Bombay High Court
Shivsing S/O Chatarsing Suradkar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 25 July, 2017
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2006
Shivsingh s/o Chatarsing Suradkar
Aged about 50 years,
R/o Godri, Tq. Chikhli,
District-Buldana ....... APPELLANT.
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Buldana. .......RESPONDENT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. U. Nemade, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2006
1] Smt. Ramkorbai wd/o Chatarsingh Suradkar
Aged about Major, Agriculturist
2] Mukhtyarsingh s/o Chatarsingh Suradkar
Aged about Major, Agriculturist
3] Pratapsingh s/o Chatarsingh Suradkar
Aged about Major, Occ.: Agriculturist
4] Shivsingh s/o Chatarsingh Suradkar
Aged about Major, Agriculturist
5] Ramsing s/o Chatarsingh Suradkar
Aged about Major, Agriculturist
Nos. 1 to 5 All are R/o Godri,
Tq. Chikhli, Distt. Buldana
6] Sau. Chandrakala Eknath Gadekar
Aged about Major, Agriculturist
R/o Muradpur, Tq. Chikhali,
District-Buldana
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 11:26:46 :::
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
2
7] Sau Kamal Bindesing Ingle
Aged about Major, Agriculturist
R/o Umada, Tq. Chikhli,
Distt. Buldana
8] Indubai w/o Ramchandra Parihar
Aged about Major, Agriculturist
R/o Bhalgaon, Tq. Chikhli
District: Buldana;
9] Sau. Geetabai w/o Ramdas Parihar
Aged Major, Agriculturist
R/o Korad, Tq. Chikhli, Distt. Buldana;
10] Sau. Vimal Bhagaon Ingle
Aged about Major, Agriculturist
R/o Chandanpur, Tq. Chikhli,
District: Buldana;
11] Sau. Sushila Vishwanath Ingle
Aged about Major, Agriculturist
R/o Umada, Tq. Chikhli,
Distt. Buldana;
12] Sau. Sharda Siddheshwar Parihar
Aged about Major, Agriculturist
R/o Muradpur, Tq. Chikhli
District : Buldana. ..... APPELLANTS.
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Buldana. .....RESPONDENT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. U. Nemade, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2006
1] Mukhtyarsingh s/o Chatarsing Suradkar
Aged about 54 years,
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 11:26:46 :::
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
3
2] Pratapsing s/o Chatarsing Suradkar
Aged about 50 years,
Both R/o Godri, Tq. Chikhli
Distt. Buldana. .....APPELLANTS.
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Buldana. .......RESPONDENT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. U. Nemade, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2006
1] Anna s/o Bhaurao Bhawar
Aged about 70 years, Occ. Cultivator
2] Kishore s/o Damodhar Bhawar
Aged about 40 years, Occ.: Cultivator
3] Kailas s/o Damodhar Bhawar
Aged about 45 years, Occ.: Cultivator
4] Ganesh s/o Anna Bhawar
Aged about 28 years, Occ.: Cultivator
All R/o Godri, Tq. Chikhli
Distt. Buldana. .....APPELLANTS.
...V E R S U S...
1] State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Buldana.
2] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Buldana.
Since died his L.Rs
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 11:26:46 :::
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
4
3] Smt. Nandabai Pandharinath Gatade
Aged about 35 years,
4] Ku. Radha Pandharinath Gatade
Aged about 19 years,
5] Akash Pandharinath Gatade
Aged about 16 years, Minor
Represented by Natural Guardian mother
i.e. Respondent No.3.
Nos. 3 to 5 Residents of Ancharwadi,
Tq. Chhikhli, Dist. Buldhana. ...RESPONDENTS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2006
1] Govind s/o Laxman Bhawar
Aged about 35 years, Occ.: Cultivator
2] Rangnath s/o Laxman Bhawar
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Cultivator
3] Chandrakala w/o Lxman Bhawar
Aged about 60 years, Occ.: Cultivator
Both R/o Godri, Tq. Chikhli
Distt. Buldana. .....APPELLANTS.
...V E R S U S...
1] State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Buldana.
2] Special Land Acquisition Officer
Buldana. .......RESPONDENTS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 11:26:46 :::
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
5
CORAM: DR. (SMT.) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 25 th
JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
As all these five appeals are arising out of the
common judgment dated 25.8.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Buldana in the various Land References, they are being
decided by this common judgment.
2] Brief facts, which are common, to all these appeals
can be stated as follows:
By Notification dated 25.3.1993 issued and published
in the Government Gazette, under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984, (for short, the "Act") the lands belonging to
the appellants came to be acquired by the Government for Minor
Irrigation Project, Buldhana. By the common award passed on
12.7.1996 the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.),
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.28,000/- per hectare.
