V.I.D.C. Through Its Exe. ... vs Sahebrao Narayanrao Sote & 2 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 5196 Bom

                                                                                                     fa J 460-06.doc
                                  1                                                                                        



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                           FIRST APPEAL NO.460 OF 2006

 

                 Vidarbha Irrigation Development 
                 Corporation,
                 Through its Executive Engineer, 
                 Upper Wardha Canal Division No.2, 
                 Now Upper Wardha Canal
                  Division No.1, 
                 Amravati, Dist. Amravati.        .......                                APPELLANT


               ...V E R S U S...


1]             Sahebrao Narayanrao Sote
               Aged about 65 years
               R/o Dharwada, Post. Anjansingi, 
               Tah. Tiosa, District-Amravati

2]              The State of Maharashtra
                Through the Collector, Amravati

3]               Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                 No.4, Upper Wardha Project, 
                 Amravati, having its office
                 at Collectorate camp- Amravati        .....RESPONDENTS



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Shri B. T. Patil, Advocate for Appellant.
         Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2  and 3.
         none for respondent No.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




           ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017                                              ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 00:07:01 :::
                                                                                                   fa J 460-06.doc
                               2                                                                                        




CORAM :  SMT. DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. 

         DATE    :  28 th
                          JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the acquiring body, challenging

the judgment and award dated 22.4.2002 passed by Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No. 30-A/1996.

2] Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:-

By virtue of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act 1894 and published on 14.10.1991, land

admeasuring 56 R out of lands from survey Nos. 7/2 and 7/5 situated

at Shidwadi, Tah. Diwasa came to be acquired for the Upper Wardha

Project for construction of the canal. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer (SLAO), vide his award dated 8.7.1994, fixed the market rate of

acquired land at Rs.19,000/- per Hectare and granted compensation of

Rs.10,640/- to respondent No.1.

3] Being not satisfied with the meager amount of compensation

awarded by the SLAO, respondent No.1 approached the Reference Court

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4] In support of his petition, respondent No.1 examined himself

and two more witnesses by name Sahebrao Sote and Vijay Bhure, who

fa J 460-06.doc

were the adjoining owners of the acquired land. As against it, on behalf

of Appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer- Shri. Khan Mujib was

examined.

5] On appreciation of this oral and other documentary evidence

relied upon by respondent No.1, the learned Reference Court was

pleased to grant additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the

respondent no.1 by its impugned judgment and order.

6] While challenging this judgment and order of the Reference

Court, submission of learned counsel for appellant is that the Reference

Court has without giving any reason or without appreciating even the

evidence led on record by the parties, in one paragraph itself disposed of

the matter and awarded of additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Hence, according to learned counsel for appellant, the amount of

compensation awarded by the Reference Court is without having any

basis in evidence and without giving justification for the same. It is also

exorbitant one, as it awards the compensation at the rate of

Rs.3,91,000/- per Hectare, whereas SLAO has awarded the

compensation at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per hectare and thus, there is

multifold enhancement awarded by the Reference Court. Hence it is his

submission that the impugned judgment of the Reference Court needs to

fa J 460-06.doc

be quashed and set aside by allowing this appeal.

7] I have heard learned counsel for appellant. Learned AGP

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has supported the

submissions advanced by learned counsel for Appellant. Respondent

No.1 remained absent, though duly served with notice.

8] Hence, the only point which arises for my determination in

this appeal is whether the Reference Court was justified in granting the

additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent No.1 and

whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is

exorbitant, excessive and needs to be modified?

9] In this case, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for

appellant, the Reference Court has not at all discussed the evidence

produced on record by the parties nor assigned any reason for granting

such enhancement in the amount of compensation, awarded by the

SLAO. Therefore, this court now has to do the job of Reference Court, of

assessing the evidence on record and to find out whether the

enhancement granted by the Reference Court is justified.

