Bombay High Court

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Ramgir Motigir Giri Gosawi on 21 June, 2017

Bench: P.R. Bora

                                     1                   FA No.2166/2008

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       FIRST APPEAL NO.2166 OF 2008

  1)       The State of Maharashtra 


  2)       The Executive Engineer,
           Irrigation Division,
           Aurangabad.                      =        APPELLANT/S


           VERSUS


  Ramgir s/o Motigir Giri (Gosavi)
  Age: 55 Yr., occu. Agril.
  R/o Hatnoor, Tq. Kannad,
  Dist. Aurangabad.
  (Died, through L.Rs.) -


  1A)      Vasantgir s/o Ramgir Giri
           (Gosavi) Age: 60 Yrs., 
           occ. Agril.


  1B)      Narayan s/o Ramgir Giri(Gosavi)
           Age:55 Yrs., occ. Agril.


  1C)      Saraswatibai w/o Ramgir Giri
           (Gosavi) Age: 70 Yrs.,
           occu. Agril.


           All R/o Hatnur, Tq.Kannad,
           District Aurangabad.             =        RESPONDENT/S 
                                  -----




::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:28:48 :::
                                          2                     FA No.2166/2008



  Mr.SN Ganachari, AGP for Appellant/State;

  Mr.TB Bhosale, Adv. For Appellant No.2

  Mr.DA   Bide,   Adv.   h/for   Mr.   CK   Sonawane,   Adv. 
  Respondent Nos.1A to 1C
                            -----


                               CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

21 st

June,2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties.

2) The Judgment and Award passed by 1st Ad

hoc Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in LAR

No.835/1996, is challenged in the present appeal.

The land of the present respondents was acquired

sometimes in the year 1987 for construction of

percolation tank at Hatnoor, Tq. Kannad, District

Aurangabad. The subject land was acquired, vide

notification issued under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), which

was published in the Government Gazette on 24th

September, 1987. Award under Section 11 came to

be passed on 22nd September, 1995. The Special

Land Acquisition Officer offered the compensation

to the claimants @ Rs. 230/- per Are holding the

acquired land to be Jirayat land.

. Dissatisfied with the amount of

compensation so offered, Respondent No.1 had

preferred an application under Section 18 of the

Act to Collector, Aurangabad, which was in turn

forwarded for adjudication to the District Court

at Aurangabad (hereinafter to be referred as the

Reference Court). Before the Reference Court the

claimant had claimed compensation @ Rs.1,250/-

per Are. It was the contention of the claimant

that though the subject land was irrigated, the

Special Land Acquisition Officer had wrongly held

the said land to be Jirayat land.

. In order to substantiate the claim, the

claimant had adduced the evidence in the form of

sale instances in addition to his oral testimony.

The Reference Court, after having considered the

oral and documentary evidence placed before it,

determined the market value of the subject land

holding the same to be bagayat land @ Rs.730/-

per Are and enhanced the amount of compensation

accordingly. Aggrieved by, the State has

preferred the present appeal.

3) Shri Ganachari, learned AGP appearing

for the appellant/State assailed the impugned

judgment mainly on the ground that the Reference

Court has failed in appreciating the sale

instances brought on record. The learned AGP

further submitted that in the sale instances

relied upon by the claimant, the rates as were

received to the lands which were the subject

matter of the sale instances, were quite less

than the rate awarded by the Reference Court.

The learned AGP further submitted that the

Reference Court has erred in relying upon the

earlier award in LAR No.77/1994 despite there

being independent evidence on record.

. The learned AGP submitted that when the

sale instances were placed on record, the

Reference Court must have determined the market

value on the basis of the said evidence and

should not have placed its reliance on the awards

passed in earlier LARs. The learned AGP further

submitted that the Special Land Acquisition

Officer, after having considered the overall

circumstances, had rightly determined the market

value of the acquired land @ Rs.230/- per Are and

no interference could have been caused by the

Reference Court in the amount of compensation so

offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

The learned AGP, therefore, prayed for setting

aside the impugned judgment and award and to

confirm the amount of compensation as was

determined by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer.

