Bombay High Court
Prabhakar Eknath Gore vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
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 10:52:56 :::
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 10:52:56 :::
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 10:52:56 :::
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/
