

compensation to the claimants. The learned

Counsel submitted that the sale instance brought

on record by the claimants vide Exh.23, was

perfectly comparable with the lands which are the

subject matter in the present appeals. The

learned counsel submitted that the land which was

the subject matter of Exh.23 was admeasuring 1

hectare and 35 Ares and was sold by a registered

sale deed executed on 31st January, 1991 for the

consideration of Rs.1,95,000/-. The learned

counsel submitted that the said land was thus

sold @ Rs. 1,44,400/- per hectare. The learned

counsel submitted that the subject lands were

acquired vide the notification issued on

1.10.1992, i.e. after the period of about two

years or the execution of the sale deed at Exh.

23. The learned counsel submitted that as has

come on record the sale deed of the said land,

though was executed on 31st January, 1991, the

agreement of sale pertaining to the said land was

entered into in the year 1990. The learned

counsel submitted that in such circumstances, in

face, the price which was received to the land

involved in Exhibit-23 was liable to be enhanced

at least by 20% and the said rate ought to have

been held as a basis for determination of the

market value of the acquired lands. The learned

Counsel submitted that the Reference Court has

caused injustice to the claimants by determining

the market value much less than the price

received to the said land involved in Exh.23.

The learned counsel submitted that in such

circumstances, the claimants are entitled for

enhancement in the amount of compensation as

awarded by the Reference Court and the same may

be appropriately enhanced and the awards be

accordingly modified.

9) Learned AGP appearing for the respondent

submitted that in view of the earlier decision in

First Appeal No.2716/2008, with connected

appeals, appropriate orders may be passed since

the lands which were involved in the said appeal

were also acquired for Masalga Medium project.

10) I have carefully considered the

submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing

for the respective parties. I have carefully

perused the common impugned Judgment and Award .

First I would like to refer to the judgment

delivered by this Court in First Appeal No.

2716/2008 with the connected First Appeals.

Indisputably, the lands which were the subject

matter in the said appeals were also acquired for

the Masalga Medium project. As is revealing from

the discussion made in the said judgment, the

said lands were acquired, vide notification under

Section 4 of the Act published on 4 th August,

1984. In the said matters, the Reference Court

had enhanced the amount of compensation by

determining the market value of the said lands @

Rs.30,000/- per acre in respect of the dry land

and Rs.40,000/- per acre in respect of irrigated

lands.

11) The learned Reference Court has referred

to the decision in First Appeal No.2716/2008,

however, has not made any more discussion as

about the observations made in the said judgment

or conclusions recorded by this Court in the said

judgment. Admittedly, the decision of this court

in the aforesaid appeals has not been challenged

before the Hon'ble Apex court and thus has

attained the finality. It appears to me that the

said judgment, thus, can be a base for

determining the market value of the acquired

lands in the present appeals. However, I would

discuss the said aspect bit later. Before that I

would prefer to discuss the evidence which was

adduced before the Reference Court and how the

same has been appreciated by the Reference Court.

12) It was the contention of the learned

counsel appearing for the acquiring body that the

same has not been properly appreciated by the

Reference Court and pointing out some

observations in the judgments relied upon by him,

it was sought to be canvassed by him that the

Reference Court has erred in determining the

amount of compensation in the impugned Judgment

and Award. Perusal of the common impugned

Judgment and Award reveals that though there

were more than one sale instances placed on

record by the claimants, the Reference Court has

preferred to rely upon the sale instance at

Exh.23. In para 24 to 27, the Reference Court

has elaborately discussed the reasons for relying

upon the said sale instance. By taking into

account plus and minus factors, by comparing the

land which was the subject matter of Exh. 23 with

the acquired lands, the Reference Court has

observed that the land which was the subject

matter of Exh.23, though was sold by registered

sale deed on 31st January, 1991, the agreement of

sale pertaining to the said land was of the year

1990 and, therefore, the Court has given increase

in the said price @ 10% per year. As held by the

Reference Court, as per the value received for

the said land, the market rate on the date of

notification was notionally coming to Rs.69,910/-

per acre. The Reference Court has further

observed that since the land which was the

subject matter of Exh. 23 was purchased by son of

one of the claimants in the present matter and

since it was adjoining land to the land owned by

the said person, some deductions were liable to

be made from the value received to the said land.

The learned Reference Court has, therefore, by

making appropriate deductions, determined the

market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.

1,00,000/- per hectare.

13) After having considered the entire

evidence on record and the reasons assigned by

the Reference Court, it does not appear to me

that the Reference Court has committed any error

in determining the market value of the acquired

lands. From the evidence on record it is

difficult to accept the contention of the

acquiring body that the Reference Court has given

unreasonable hike in the market value of the

acquired lands.

14) At the same time, though the claimants

are seeking enhancement in the amount of

compensation, as has been awarded by the

Reference Court, no such case is made out even by

the claimants showing any inherent error

committed by the Reference Court in determining

the market value of the acquired lands.

Moreover, as has been noted by me earlier, for

the lands which were acquired for same Masalga

Medium project in the year 1984, the amount of

compensation was determined @ Rs.30,000/- per

acre for non-irrigated land and @ Rs. 40,000/-

per acre for irrigated land and this Court in

First Appeal No.2716/2008 has confirmed the

judgment and award passed in that regard by the

Reference Court.

15) Considering the aforesaid aspects, it

does not appear to me that the Reference Court

has committed any error in determining the market

value of the acquired lands @ Rs.40,000/- per

acre. I, therefore, do not see any merit in the

appeals filed by the acquiring body as well as by

the claimants.

16) In view of the finding recorded by me

that the Reference Court has correctly determined

the market value of the acquired lands, all the

present appeals deserve to be dismissed and are

accordingly dismissed, however, without any order

as to cost. Pending civil application, if any,

stands disposed of.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

bdv/