Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Harishchandra Tulshiram Gade on 28 June, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA No.2743/2008 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.2743 OF 2008
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Addl. Collector,
Earthquake Div. Latur = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Nilkanth S/o. Namdeorao Rathod
Age : Major, Occu. Agri.
R/o. Talani Tanda, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO. 20315 OF 2016
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.2743 OF 2008
Nilkanth S/o. Namdeo Rathod
Age : 82 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Talani Tanda, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
Tq. and Dist. Latur
2. Additional Collector,
Earthquake, Latur
Dist. Latur = RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:15:12 :::
2 FA No.2743/2008 & Ors.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2739 OF 2008
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Addl. Collector,
Earthquake, Div. Latur = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Lalu @ Lalsing S/o. Nilkanth,
Rathod, Age : Major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Talani- Tandi, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO. 26453 OF 2012
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.2739 OF 2008
Lalu @ Lalsing S/o. Nilkanth,
Rathod, Age 56 Yrs. Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Talani- Tandi, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector,
Latur, Dist. Latur
2. Additional Collector,
Earthquake Div., Latur,
Dist. Latur = RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2740 OF 2008
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Addl. Collector,
Earthquake, Div. Latur = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:15:12 :::
3 FA No.2743/2008 & Ors.
VERSUS
Motiram S/o. Ramju Rathod,
Age : Major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Talani Tandi, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO. 26455 OF 2012
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.2740 OF 2008
Motiram S/o. Ramju Rathod,
Age : 58 Yrs., Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Talani Tandi, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = APPELLANT
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Addl. Collector,
Earthquake, Div. Latur = RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2744 OF 2008
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Addl. Collector,
Earthquake, Div. Latur = APPELLANTS
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Smt. Sarubai W/o. Fulchand Rathod,
Age: Major, Occu.: Agri & Household,
R/o. Talani-Inanda, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:15:12 :::
4 FA No.2743/2008 & Ors.
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO. 26451 OF 2012
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2744 OF 2008
Smt. Sarubai W/o. Fulchand Rathod,
Age: 57, Occu.: Agri & Household,
R/o. Talani-Inanda, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Addl. Collector,
Earthquake, Div. Latur = RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2741 OF 2008
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Addl. Collector,
Earthquake, Div. Latur = APPELLANTS
(ORI. RESPONDENTS)
VERSUS
Bhaskar S/o. Tulshiram Gade,
Age:55 years, Occu. Agri,
R/o. Tapse-Chincholi, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = RESPONDENT
(ORI. CLAIMANT)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2738 OF 2008
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Addl. Collector,
Earthquake, Div. Latur = APPELLANTS
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:15:12 :::
5 FA No.2743/2008 & Ors.
(ORI. RESPONDENTS)
VERSUS
Harischandra S/o. Tulshiram Gade,
Age: 50 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Banegaon, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2742 OF 2008
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Addl. Collector,
Earthquake, Div. Latur = APPELLANTS
(ORI. RESPONDENTS)
VERSUS
Shesherao S/o. Tulshiram Gade,
Age: 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Tapse-Chincholi, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur = RESPONDENT
(ORI. CLAIMANT)
-----
Mr.S.N. Ganachari, AGP for Appellants;
Mr. M.L. Dharashive Advocate for Respondent/claimant.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
28 th
June,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) The State has filed the present appeals
taking exception to the common Judgment and Award
passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Latur (for short the Reference Court )
on 19th September, 1998 in LAR No.405/1997 with
connected LARs.
2) The lands, which are the subject matter
of the present appeals, were acquired for the
purpose of rehabilitation of village Talani
Tanda, which was affected due to earthquake of
the year 1993. Notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) was issued in that regard
on 3rd August, 1994, whereas the award under
Section 11 came to be passed on 24th November,
1995. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had
offered compensation @ Rs.240/- per Are i.e. @
Rs.24,000/- per hectare. Dissatisfied with the
amount of compensation so offered, the claimants
preferred the applications under Section 18 of
the Act to Collector, Latur, who in turn
forwarded the Reference Applications to the
Reference Court for their adjudication.
