The State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Tukaram Bhagaji Badar
2017 Latest Caselaw 3122 Bom

                                        1                FA NO.3648 OF 2008


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                   FIRST APPEAL NO.3648 OF 2008


  1.       The State of Maharashtra,
           Through- The Special Land
           Acquisition Officer, Krushna Khore
           Vikas Mahamandal, Collector Office,
           Aurangabad.

  2.       The Executive Engineer,
           Minor Irrigation Local Sector,
           Aurangabad.

                                                   ...APPELLANTS
                                                  (Ori.Respondents)
                   VERSUS

  1.       Tukaram s/o Bhagaji Badar,
           Age: 58, Occu. Agriculture,
           R/o. Pimpalgaonpeth, Tq. Sillod,
           Dist. Aurangabad.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                                                 (Ori.Claimants)
                             ...
  Mr. R.B.Bagul, AGP for the appellants.
  Mr. N.J.Pahune Patil, Advocate, for respondent.
                             ...

                               CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.

                               DATE :       June 13th, 2017

                                   ***
  ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Shri R.B.Bagul, learned A.G.P. appearing

2 FA NO.3648 OF 2008

for the appellant State and Shri N.J.Pahune Patil, learned

Counsel appearing for the respondents i.e. original

claimant.

2. The appellant State has preferred present

appeal against the judgment and award dated 17th April,

2006, passed in LAR No.79/2002 by the Vth Ad hoc

Additional District Judge, at Aurangabad. The aforesaid

Land Acquisition Reference was filed by respondent

claimant, claiming enhancement in the compensation as

awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, invoking

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Reference

Court, after having assessed the evidence brought before

it, held the claimant entitled to receive the compensation

of Rs.57,552/- with 30 per cent solatium and additional

component of 12 per cent on both the amounts from the

date of notification till the date of award and also held the

claimant entitled for interest under Section 28 of the Act.

Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present

appeal.

3. Shri Bagul, learned A.G.P., submitted that the

3 FA NO.3648 OF 2008

Tribunal has grossly erred in determining the market value

of the acquired lands. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the

Special Land Acquisition Officer had correctly assessed the

market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.565/-

per Are by taking into account all the relevant

circumstances and no interference was required in the

market value so offered by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer. Learned Counsel submitted that the learned

Reference Court, without considering the fact that the

subject land was not irrigated land, has determined the

market value of the said land as if the said land is irrigated

land. Learned Counsel submitted that the 7/12 extract

which was filed on record of the Reference Court indicates

that crops of Jwar and Bajara were only taken from the

subject land. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the entries

of 7/12 extract clearly establish that the land was not

irrigated land. Learned A.G.P., therefore, prayed for

modification of the award.

4. Shri Pahune Patil, learned Counsel appearing for

respondent i.e. original claimant, opposed the submissions

advanced by the learned A.G.P. Learned Counsel

4 FA NO.3648 OF 2008

submitted that the acquired land was irrigated land and

was having well therein. Learned Counsel submitted that

along with the land, the well in the said land has also been

acquired and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has

awarded separate compensation in that regard. Learned

Counsel invited my attention to the 7/12 extract filed on

record at Exh.15. Learned Counsel further invited my

attention to the entries for the years 1996-1997, 1997-

1998 which clearly reveal that the cash crop was being

taken and the land was irrigated.

5. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that

Learned Reference Court has determined the market value

of the acquired land on the basis of the sale deeds which

were brought on record by the claimants. Total four sale

deeds were brought on record at Exhs. 12, 13, 14 and 23.

Learned Reference Court did not consider the sale deeds at

Exhs. 12 and 13 observing that they pertain to small piece

of land i.e. 5 Ares and 10 Ares, respectively. The

Reference Court has also not relied upon sale deed at

Exh.23 noting that the said sale instance was of the

period post notification under Section 4 of the Act. The

5 FA NO.3648 OF 2008

Reference Court has relied upon sale deed at Exh.14 which

was executed on 25th of January, 1999, i.e. before

issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.

Vide the said sale deed 17 Are dry land was sold for

consideration of Rs.15,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.882/-

per Are. Taking the value received to the said land as a

base the learned Reference Court has determined the

market value of acquired land to double of the same,

holding that the acquired land was irrigated land. I do not

see that the learned Reference Court has committed any

error in determining the market value of the acquired land.

Admittedly, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the

State.

6. After having considered entire evidence on

record, I do not see any error in the judgment so passed.

The First Appeal (No.3648/2008) being devoid of

substance, deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly

dismissed.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

...

AGP/3648-08FA