Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah Thr. Collector, ... vs Pandurang Manik Kumbhar on 27 June, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FAST.NO.22052/12gr
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 22052 OF 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector, Latur,
District Latur,
2. The Rehabilitation Collector,
(Earthquake) Latur,
APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Pandurang S/o. Manik Kumbhar,
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Sarvadi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur
RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 22055 OF 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector, Latur,
District Latur,
2. The Rehabilitation Collector,
(Earthquake) Latur,
APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Bapurao S/o. Pandurang Kumbhar,
Age: 22 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Sarvadi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur
RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.22013 OF 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector, Latur,
District Latur,
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:02:01 :::
2 FAST.NO.22052/12gr
2. The Rehabilitation Collector,
(Earthquake) Latur,
APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Rasikabai W/o. Satish Gadge,
Age: 28 years, Occu. Agriculture & H.H.,
R/o. Sarvadi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur
RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.22058 OF 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector, Latur,
District Latur,
2. The Rehabilitation Collector,
(Earthquake) Latur, APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Kulbhushan s/o. Manikchand Vahsale,
Age: 30 years,
2. Deshbhushan S/o. Manikchand Vahsale,
Age: 26 years,
3. Jaichandra S/o. Manikchand Vahsale,
Age: 22 years,
All Occu. Agriculture, and
R/o. Sarvadi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur
RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Claimants)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.22045 OF 2012
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector, Latur,
District Latur,
2. The Rehabilitation Collector,
(Earthquake) Latur,
APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:02:01 :::
3 FAST.NO.22052/12gr
VERSUS
Bharat S/o. Madhavrao Ingale,
Age: 35 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Sarvadi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur
RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
...
Mr. S.N.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Applicants;
Mr. Gundre Suraj V., Advocate, for R/sole.
...
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
Dated: June 27, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Learned A.G.P. has assailed the impugned judgment
on various grounds. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the
Special Land Acquisition Officer had offered the compensation
at the rate of Rs.13,600/- per acre after having considered the
overall circumstances and that was only the just and right
compensation payable to the claimants. Learned A.G.P.
further submitted that, relying upon only one sale instance, the
Reference Court has determined the market value of the
acquired land. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the sale
instance ( Exh.31) relied upon by the Reference Court was
pertaining to 18 Are land and, as such, the Reference Court
should not have relied upon such a sale instance pertaining to a
small piece of land. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the
Reference Court has also not appreciated that the land which
was the subject matter of Exh.31 was near to the old village
4 FAST.NO.22052/12gr
and naturally was having more potential value and, as such,
has received the consideration of Rs.30,000/- i.e. Rs.62,000/-
per acre, however, the said rate could not have been awarded
for the subject lands. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the
compensation as awarded by the Reference Court is apparently
on higher side and deserves to be modified. Learned A.G.P.
further submitted that the Tribunal has apparently, further
erred in awarding rental compensation in the proceedings under
Section 18 of the Act. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the
order so passed awarding rental compensation needs to be set
aside and quashed.
2. Learned Counsel Shri Gundre appearing for the
respondents / original claimants supported the impugned
judgment to the extent it has enhanced the amount of
compensation. Learned Counsel submitted that the Reference
Court has correctly analyzed the evidence adduced before it.
Learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has
not blindly relied upon the sale instances which were placed on
record by the claimants. Learned Counsel submitted that the
sale instance which were relied upon was pertaining to the year
1991 and the lands were acquired vide Section 4 notification
issued on 12th August, 1994. Learned Counsel submitted that
5 FAST.NO.22052/12gr
the Reference Court, by considering all these circumstances and
taking into account the fact that the sale instance was
pertaining to a small piece of land and further that the subject
land was near to the village, has appropriately and
proportionately reduced the amount while determining the
market value of the subject land and has accordingly
determined the market value of the said land to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- per acre. Learned Counsel submitted that the
market value as has been determined by the Reference Court is
on the basis of the evidence on record and no interference is
required in the amount of compensation accordingly so
enhanced by the Reference Court. In so far as grant of rental
compensation is concerned, learned Counsel was fair in
submitting that the order passed by the Reference Court to that
extent cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel further prayed
that liberty may be given to the claimants to avail appropriate
remedy for getting the rental compensation.
3. After having considered the submissions made on
behalf of the State by learned A.G.P. as well as learned Counsel
appearing for the original claimants, apparently, it does not
appear to me that the Reference Court has committed any error
in determining the market value of the subject lands.
6 FAST.NO.22052/12gr
Admittedly, the only evidence which was adduced before the
Reference Court was adduced by the Original Claimants. The
State did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to rebut
the contentions raised by the claimants. The sale instance
which has been relied upon by the claimants pertain to 18 Are
of land which was sold by registered sale deed for consideration
of Rs. 30,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.62,000/- per acre. It
appears to me that the Reference Court while determining the
market value of the subject land has taken into account the fact
that the land involved in Exh.31 was a small piece of land and,
in such circumstances has proportionately reduced the same
and brought it down to Rs.50,000/- per acre. Having regard
to the evidence on record, it does not appear to me that the
Reference Court has committed any error in determining the
market value at the aforesaid rate. As such, there needs no
interference in the said part of the judgment. However, as has
been submitted by learned A.G.P. and conceded by the learned
Counsel for the Original claimants, in the proceedings under
Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court could not have
awarded the rental compensation. To that extent, the
impugned judgment and award needs to be set aside.
4. For the reasons stated above, the following order is
passed:
7 FAST.NO.22052/12gr
ORDER
1. The First Appeals on Stamp are partly allowed.
2. The common impugned judgment and award to the
extent it awards rental compensation stands set aside.
Remaining part of the award is kept as it is.
3. It is clarified that it would be open for the claimants
to avail appropriate remedy for claiming the amount of rental
compensation.
. The Appeals stand allowed in aforesaid terms.
4. Pending Civil Applications stand disposed of.
( P.R. BORA, J. )
...
AGP/