Being not satisfied with the said amount, the appellants herein
approached the Reference Court by filing the Reference petitions
under Section 18 of the Act. In support of their contentions, the
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
appellants examined themselves and on the basis of the evidence
adduced before it, the Reference Court was pleased to enhance
compensation from Rs.28,000/- to Rs.43,000/- per hectare.
3] Still being not satisfied with the enhancement
awarded by the Reference Court, the appellants have approached
this Court by contending inter alia that having regard to the
quality, texture and fertility of their acquired lands, Reference
Court should have awarded the compensation at the enhanced
rate, as claimed by the Appellants. It is submitted that their lands
were irrigated, they were taking cash crops like cotton, various
kind of fruits; however the Reference Court has failed to take note
of the said fact. The Reference Court has also not considered the
various sale instances cited by them. Though some of the sale
instances were considered by S.L.A.O. in his award, it is submitted
that, as per the settled position of law, the S.L.A.O. has to consider
the higher exemplar; however, the S.L.A.O. has not done so; even
the Reference Court has also not adhered to legal position and
awarded only meager amount of compensation. Hence according
to appellants, impugned judgment and order of the Reference
Court needs to be modified to the extent of enhancing the amount
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
of compensation from Rs. 43,000/- per hectare to Rs.1,50,000/-
per hectare.
4] In this appeal, I have heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned A.G.P.. The only point therefore, which
arises for my determination in all these appeals is whether the
amount of compensation, as awarded by the Reference Court,
needs to be enhanced further?
5] The appellant in First Appeal No. 103 of 2006 is the
owner of the agricultural land bearing Gat No. 364 situated at
village Godri, out of which area adm. 1.65 H.R. was acquired by
the Government. According to him, there were different types of
fruit bearing trees in the land. The land was also irrigated with
well water from the pipeline.
6] The appellant in First Appeal No. 105 of 2006, is the
owner of the land bearing Gat No. 364 of the same village. Out of
the said land, the area adm. 1.65 H.R. was acquired by the
Government for the same project. According to him also, his land
was irrigated and was having black soil. He had well and pipeline
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
therein. He was taking cash crops like sugarcane, wheat, chilly etc.
in the said land and the market price of the said land cannot be
less than Rs.70,000/- per acre.
7] In the First Appeal No. 104 of 2006 the appellant is
the owner of land bearing Gat No. 361 of the same village Godri.
Out of that land, the area adm. 1.65 H.R. was acquired by the
Government. According to his evidence also, the land was
irrigated. He used to take all types of crops. There were fruit
bearing trees planted in 78 R. Hence, according to him also, the
compensation for the said land needs to be enhanced from the
28,000/- per hectare as awarded by the S.L.A.O., Rs.43,000/-
enhanced by Reference Court to Rs. 1,53,000/- per acre.
8] In the First Appeal No. 126 of 2006 the appellant is
the owner and possessor of Gat No. 361, out of which the land
adm. 2.84 H.R. was acquired. According to this appellant also, the
said land was irrigated and he was taking various crops like
sugarcane, cotton etc. In support of his case, he has examined
himself and he has also relied upon the sale instance at Exh.44
under which one Vinayak has sold his land for consideration of
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
Rs.44,000 on 1.12.1989.
9] In First Appeal No. 96 of 2006, the appellant is the
owner of Gat No. 370 admeasuring 6.08 H.R., out of which as per
the award area adm. 2.48 H.R. Came to be acquired. According to
learned counsel for appellant, his entire land was acquired. It was
also irrigated and he was taking crops like cotton, sugarcane etc.
10] Thus, it can be seen that all these five lands are of the
same village. They are situated adjacent to each other and and
having more or less same quality, in which they are taking the
same crops and claiming same amount of compensation.
11] In Reference Court the appellants have placed
reliance on one sale instance at Exh.34 under which Satish
Chopda has sold his land to Tukaram Kothalkar for consideration
of Rs.60,000/- per acre. However, in my considered opinion, the
Reference Court has rightly refused to consider this sale instance
on the ground that it was post Notification and executed on the
date award was passed by the S.L.A.O..
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
12] The Reference Court has considered the quality,
texture and income of the land and further considered another
sale instance Exh.44, under which one Dinkar has purchased the
land at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. The said sale instance was
dated 11.12.1989. The Reference Court however, refused to place
reliance on the sale instance on the count that no oral evidence
was adduced to prove that the quality and texture of the land
under the sale instance at Exh.44 was same that of the acquired
lands.