3) Before the Reference Court the claimants
had claimed the compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per
acre for dry land, whereas Rs.1,00,000/- per Acre
for irrigated land. In order to substantiate the
claim so raised by them, in addition to the
evidence of the claimants themselves, one sale
instance was placed on record and was relied upon
by the claimants. No oral or documentary
evidence was adduced on behalf of the State. The
learned Reference Court, after having considered
the oral as well as documentary evidence brought
on record, determined the market value of the
acquired lands @ Rs.40,000/- per Acre for the dry
land and Rs.50,000/- per acre for the irrigated
land and accordingly enhanced the amount of
compensation.
4) In four matters, the claimants have
filed the Cross-objections and have sought
enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded
by the Reference Court.
5) Shri Ganachari, learned AGP appearing
for the State, assailed the judgment on various
grounds. The learned AGP submitted that the
Reference Court placing reliance on a single sale
instance has determined the market value of the
acquired lands on much higher side. The learned
AGP submitted that the Reference Court has
failed in appreciating that the sale instance
which was relied upon by the claimants was
pertaining to a comparative small piece of land
and the said land was admittedly at the distance
of 2-3 kms from the acquired lands. The learned
AGP further submitted that in such circumstances,
the said sale instance could not have been relied
upon by the Reference Court to determine the
market value of the acquired land.
. The learned AGP further submitted that
in Para 6 of the judgment, some of the
observations which are made by the Reference
Court and on the basis of which the amount of
compensation has been determined by the said
Court, are apparently unsustainable. The learned
Counsel pointed out that the sale instance which
was relied upon by the claimants was admittedly
pertaining to irrigated land; whereas the subject
lands were all non-irrigated lands. The learned
AGP pointed out that the based on the sale
instance at Exh.16, giving rise of 10% each in
the market value, the Reference Court held the
market value of the irrigated land @ Rs.68,900/-
and on the basis of it while deciding the market
value of the dry land, deducted the said amount
only by 1/4th and determined it @ Rs.51,675/-.
. The learned AGP submitted that it is
well settled that the price of the irrigated land
is always held to be double of the market value
of the non-irrigated land. The learned AGP
further submitted that applying the same
principle in the present matter, the Reference
Court ought to have determined the market value
of the acquired lands half of Rs.68,900/-
i.e. Rs.34450/- per acre since the subject lands
were dry lands. The learned AGP further
submitted that the Reference Court has not made
any discussion as to under what circumstances or
on what grounds it has held the market value of
the dry land @ Rs.40,000/- per acre, when it
ought to have been determined to the tune of Rs.
34,450/- per acre. The learned AGP further
submitted that the mistake so committed by the
Reference Court needs to be corrected.
. The learned AGP submitted that having
regard to the fact that the subject lands were at
the distance of more than 2 kms from the land,
which was the subject matter of sale instance at
Exh.16, on that count also some deductions were
required to be made by the Reference Court while
determining the amount of compensation. The
learned AGP submitted that having regard to the
evidence on record, the Reference Court could not
have awarded the compensation for the acquired
lands at the rate more than Rs.30,000/- per Acre.
The learned AGP, therefore, prayed for allowing
the appeals.
6) Shri Dharashive, learned Counsel
appearing for the Respondents i.e. original
claimants, resisted the submissions advanced on
behalf of the State. The learned Counsel
submitted that the Reference Court in fact has
awarded less compensation than expected by the
claimants. The learned Counsel submitted that
the Reference Court has failed in appreciating
that in the nearby village the compensation was
awarded to the claimants therein on the basis of
square feet and the same criterion must have been
applied while awarding the compensation in the
present matters.
. The learned Counsel submitted that
admittedly the subject lands were acquired for
the purpose of rehabilitation, which is
indicative of the fact that the acquired lands
were having N.A. potentials and were capable of
being used for erecting residential houses. The
learned Counsel submitted that in such
circumstances, the Reference Court must have
considered the N.A. potentials of the acquired
lands and must have accordingly determined the
market value of the said lands.
. The learned Counsel appearing in the
matters wherein the original claimants have filed
the cross objections, submitted that the amount
of compensation, as has been awarded in the said
matters, is inadequate and unjust. The learned
Counsel submitted that the Reference Court has
failed in appreciating the evidence which has
been placed on record by the claimants and the
same has resulted in award of unjust compensation
to the said claimants. The learned Counsel,
therefore, prayed for allowing the cross
objections and to adequately enhance the amount
of compensation in the said matters.
