Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Zumbarbai Jayaji Bhawar on 31 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 1473.2016FA.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
25 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1473 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - The Collector Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division,
Beed. .. Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Parmeshwar s/o. Bayaji Bagal
Age : Major, Occu : Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed .. Respondent
(Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1474 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division,
Beed. .. Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Ambadas s/o. Waman Gvate,
Age : Major, Occu : Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed
2. Mahadeo s/o. Waman Gvate,
Age : Major, Occu : Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed
3. Parbhati s/o. Waman Gvate,
Age : Major, Occu: Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed ..Respondents
(Ori. Claimants)
::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 12:37:22 :::
2 1473.2016FA.doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1475 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division,
Beed. .. Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Murlidhar s/o. Bapu Bhalekar,
Age : Major, Occu : Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed ..Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1476 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division,
Beed. .. Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Bhagwan s/o. Babu Sabale,
Age : Major, Occu : Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed ..Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1477 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division,
Beed. .. Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 12:37:22 :::
3 1473.2016FA.doc
VERSUS
Zumbarbai s/o. Jayaji Bhawar,
Age : Major, Occu : Agril, R/o. Morewadi,
Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed ..Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1478 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division,
Beed. .. Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Satyabhama s/o Bayaji Bagal,
Age : Major, Occu : Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed ..Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1479 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division,
Beed. .. Appellants
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Dadasaheb s/o. Sona Gawate,
Age : Major, Occu : Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed
2. Babasaheb s/o. Sona Gawate,
Age : Major, Occu : Agril,
::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 12:37:22 :::
4 1473.2016FA.doc
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed
3. Haribhau s/o. Sona Gawate,
Age : Major, Occu: Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed ..Respondents
(Ori. Claimants)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1480 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division, Beed.
.. Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Trimbak s/o. Bhanudas Gavate,
Age : Major, Occu : Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed
2. Sarjerao s/o. Bhanudas Gavate,
Age : Major, Occu : Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed ..Respondents
(Ori. Claimants)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1481 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division,
Beed. .. Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 12:37:22 :::
5 1473.2016FA.doc
VERSUS
Saheba s/o. Sayaji Gvate,
Age : Major, Occu: Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed ..Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1482 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - The Collector, Beed.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Division,
Beed. .. Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Bhagubai s/o. Namdev Kapse,
Age : Major, Occu: Agril,
R/o. Morewadi, Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed ..Respondent
(Ori. Claimant)
....
In all the matters
AGP for appellant : Shri. R.B. Bagul
Advocate for respondents : Shri. C.K. Shinde
...
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
Dated: July 31, 2017
PER COURT :-
. The State has filed the present appeals challenging the
common Judgment and Award passed by the District Court at Beed
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court') on 14.12.2011 in Land
6 1473.2016FA.doc
Acquisition Reference No.194/2010 with the connected land acquisition
references. The lands, which are involved in the present appeals, were
acquired for the construction of Village Tank No.3 at Morewadi, Tal. Ashti,
Dist. Beed. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter in short 'Act') was published in the official gazette on
22.05.2003 and Award under Section 11 of the Act came to be passed on
12.10.2007. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as
the 'SLAO') had offered the compensation at the rate of Rs.610/- per Are.
Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so offered, the respondents
in these appeals, who are hereinafter referred to as claimants had preferred
the applications under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement in the
amount of compensation. The claimants had claimed the compensation at
the rate of Rs.2500/- per Are.
2. In order to substantiate the claims so raised by them in
addition to their oral evidence, the claimants placed on record two sale
instances. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the
State. The Reference Court after having assessed the oral and documentary
evidence brought on record before it, determined the market value of the
acquired lands at the rate of Rs.2000/- per Are and accordingly enhanced
the amount of compensation. Aggrieved by, the State has preferred the
present appeals.
3. Shri Bagul, learned AGP appearing for the State assailed the
7 1473.2016FA.doc
impugned common Judgment and Award on two grounds: (1) that, the
Reference Court has determined the market value on higher side though
there was no sufficient evidence therefor, and (2) that, the Reference Court
has awarded the interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of
possession. The learned AGP pointed out that, the SLAO had considered
overall circumstances and has also considered the sale instances during
relevant period, and only thereafter has determined the market value of the
acquired lands at the rate of Rs.610/- per Are. The learned AGP submitted
that, in fact no such material was before the Reference Court so as to cause
interference in the amount of compensation so offered by the SLAO.
4. The learned AGP further submitted that, the two sale
instances which have been relied upon by the claimants in order to
substantiate their claim cannot be said to be the comparable sale instances.