13] The Reference Court has then, in para-57 of its
judgment considered the sale instances which were also
considered by the S.L.A.O in his award. Those, sale instances are
for the period from 1998 to 1991. The Reference Court has
considered that as the S.L.A.O. has not awarded 10% increase per
year in the price from the date of those sale instances to the date
of Notification, the Reference Court awarded the same and held
that the market price of the acquired lands can be to the tune of
Rs. 40,000/- per hectare. Accordingly, Reference Court has
enhanced the compensation from Rs.28,000/- per hectare to
Rs.43,000/- per hectare.
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
14] However, in my considered opinion, if one has regard
to the sale instances which were considered by the S.L.A.O. in his
award, then there were totally 13 sale instances, which he has
taken note of. The law is well settled that when the market price
of the acquired land is to be decided on the basis of sale instances,
then the highest exemplar needs to be considered. Herein the
case, out of these 13 sale instances, considered by the S.L.A.O., in
the sale instance at Sr.No.2 which pertains to the land bearing Gat
No. 444, the consideration was Rs.70,968/- per hectare on
11.1.1989; whereas for the sale instance at Sr.No.7 pertaining to
the land bearing land Gat No. 361 the consideration was at the
rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare.
15] Learned counsel for the appellants have also relied
upon the judgment of the Reference Court dated 11.8.2010 in
Land Acquisition Case No. 123/95. In the said case also, the land
bearing Gat No. 369 of the same village Godri was acquired and
Reference Court has fixed the market value thereof at the rate of
Rs.72,000/- per hectare. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants that judgment of the Reference Court in LA.C. No.
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
123/95 is not challenged by the acquiring body, or by the
claimant also and it has attained finality. It is further submitted
that learned Reference Court has referred it in his impugned
judgment and it is also referred by the S.L.A.O. in his award.
However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that
in the said Reference case, the Court has not granted the annual
increase at the rate of 10% which needs to be granted in this case.
I find much substance in the submission. In my opinion, therefore,
if such increase at the rate of 10% per annum is granted, then
market price of the land comes to Rs.1,05,450/- per hectare.
Hence, considering the sale instances on which the reliance is
placed by the S.L.A.O. and the market price decided in the Land
Acquisition Case No. 123/95, in my considered opinion, it would
be just and reasonable to enhance the compensation, in these
appeals from Rs.43,000/- per hectare to Rs.1,00,000/- per
hectare. All the appeals needs to be allowed to that extent.
16] It is further grievance of the appellant in First Appeal
No.96 of 2006 that, though his entire land admeasuring 6.08 H.R.
was acquired, the S.L.A.O. has awarded the compensation for the
land adm. 2.48 H.R. only and hence, he should have been
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
awarded compensation for the entire land. Reference Court has
considered this aspect in its judgment and held that as per the
averments made in award, at Exh.23, the government has
acquired area of 2.48 H.R only and, therefore, appellant is
entitled for compensation as per the area mentioned in the award.
Reference Court has no jurisdiction to correct the said award.
Hence, it was held that the appellant cannot be entitled to get the
compensation for entire land adm. 6.08 H.R..
17] In this respect however, if the evidence of appellant is
considered, then he has categorically stated that as the area of the
land was not correctly recorded in the 7/12 extract, he has got it
corrected. He has produced on record certified copy of the order
passed by Tahsildar at Exh.24 ordering correction in the area of
the said land. He has also produced on record 7/12 extract of the
land Exh.26 Exh.27 and Exh.28 showing the corrected area. He
has further deposed that except the land acquired by the
government, he has no other land. He has therefore, become
landless. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that if the land
is acquired for Minor Irrigation Project, then there was hardly any
possibility of some area of his land being left out from acquisition
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
as all the lands bearing Gat No. 366 to Gat No. 377 were acquired
and his land bearing Gat No.370 was falling in between these
lands.
18] I find much substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for appellant, especially having regard to the fact
that appellant has not been cross-examined at all on this material
aspect, relating to the correction of the record of his land and also
his evidence that his entire land was acquired. Hence, it is
necessary to hold that appellant should get compensation at the
rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare for his entire land admeasuring
6.08 H.R.. However, to be on safer side, it would be proper to
direct the compensation to be paid for this entire land, after
verification of the said fact by S.L.A.O..
19] Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
20] The impugned judgment and award of the Reference
Court is modified to the extent that appellants are held entitled to
get compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare, in
place of Rs.43,000/- per hectare, as awarded by the Reference
comm jud fa 103 104 96 126 105.doc
Court, with all statutory benefits.
21] As regards the Appellant in First Appeal No.96 of
2006, he is held entitled to get compensation for his entire land
admeasuring 6-H. 08-R, after the verification of the area by
S.L.A.O..
JUDGE
RGIngole
