Bombay High Court
Dattatray Sahebrao Late vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 27 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 2260.2012FA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2260 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9740 OF 2017
Ranjit S/o Uttam Late,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Agri,
R/o. Deola, Tq. Mantha,
Dist. Jalna. ... Appellant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.I.W.) Jalna,
Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Dudhana Project,
Sailu, Division Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2261 OF 2012
Tulsabai W/o Tatyerao Late (Died),
Through L.R's.
1. Kushiwartabai W/o Rambhau Bidwe,
Age : Major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Deola, Tq. Partur,
Dist. Jalna.
2. Laxman S/o Rambhau Bidwe,
Age : Major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. As above.
At present Satona (Bk.),
Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. ... Appellant
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 01:07:11 :::
2 2260.2012FA
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.I.W.) Jalna,
Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Dudhana Project,
Sailu, Division Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2263 OF 2012
1. Laxman S/o Rambhau Bidwe,
Age : 41 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Deola, Tq. Partur,
Dist. Jalna. At present : Satona (Bk.),
Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna.
2. Suresh S/o Rambhau Bidwe,
Age : 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. As above. ... Appellant
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.I.W.) Jalna,
Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Dudhana Project,
Sailu, Division Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 01:07:11 :::
3 2260.2012FA
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2264 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9741 OF 2017
Uttam S/o Narayan Late,
Age : 65 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Deola, Tq. Mantha,
Dist. Jalna. ... Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.I.W.) Jalna,
Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Dudhana Project,
Sailu, Division Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2265 OF 2012
Ramprasad S/o Uttam Late,
Age : 34 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Deola, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ... Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.I.W.) Jalna,
Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Dudhana Project,
Sailu, Division Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 01:07:11 :::
4 2260.2012FA
..........
In all the appeals:
Mr Kailas B. Jadhav, Advocate for appellant
Mr R. B. Bagul, AGP for respondent/State
Mr R. B. Survase & Mr. S.G. Bhalerao, Advocate for respondent No. 3
Mr T.B. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No. 3
.............
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2093 OF 2012
Dnyanoba S/o Dajiba Late
(Died) through L.Rs.
1. Mandodari Dnyanoba Late,
Age : 68 years, Occu. Household,
2. Rameshwar S/o Dnyanoba Late,
Age : 24 years, Occu. Agri.,
Both R/o. Deola, Tq. Partur,
Dist. Jalna. ... Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(M.I.W.) Jalna,
Tq. and Dist. Jalna.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Lower Dudhana Project,
Sailu Division, Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2094 OF 2012
Appa S/o Bapurao Misal,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Deola, Tq. Partur,
District-Jalna. ... Appellant
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 01:07:11 :::
5 2260.2012FA
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Jalna.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(M.I.W.) Jalna, Tq.
and Dist. Jalna.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Lower Dudhana Project,
Sailu Division, Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2095 OF 2012
Sandipan S/o Sahebrao Late,
Age : 34 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Deola, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. ... Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Jalna.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (M.I.W.) Jalna,
Tq. and Dist. Jalna.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Lower Dudhana Project,
Sailu Division, Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2096 OF 2012
Dattatray S/o Sahebrao Late,
Age : 43 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Deola, Tq. Partur,
District-Jalna. ... Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 01:07:11 :::
6 2260.2012FA
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Jalna.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (M.I.W.) Jalna,
Tq. and Dist. Jalna.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Lower Dudhana Project,
Sailu Division, Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2427 OF 2012
Gangubai W/o Chimaji Shinde,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Widoli, Tq. Mantha,
District-Jalna. ... Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Jalna.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (M.I.W.) Jalna,
Tq. and Dist. Jalna.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Lower Dudhana Project,
Sailu Division, Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
..........
In all the appeals:
Mr. P.R. Kadam & M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for appellant
Mr. R. B. Bagul, AGP for respondent/State
Mr T.B. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No. 3
.............
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : 27TH JULY, 2017.
7 2260.2012FA
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. All these appeals are arising out of the acquisition of lands
made for Lower Dudhna Project. The appellants had filed the
applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which have been adjudicated by
the Civil Court at Jalna and the awards passed by the Civil Court,
Jalna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court') in respective
reference applications have been challenged in the present appeals by
the respective claimants.
2. The appellants are claiming enhancement in the amount of
compensation as has been awarded by the Reference Court in their
respective applications.
3. In view of the fact that, all these appeals are arising out of
the acquisition for Lower Dudhna project and further taking into
account that, the lands which are subject matter of the present
appeals are all from village Deola, I deem it appropriate to decide all
these appeals by a common Judgment and a common reasoning.
