Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Bhika Ramdas Patil on 21 June, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA Nos. 390/2016 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.390 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Jalgaon,
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation
Divn., Jalgaon
3. The Executive Engineer
Golani Market, Jalgaon, = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Nana Bhavlal Patil,
2. Bhavlal Amrut Patil,
3. Dilip Babulal Patil,
4. Vinayak Babulal Patil,
Occ- Agriculturist,
All R/o. Nagaon, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon = RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.391 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Jalgaon,
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation
Divn., Jalgaon
3. The Executive Engineer,
Golani Market, Jalgaon = APPELLANTS
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:28:45 :::
2 FA Nos. 390/2016 & Ors.
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Motilal Govardhan Patil,
Age:- Major, Occu.: Agril,
R/o. Nagaon, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon = RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.392 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Jalgaon,
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation
Divn., Jalgaon,
3. The Executive Engineer,
Golani Market, Jalgaon = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Bhika Ramdas Patil,
Age:- Major, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Nagaon, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon = RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.393 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation
Divn., Jalgaon,
3. The Executive Engineer,
Golani Market, Jalgaon = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:28:45 :::
3 FA Nos. 390/2016 & Ors.
Ramesh Virbhan Patil,
Age:- Major, Occu.Agril.,
R/o. Nagaon, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon = RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.394 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation
Divn., Jalgaon,
3. The Executive Engineer,
Golani Market, Jalgaon = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Walmik Bhavrao Patil,
Age: Major, Occu.Agril.,
R/o. Nagaon, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon = RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.395 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation
Divn., Jalgaon,
3. The Executive Engineer,
Golani Market, Jalgaon = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Gokul Ananda Patil,
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:28:45 :::
4 FA Nos. 390/2016 & Ors.
Age: Major, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Nagaon, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon = RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.396 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation
Divn., Jalgaon,
3. The Executive Engineer,
Golani Market, Jalgaon = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Sudam Bhavrao Patil,
R/o. Nagaon, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon = RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.397 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation
Divn., Jalgaon,
3. The Executive Engineer,
Golani Market, Jalgaon = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Yeshwant Abhiman Bhil
2. Vatsalabai Abhiman Bhil,
3. Raju Vedu Bhil,
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:28:45 :::
5 FA Nos. 390/2016 & Ors.
4. Sanjay Vedu Bhil,
5. Sukalal Vedu Bhil,
6. Latabai Shiva Bhil,
7. Muktabai Parshuram Bhil,
8. Durgabai Vedu Bhil,
Spl. G.P.A. Raju Vedu Bhil,
All R/o. Loni Sim, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon. = RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Claimants)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.398 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector,
Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation
Divn., Jalgaon,
3. The Executive Engineer,
Golani Market, Jalgaon = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Mahananda Manohar Suryawanshi,
R/o. Nagaon, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Jalgaon = RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
-----
Mr. SP Sonpawale, AGP for Appellant/s
Mr. Patil Vijay B. Adv. for Respondent/s - orig.
claimant/s
-----
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:28:45 :::
6 FA Nos. 390/2016 & Ors.
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
21 st
June,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1) Heard finally. Though in two matters of
this group, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are duly
served, none of them has entered the appearance
in the matter.
. Since all these appeals are arising out
of the common Judgment and Award passed by the
Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Amalner
(herein after referred to as Reference Court) in
LAR No.91/2011 with the connected LARs, I deem it
appropriate to decide all these appeals by a
common reasoning.
2) The lands, which are the subject matter
of the present appeals, were acquired for minor
irrigation project at village Loni, Tq. Amalner
District Jalgaon. A notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) in that regard was
published in the official gazette on 17th June,
2004 and the Award under Section 11 of the Act
came to be passed on 15th May, 2008. the Special
Land Acquisition Officer had offered the
compensation ranging in between Rs.82,500 to Rs.
1,42,000/- per hectare to the respective
claimants. Dissatisfied with the amount of
compensation so offered, the claimants filed
applications under Section 18 of the Act, which
were referred by Collector, Jalgaon for
adjudication to the Reference Court. Before the
Reference Court, the claimants had claimed
compensation of their respective lands @ Rs.
10,00,000/- per hectare. In order to
substantiate their contentions, the claimants had
placed on record three sale instances. No oral
or documentary evidence was adduced either by the
State or by the acquiring body. The learned
Reference Court, after having assessed the oral
and documentary evidence brought before it,
determined the market value of the acquired lands
@ Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare for Jirayat land and
Rs.1,50,000/- for Potkharab land, and
accordingly, enhanced the amount of compensation.
The Reference Court has also awarded the
statutory benefits as well as the interest under
Section 28 of the Act. Aggrieved by, the State
has preferred the present appeals.
