Bombay High Court
Executive Engineer Lower Terna ... vs Sheshrao Vishwanathappa Lohare ... on 21 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO.1092/2016gr
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1092 OF 2016
Executive Engineer
Lower Terna Canal
Division No.2, Latur. ...APPELLANT
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
VERSUS
1. Keshav s/o. Ratnaji Natakar
Age: 70 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Palapur, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENT NO.1
(Original Claimant)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Latur.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, P.T.& I.T., Latur.
...RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3
(Ori. Resp. Nos. 1 & 2
formal parties)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1093 OF 2016
Executive Engineer
Lower Terna Canal
Division No.2, Latur. APPELLANT
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
VERSUS
1. Chimaji s/o. Ismail Natakar
Age: 75 years, Occu. Agriculture
R/o. Palapur, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENT NO.1
(Original Claimant)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Latur.
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:01:35 :::
2 FA NO.1092/2016gr
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
P.T. & I.T. Latur.
...RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3
(Ori. Resp. Nos. 1 & 2
formal parties)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1095 OF 2016
Executive Engineer
Lower Terna Canal
Division No.2, Latur. APPELLANT
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
VERSUS
1. Gulab s/o. Mahada Natakar
Age: 54 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Palapur, Tq. Nilanga
Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENT NO.1
(Original Claimant)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Latur.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
P.T. & I.T. Latur.
...RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3
(Ori. Resp. Nos. 1 & 2
formal parties)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1096 OF 2016
Executive Engineer
Lower Terna Canal
Division No.2, Latur. APPELLANT
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
VERSUS
1. Indrajeet s/o. Rama Natakar
Age: 65 years, Occu. Agriculture
R/o. Palapur, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:01:35 :::
3 FA NO.1092/2016gr
...RESPONDENT NO.1
(Original Claimant)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Latur.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
P.T. & I.T. Latur.
...RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3
(Ori. Resp. Nos. 1 & 2
formal parties)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1097 OF 2016
Executive Engineer
Lower Terna Canal
Division No.2, Latur. APPELLANT
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
VERSUS
1. Sheshrao s/o. Vishwanathappa Lohare
Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Palapur, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENT NO.1
(Original Claimant)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Latur.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
P.T. & I.T. Latur.
...RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3
(Ori. Resp. Nos. 1 & 2
formal parties)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1098 OF 2016
Executive Engineer
Lower Terna Canal
Division No.2, Latur. APPELLANT
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:01:35 :::
4 FA NO.1092/2016gr
VERSUS
1. Shivkaran s/o. Pandurang Natakar
Age: 44 years, Occu. Agriculture
R/o. Palapur, Tq. Nilanga
Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENT NO.1
(Original Claimant)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Latur.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
P.T. & I.T. Latur.
...RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3
(Ori. Resp. Nos. 1 & 2
formal parties)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2016
Executive Engineer
Lower Terna Canal
Division No.2, Latur. APPELLANT
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
VERSUS
1. Bhimrao s/o. Shankar Dhole
Age: 70 years, Occu. Agriculture
R/o. Palapur, TQ. Nilanga
Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENT NO.1
(Original Claimant)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Latur
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
P.T. & I.T. Latur.
...RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3
(Ori. Resp. Nos. 1 & 2
formal parties)
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:01:35 :::
5 FA NO.1092/2016gr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1101 OF 2016
Executive Engineer
Lower Terna Canal
Division No.2, Latur. APPELLANT
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
VERSUS
1. Nilabai Jagannath Lohare
Age: Major, Occu. Agriculture
& Household
R/o. Palapur, Tq. Nilanga
Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENT NO.1
(Original Claimant)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Latur
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
P.T. & I.T. Latur.
...RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3
(Ori. Resp. Nos. 1 & 2
formal parties)
-----
Mrs.Ranjana D.Reddi, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr.G.K.Sontakke, Advocate for respondents/claimants.
Mr.C.V.Dharurkar, AGP for Respondent State.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : 21st July,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Counsel appearing for the parties.
6 FA NO.1092/2016gr
2. Since the present appeals are arising out of
common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, I
deem it appropriate to decide these appeals by common
reasoning.
3. The lands which are involved in the present appeals
were acquired for Lower Terna Project. The notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter
referred to as the Act), was published in the official gazette on
29th of April, 2000 and the award under Section 11 of the Act
came to be passed on 28th of February, 2001. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer had offered the compensation at the
rate of Rs.470/- per Are for dry land. Dissatisfied with the
amount of compensation so offered, the claimants preferred
applications under Section 18 of the Act to Collector, Latur, who
in turn forwarded all those applications for adjudication to the
Civil Court ( hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court).