8 2260.2012FA
4. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned
Counsel appearing for the appellants - original claimants brought to
my notice that, in the companion matters arising out of the the same
acquisition and concerning to the same notification under Section 4
of the Act, this Court in First Appeal No.2740 of 2016 with connected
appeals has determined the market value of the acquired lands at the
rate of Rs.1500/- per Are for non -irrigated lands, Rs.2250/- per Are
for seasonally irrigated lands and Rs.3000/- per Are for perennially
irrigated lands and the Rs.750/- per Are for pot-kharaba lands.
5. The learned Counsel further brought to my notice that, the
lands which were involved in the matter decided by this Court were
also from village Deola. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for
enhancement in the amount of compensation on the similar lines as
has been awarded by this Court in the aforesaid decided matter.
6. Shri. Bhosale, the learned Counsel appearing for the
acquiring body does not dispute the correctness of the facts stated on
behalf of the appellants. The learned Counsel for the appellant has
tendered across the bar the copy of the Judgment delivered by this
Court in First Appeal No.2740 of 2016 with the connected matters on
31.01.2017. On perusal of the said Judgment, it is revealed that, the
9 2260.2012FA
lands which were the subject matter in the said appeals were
acquired for Lower Dudhna Project vide notification under Section 4
of the Act published in the official gazette on 14.07.1995 and the
Award under Section 11 of the Act in the said cases were passed on
22.07.1999. Admittedly all those lands were of village Deola. As has
been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants and as is
also revealing from the record the lands which are the subject matter
in the present appeals are also from village Deola and were acquired
for the same Lower Dudhna Project vide the same notification under
Section 4 of the Act published on 14.07.1995. In the circumstances,
there seems no reason to take any contrary view as has been taken by
this Court while deciding the First appeal No.2740 of 2016 with
connected appeals. For the reasons recorded in the said Judgment,
the present appeals also deserve to be allowed on the similar lines.
7. One more submission was made by the learned Counsel
appearing for the appellants therein that, though the lands belonging
to the appellants were irrigated lands and though the necessary
evidence was adduced in that regard before the Reference Court, the
Reference Court has failed in appreciating the said evidence and has
wrongly held the said lands to be non - irrigated lands and as such
deprived the appellants from compensation payable at the rate of
10 2260.2012FA
irrigated lands. In these appeals, the appellants have also filed the
civil applications seeking leave of this Court to adduce the additional
evidence to substantiate their contention that acquired lands
belonging to them were fully irrigated lands.
8. Shri. Surwase, the learned Counsel appearing for the
acquiring body has opposed the submissions so made on behalf of the
appellants and has also opposed for granting any such leave to lead
any additional evidence. The learned Counsel submitted that, the
evidence which was adduced by the appellants before the Reference
Court has been appropriately considered by the Reference Court and
as there was no sufficient evidence brought on record by the
appellants - original claimants to show that, the acquired lands
belonging to them were irrigated lands, the court has rightly held the
said lands to be non irrigated lands and has accordingly enhanced the
amount of compensation by determining the market value of the said
lands at the rate which has been determined by the Reference Court
for non-irrigated lands.
9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
Counsel appearing for the respective parties, it does not appear to me
that, any case is made out by the appellants for allowing them to lead
11 2260.2012FA
any additional evidence at this stage. Nothing has been brought on
record by the appellants as to who prevented them from filing such
record before the Reference Court or to adduce the necessary
evidence in that regard. Moreover, merely because prior to three
years of the acquisition the cash crops were being taken in the said
land, unless some cogent evidence is produced no such inference can
be drawn that on the date of acquisition the lands were fully
irrigated. There is no such evidence on record. It, therefore, does not
appear to me that, the Reference Court has committed any error in
holding the said lands to be non irrigated lands and accordingly
determined the market value of the said lands by the rate enhanced
by the said Court.
10. For the reasons stated above, the following order is passed.
ORDER
1. The appellants are held entitled to receive the
compensation for their acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1500/- per
Are for non - irrigated lands, Rs.2250/- per Are for seasonally
irrigated lands, Rs.3000/- per Are for perennially irrigated lands and
Rs.750/- per Are for pot-kharaba lands as are categorized by the
Reference Court in the respective awards.
2. The appellants will be entitled for the statutory benefits
12 2260.2012FA
awarded by the Reference Court even on the enhanced amount of
compensation, however it is clarified that, as undertaken by the
claimants they shall not be entitled for the statutory benefits and
interest in respect of the period of delay caused in filing the appeals
by them.
3. Deficit court fees, if any, be paid by the appellants.
4. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms .
5. Pending Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.
[ P.R. BORA ]
JUDGE
ggp