The learned AGP submitted that, the land involved in Exh.17 was
admeasuring only 20 Are, whereas the land which was the subject matter
of Exh.19 was 40 Are. The learned AGP further submitted that, in the
entire judgment the Reference Court has nowhere discussed that, the sale
instances which were relied upon by the claimants were of the comparable
lands so as to determine the market value of the lands involved in present
appeals on the basis of the said sale instances. The learned AGP further
submitted that, a wrong method was applied by the Reference Court for
determining the market value of the acquired lands that of drawing the
average of the price received to the lands which were the subject matter of
8 1473.2016FA.doc
the sale instances cited by the claimants. The learned AGP submitted that,
even if Reference Court was to rely upon sale instance at Exh.19, no further
increase was liable to be given in the market rate received to the said land.
The learned AGP pointed out that, the Reference Court has given increase
in the price of the said land at 15% which was not permissible. The learned
AGP further submitted that, the market price so determined by the
Reference Court, which is not based on the evidence is liable to be
redetermined on the basis of the assessment made by the SLAO.
5. The learned AGP further submitted that, the interest awarded
under Section 34 of the Act has also been wrongly awarded by the
Reference Court from the date of possession. The learned AGP, therefore,
prayed for appropriate modifications in the Award.
6. Shri C.K. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent - Original claimants supported the impugned Judgment and
award. The learned Counsel submitted that, nothing has been brought on
record in the cross - examination of the witnesses examined by the
claimant so as to suggest that, the lands which were subject matter of
Exhs.17 & 19 were not comparable. The learned Counsel submitted that,
the land involved in Exh.19 was admeasuring 40 Are and cannot be said to
be a small piece of land. The learned Counsel further submitted that, the
lands which were acquired and were subject matter of the land acquisition
references are also the small pieces of land. The learned Counsel inviting
9 1473.2016FA.doc
my attention to the particulars provided by the Reference Court in para 6 of
the Judgment submitted that, except the land involved in LAR
No.189/2010, the lands which are the subject matter of the other land
acquisition references are all less than 40 Are of land. The learned Counsel
submitted that, half of the lands are less than 25 Are. The learned Counsel
submitted that, there is no substance in the objection raised by the State
that the tribunal has relied upon the sale instance of a small portion of land
to determine the market value of the acquired lands. The learned Counsel
submitted that the tribunal has rightly relied upon the sale instances and
has accordingly determined the market value of the acquired lands. The
learned Counsel submitted that, no interference is, therefore, warranted in
the market value as has been determined by the Reference Court.
7. Insofar as the award of interest under Sec.34 of the Act, the
learned Counsel was fair enough in submitting that, the same could not
have been awarded by the Reference Court from the date of possession.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by Ld.
AGP and Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent. I have perused the
impugned Judgment and the other material placed on record.
9. It is not in dispute that, the State has not adduced any oral or
documentary evidence to substantiate the defences raised by it or to rebut
the contentions raised by the claimants in claiming the compensation at the
10 1473.2016FA.doc
rate of Rs.2500/- per Are. The record reveals that, the two sale instances
(Exhs.17 & 19) were placed on record by the claimants. As has been noted
earlier, the land which was involved in Exh.17 was admeasuring 5 R + 15
R (total 20 R) and was sold on 18.09.2002 for the consideration of
Rs.58,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.2900/- per Are. The land, which was
involved in Exh.19, was admeasuring 40 Are and was sold for the
consideration of Rs.70,000/- on 13.05.2002. The rate at which the land
was sold comes to Rs.1750/- per Are. The discussion made by the
Reference Court reveals that, the Reference Court has drawn the average of
the consideration received in two sale instances and arrived at the price to
Rs.1992/-. Though the method so adopted by the Reference Court cannot
be accepted or appreciated, the market value if determined on the basis of
the value received to the land which was the subject matter of Exh.19, the
difference in the market rate may not be much. The sale deed at Exh.19
was executed on 13.05.2002 i.e prior to about one year of issuance of Sec.4
notification in the matter. In these circumstances, if the price received to
the said land is increased by 10%, the market value of the said land on the
date of notification comes to Rs.1925/-. Considering the said aspect, it does
not appear to me that, while determining the acquired lands at the rate of
Rs.2000/- the Reference Court has arbitrarily exercised its powers or has
determined the market value on much higher side and it also cannot be
said that, there was no evidence so as to determine the said market value.
After having considered the evidence on record, it does not appear to me
that, any interference is warranted in the market value as has been
11 1473.2016FA.doc
determined by the Reference Court.
10. Insofar as the objection raised as about the grant of interest
under Sec.34 of the Act, the learned Counsel for the respondents has also
accepted that, the Reference Court has erred in awarding the interest under
Sec.34 of the Act from the date of possession. In view of the Full Bench
Judgment delivered by this Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 (3) Mh.L.J.] 457 the interest under Sec.34
of the Act can only be made payable from the date of award. To that extent,
the impugned award certainly needs to be modified. For the reasons stated
above, the following order is passed.
ORDER
1. The impugned common Judgment and Award so far as it
relates to award of interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of
possession is modified and the interest as such is made payable from the
date of the Award under Section 11 of the Act. The impugned Awards be
modified accordingly.
The appeals thus stand partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(P.R. BORA, J.)
ggp