The Reference Court after having assessed the oral and
documentary evidence brought before it, determined the
market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1050/- per
Are for Jirayat land and Rs.2100/- for irrigated land and,
accordingly enhanced the amount of compensation. Aggrieved
thereby, the acquiring body has filed the present appeals.
7 FA NO.1092/2016gr
4. At the outset, it has to be stated that in the present
group of matters, in LAR No.226/2002 and 231/2002, the
Reference Court has awarded separate compensation for trees
and BANDHS, etc. The Reference Court has passed a common
judgment and award, in total 10 Reference Applications. In
two Reference Applications i.e. LAR No.226/2002 and LAR
No.231/2002, out of total 10 applications, compensation has
been awarded by the Reference Court towards `trees' and
`Bunds'. The appeals against the awards passed in aforesaid
two applications are, therefore, detached from the present
group and would be heard separately.
5. In so far as present matters are concerned, the
objection raised by Smt. Reddy, the learned Counsel for the
appellants, is in respect of the market value as determined by
the Reference Court. Learned Counsel submitted that the
Reference Court has, without properly appreciating the sale
instances brought on record, has determined the market value
on higher side. The learned Counsel submitted the sale
instance which has been considered by the Reference Court
while determining the market value of the subject land was, in
fact, not of a comparable land and the Reference Court could
not have determined the market value of the subject lands on
8 FA NO.1092/2016gr
the basis of the said sale deed. Learned Counsel, inviting my
attention to paragraph no.13 of the judgment, wherein the
information as about the sale instances brought on record
before the Reference Court has been provided in tabular form,
submitted that the sale instance at Sr.No.1 was most
appropriate and comparable sale instance to determine the
market value of the acquired land wherein the land involved
was sold at the rate of Rs.470/- per Are. Learned Counsel
submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had
accordingly offered the compensation at the said rate and no
interference was required in the amount of compensation so
offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Learned
Counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned
judgment and award and to confirm the amount of
compensation as was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer.
6. Shri Sontakke, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent i.e. the original claimants, opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the appellant. Taking me through the
discussion made by the Reference Court in the same paragraph
nos. 13 and also 14 of the judgment, learned Counsel
submitted that the Reference Court has fully analyzed the
evidence as about the sale instances and has rightly relied
9 FA NO.1092/2016gr
upon the sale instance at Sr.No.3 in tabular format pertaining
to 43 Are land sold at the rate of Rs.976/- per Are and has
accordingly, determined the market value of the subject lands.
Learned Counsel submitted that even the respondents i.e. the
present appellants have relied upon the said sale instance and
the said fact has been noted by the Reference Court in its
judgment. Learned Counsel submitted that the land which
was the subject matter of the sale deed executed on 5.5.1999
was from the same village and was having same potentials and
considering the date of the sale deed, it was nearest in
proximity of time. According to the learned Counsel, the
Reference Court has, therefore, rightly relied upon the said
sale instance. Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the appeals.
7. After having considered the submissions advanced
by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and
on perusal of the judgment as well as the evidence on record, it
does not appear to me that any substantial ground is raised by
the acquiring body in exception to the impugned judgment and
award so far as it relates to determination of the market value
of the acquired lands. The sale deed which has been relied
upon by the Reference Court in determining the market value of
the subject lands, as noted by the Reference Court, was also
10 FA NO.1092/2016gr
relied upon by the acquiring body. The land which was the
subject matter of the sale deed relied upon by the Reference
Court was admeasuring 43 Are and was sold by registered sale
deed executed on 5.5.1999 for the total consideration of
Rs.42,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.976/- per Are. The
Reference Court has observed that since the land involved in
the aforesaid sale deed was from the same village, and has
received the highest consideration and was also of the period
nearest in proximity of time, he was relying on the said sale
deed. I do not see any infirmity in the observation so made
and reliance so placed by the Reference Court on the said sale
instance for determining the market value of the subject lands.
Moreover, it appears to me that even otherwise, the market
value as has been determined by the Reference Court, in no
way, can be held to be arbitrarily determined or fixed on
excessively higher side. I , therefore, do not see any reason
to cause any interference in the impugned judgment and
award. The First Appeals being devoid of substance, deserve to
be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to
the costs.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
agp/1092-16fagr