10] In this case, admittedly, the respondent no.1 has not only led

his evidence but also led the evidence of two adjacent occupants. The

evidence of respondent No.1 clearly goes to prove that his whole land

fa J 460-06.doc

was irrigated, having facility of well water. It was irrigated through out

the year as there was surplus irrigation. His evidence further goes to

show that he was taking crops like Tur, Jawar, Chilly etc. He has stated

the income which he was getting from cotton as Rs.1,000/-, Tur

Rs.3,000/- Chilly R.10,000/- and Jawar Rs.2,500/- He has placed on

record receipts of the sale of cotton at Exh.33 to Exh.35 at Dhamangaon

Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti. He has also produced on record the Green

Cards at Exh.40, Exh.30, Exh. 38 and Exh.39. His evidence is also

supported with the relevant entries of the crops in the 7/12 extracts

produced on record at Exh.41 and Exh.42. He has further produced on

record the certificate of Talathi to that effect at Exh.43. According to his

evidence he was getting total income of Rs.27,000/- to Rs.28,000/-per

year per acre. He was required to spend Rs.12,000/- to Rs.12,500/-as

expenditure and thus after deducting the expenses, he was getting net

income of Rs.15,000/- per year per acre. It is his evidence that if he has

deposited Rs.1,50,000/- in the bank, he could have got Rs.15,000/- as

interest and therefore, he has demanded the compensation at the rate of

Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.

11] This evidence of respondent No.1 is supported from the

evidence of the adjacent occupant Chhatrapati Sote who has also

deposed that respondent No.1 is having well since last 30 years in his

fa J 460-06.doc

acquired land and he has also cultivated some orange trees. According to

him, his land is also irrigated and he gets Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/-

p.a. and, therefore, respondent No.1 is also getting income in the same

range. In his cross-examination he has stated that at the time of

acquisition of land, there were no orange trees on the land actually

acquired.

12] Further there is evidence of Vijay Bhure, who is having his

field in between two fields of respondent No.1 and he has also deposed

about the quality of the land of respondent No.1, and about the fact that

respondent No.1 was taking the various crops like cotton, tur, jawar and

earning the income therefrom.

13] Thus, there is sufficient evidence produced on record by

respondent No.1 to prove that his land was irrigated one and he was

earning the income of Rs.15,000/- per acre per year. As respondent No.1

is relying upon the capitalization income method, no sale instances are

relied upon by respondent No.1 to prove the market rate of acquired

land.

14] Though the SLAO, Khan Mujib has deposed that he

considered the sale instance of survey No. 18/1 dated 11.2.1992, he has

admitted that the said land was at a long distance from the acquired

land. Therefore, he has taken into consideration the sale instance of

fa J 460-06.doc

survey No. 4/4 and fixed the market price at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per

hectare.

15] However, in my considered opinion, having regard to the

evidence produced on record by respondent No.1 of the income which

he was receiving from acquired land, it is necessary to apply the

capitalization income method for assessing the market value of the

acquired land. His income from the total land in his possession is thus

needs to be considered as Rs.15,000/- per acre per annum. It also needs

to be kept in mind that the area admeasuring 55R only out of the said

land was acquired. However, as a result of acquisition of that area, his

land now stands divided into four parts, as deposed by him. Therefore,

there are incidental and consequential damages which are required to be

taken into consideration in granting the amount of compensation. In my

considered opinion, taking his income as Rs.15,000/- per acre per year

and applying the multiplier of '8', the just, fair and reasonable amount of

compensation comes to Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare. Thus, respondent

No.1 becomes entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/-

per hectare.

16] As a result, the instant appeal needs to be allowed and is

allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.

fa J 460-06.doc

17] The impugned judgment and order passed by Reference

Court is set aside.

18] Respondent no.1 is entitled to get compensation for the

acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare along with all

statutory benefits.

19] Appellant is entitled to withdraw the excess amount of

compensation deposited in the Court.

JUDGE RGIngole