3) Shri Sonpawale, learned AGP appearing
for the State assailed the common Judgment and
Award, appealed against, on various grounds. The
learned AGP submitted that the Reference Court
did not appreciate that the sale instances, which
were placed on record by the claimants to support
their contentions and which have been relied upon
by the Reference Court, were from different
village, i.e. Mhaske, which is at a considerable
distance from villages Nagaon and Loni where the
subject lands were situated. Learned AGP further
submitted that it is nowhere the case made out by
the applicants or there is no discussion in the
impugned Judgment and Award that the sale
instances from same village from where the lands
were acquired, were not available. The learned
AGP further submitted that the sale instances of
different villages can only be considered, if the
sale instances of the same villages are not
available. The learned AGP submitted that the
impugned judgment nowhere reveals the distance
between village Mhasve and villages Nagaon and
Loni. In the circumstances, according to learned
AGP, the sale instances, which have been relied
upon by the Reference Court could not have been
relied upon by it for determining the market
value of the subject lands. The learned AGP
submitted that on the contrary, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer had considered overall
circumstances and had also physically visited the
lands, which were acquired and only thereafter
has assessed the market value of the said lands
and accordingly has offered the amount of
compensation. The learned AGP submitted that in
such circumstances, there was no reason for the
Reference Court to cause any interference in the
amount of compensation so awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer. The learned AGP,
therefore, prayed for allowing the appeals filed
by the State and to confirm the amount of
compensation as was offered by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer.
4) Shri V.B.Patil, learned Counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, i.e. original
claimant supported the impugned Judgment and
Award . The learned Counsel submitted that the
Reference Court has elaborately discussed the
evidence which was adduced by the claimants in
the form of sale instances and on the basis of
same, has rightly determined the market value of
the acquired lands. The learned Counsel
submitted that, in fact, the claimants were
entitled for some more compensation in view of
the evidence placed on record by them, however,
same has not been accepted by the Reference Court
as it is mechanically. The learned counsel
submitted that making comparison of the lands,
which were the subject matter of the sale
instances and the lands acquired of the
claimants, the Reference Court has determined the
market value of the subject lands. The learned
Counsel submitted that since the Reference Court
has not awarded any unreasonable hike in the
market value and consequently has not
unreasonably enhanced the amount of compensation,
no interference is required in the impugned
Judgment and Award . The learned Counsel,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
5) I have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by learned AGP for the
appellants and learned Counsel appearing for the
original claimant/s. I have also perused the
impugned judgment and the other material
available on record. The impugned judgment
reveals that in order to substantiate the claim
raised by them, the claimants had placed on
record three sale instances, particulars of which
are given in the impugned judgment in para 17
thereof in tabular form. I deem it appropriate
to reproduce the said table herein below, -
v- fnukad xkokps xV ua- @ lh {ks= fdaer izfr [email protected]
dza- uko l-ua- eh- nj
1 11-10-1999 Eglos [email protected]@c 2 gs 55 vkj 3]45][email protected]& 3]50][email protected]&
0 gs 15 vkj
iks- [k-
2 5-2-2001 Eglos [email protected]@[email protected] 0 gs 76 vkj 4]00][email protected]& 5]00][email protected]&
0 gs 01 vkj
iks-[k-
3 31-1-2003 Eglos [email protected]@[email protected] 0 gs 35 vkj 7]14][email protected]& 7]15]000
iz-gs-
6) It was sought to be canvassed by learned
AGP that all the sale instances relied upon by
the claimants were of the lands situated at
village Mhasve and as such, they could not have
been relied upon by the Reference Court. The
contention so raised needs to be rejected for the
reason that no other sale instance, from same
village was produced by the State before the
Reference Court. In absence of any such evidence
on record, no fault can be found with the
Reference Court if it has relied upon the
evidence which was brought before it only by the
claimants. Moreover, as has been submitted by
learned counsel for the claimants, there is
reference in the impugned judgment indicating
that village Mhasve and villages Loni and Nagaon
are at the distance of 2 kms from each other.
Considering the same, it does not appear to me
that the Reference Court has committed any error
in relying upon the sale instance from the
village which was at the distance of 2 kms. I
reiterate that the objection of the State would
have been accepted by this Court, had it been
shown by the learned A.G.P. that some attempt was
made by the State before the Reference Court to
place on record the sale instance of same
village.
7. Further, the evidence on record shows
that though three sale instances were placed on
record, particulars of which are reproduced
herein above, the Reference Court has considered
the sale instance pertaining to the land
admeasuring 2 hectares and 55 Ares and 18 Ares
potkharab, which was sold at the total
consideration of Rs.3,45,000/- in the year 1999
and has accordingly determined the market value
of the subject lands. It has to be noted that
though the other two sale instances were
pertaining to year 2001 and 2003 respectively and
consideration received to the lands involved
therein was in one case at the rate of
Rs.5,00,000/- per hector and in the other at the
rate of Rs.7,15,000/- per hector, the Reference
Court, instead of relying on the said instance,
preferred to determine the market value of the
subject lands on the basis of the sale deed
executed in the year 1999 wherein, consideration
to the land involved therein was received at the
rate of Rs.3,45,000/- per hector, by assigning
appropriate reasons therefor.
8) Facts as aforesaid, demonstrate that the
Reference Court did not blindly accept the
contention of the claimants but has applied the
criterion of the comparability while relying upon
the sale deed of 1999 to determine the market
value of the acquired land. In absence of any
contrary evidence on record, it does not appear
to me that, the market value, as has been
determined by the Reference Court and consequent
enhancement in the amount of compensation, is in
any way can be termed as unreasonable or on
higher side or excessive.
9) After having considered the entire
material on record and the discussion made in the
impugned judgment, it does not appear to me that
any interference is called for in the judgment
and award so passed. The appeals filed by the
State are devoid of any substance and deserve to
be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed,
however, without any order as to costs. Pending
civil application, if any, stands disposed.
(P.R.BORA,J.)
bdv/