4) The learned Counsel appearing for the

claimant supported the impugned Judgment and

Award. The learned Counsel submitted that a Well

was existing in the subject land and the claimant

was taking two crops, which was indicative of the

fact that it was a fully irrigated land. The

learned Counsel submitted that though existence

of the well was quite evident on the basis of

7/12 extract, the Special Land Acquisition

Officer had wrongly categorized the said land to

be Jirayat land and has accordingly awarded less

compensation by determining the market value of

the said land @ Rs.230/- per Are. The learned

Counsel submitted that the Reference Court has

turned down the said finding recorded by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer and has rightly

held that the subject land was irrigated land and

has accordingly determined the market value of

the said land. The learned Counsel submitted

that in Para 6 of the impugned judgment, the

Reference Court has assigned the reasons for not

relying upon the sale instances and in Para 7 of

the judgment, it has also given justification for

placing reliance on the earlier judgments arising

out of the same acquisition. The learned Counsel

submitted that there is no reason to cause any

interference in the well-reasoned order passed by

the Reference Court.

5) On perusal of the impugned judgment, it

is revealed that the Reference Court has fully

analyzed the oral and documentary evidence

brought before it. Paras 6 and 7 of the impugned

judgment are relevant. I deem it appropriate to

reproduce herein below the said paras, -

"6. At Exh.22, the claimant has filed his affidavit, in which, he has referred to certified copies of the sale-deeds, on which, he intends to rely, in the present claim, for enhancement of compensation. The sale Deed, dt.15-07-82, Exh.25 and sale deed, Exh.26, dt 15-03-83, are in respect of lands at villages Allapur and Kesapur. The market price, as per Exh.25, is Rs.243/- per R and as per Exh.26, it is Rs.285/- per R. The claimant also has produced, at Exh.27, a sale deed of the land from village Tapergaon, at Exh.28 of the land at Jaitpur and Exh.29 of land at Hatnur, which are dated 9-7-82, 25-3-88 and 20-12-89 respectively. As per Exh.27, the

price of the land per R. is Rs.170/- and it is @ Rs.470/- or so, under the sale deeds, Exhs. 28 and 29. It is already pointed out that, the notification, u/s 4 of the Act, is dated 24-09-87 and, therefore, the first three sale deeds are of no importance whereas, Exh. 29 is executed nearly 02 years after the material date. So, the same deserves to be ignored.

7. The claimant also produced, at Exh.32, a copy of the award, dt 22-09-95, passed in LAR No.77/94 by the Civil Judge (SD), Aurangabad. A perusal of the same goes to show that, the market price of the land, which was situated at village Kasabkheda, was determined @ Rs.700/- per R. for the irrigated land. This award is relied upon, while determining the market price of the lands, at village Jaitpur, in the award, dated 4-1-05, in respect

of 1996. Accepting the market price determined in LAR no.77/94 for Bagayat-land, 10% acceleration has

been granted and accordingly, the compensation is determined. In this Court, in LAR No.821/1996, Exh.30, dated 30-06-05, the market price of the land of village Hatnur itself has been determined for bagayat-land @ Rs.700/- per R, by giving acceleration of 10% i.e. at Rs.730/-. In his affidavit, the claimant has deposed that, the agricultural lands, about which he has produced the sale deeds and lands, which are referred to in the award, are quite adjacent to his field. Therefore, there is no hitch to accept the market price determined earlier at Rs.730/- per R."

6) Looking to the discussion so made by the

Reference Court it does not appear to me that the

Reference Court has committed any error in

determining the market value of the acquired land

@ Rs.730/- per Are, holding the said land to be

irrigated land. Further, the Reference Court has

also observed that the Special Land Acquisition

Officer had wrongly categorized the subject land

to be Jirayat land. Noticing that there was well

in the subject land and having perused the crops

statement, the Reference Court has held the

subject land to be irrigated land and has