7) I have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the learned AGP and
learned Counsel appearing for the original
claimants. I have also perused the impugned
judgment and the other material placed on record.
It is not in dispute that oral and documentary
evidence was adduced only on behalf of the
original claimants and no oral or documentary
evidence was adduced by the State or by the
acquiring body. It is thus evident that the only
evidence which was before the Reference Court for
determination of the market value of the acquired
lands, was sale deed placed on record by the
original claimants.
. As has been noted earlier, the said sale
instance is at Exh. 16 in the record of the trial
court and the same was commonly relied upon in
all these matters. The land which was the
subject matter of Exh. 16 was admeasuring 3 acres
and 15 Ares and was sold by registered sale deed
executed on 24th April, 1992 for the consideration
of Rs.1,79,500/-. The per acreage rate of the
said land comes to Rs.53,000/- per acre. The
subject land was from village Talani Tanda from
where the subject lands were acquired by the
State. The learned Reference Court in Para 6 of
the judgment has elaborately discussed the
evidence in the form of sale instance placed on
record by the claimants.
. The Reference Court has observed that
the land, which was the subject matter of sale
instance at Exh. 16, was sold in the year 1992,
i.e. prior to about three years of issuance of
Section 4 notification in the present mater. The
learned Reference Court, therefore, found it
appropriate to give increase in the market value
of the said land @ Rs. 10% per year and
accordingly held the market value as on the date
of issuance of Section 4 notification to the tune
of Rs.51,675/- per acre for dry land. The learned
Reference Court thereafter having considered the
other evidence on record and more particularly
the details provided in the award under Section
11 of the Act, determined the market value of the
acquired lands @ Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry
land and Rs.50,000/- per acre for the irrigated
land.
8) As has been discussed by the Reference
Court, if the market value of the subject lands
was to be decided on the basis of Exh.16, having
regard to the fact that the land, which was the
subject matter of Exh. 16, was sold in the year
1992, i.e. prior to about three years of issuance
of Section 4 notification, it was required to
give 10% increase in the price received to the
said land for every year, and after giving the
said increase, the market value of the irrigated
land as on the date of issuance of Section 4
notification was fixed at Rs.68,900/-. To the
aforesaid extent, apparently there appears no
mistake on the part of the Reference Court.
9) However, the further observation made by
the Reference Court that for ascertaining the
price of the dry land, 1/4th of the price payble
for irrigated land has to be decreased out of the
price determined for the irrigated land, appears
to be wholly unsustainable. It is now well
settled that the market value of the irrigated
land is ordinarily held to be double of the
market value of the Jirayat land vice versa while
determining the price of the Jirayat land on the
basis of the market value of irrigated land it
has to be determined at half of the said rate and
by applying the said principle, the market value
of the acquired lands could not have been
determined by the Reference Court more than
Rs.34,450/-, per acre whereas the Reference Court
has determined the market value of the acquired
land @ Rs.40,000/-. Apparently, it therefore,
appears that the Reference Court determined the
market value of the acquired lands on bit higher
side. Accordingly to the said norm the Reference
Court has awarded Rs. 5,550/- more per acre.
10) However, it does not appear to me that
now there is any propriety in decreasing the
amount of compensation on the said basis when the
lands were acquired in the year 1994 and the
Reference Court had passed the award in the year
1998. After the long lapse of more than 19 years,
it would be wholly unjust now to ask the
landholders, whose lands were acquired for the
rehabilitation purposes, to repay the said amount
or to deprive them of the said amount, which was
granted in their favour prior to about 19 years.
. The total land, which was acquired for
the purpose of rehabilitation was to the extent
of 674 Are, i.e. around 17 acres, the total
difference calculated @ Rs.5,550/- would, thus,
come to less than Rs.95,000/-. Having regard to
the facts, as aforesaid, it is difficult to
record a finding that the Reference Court has
determined the market value on higher side and
that the hike given by the Reference Court was
unreasonable or in excess. I, therefore, do not
see any reason for causing any interference in
the impugned Judgment and Award.
11) In so far as the cross objections are
concerned, apparently there appears no merit in
the cross objections so filed. The learned
Counsel though urged that in the nearby village
the compensation was given on per square feet
basis, before the Reference Court, neither there
was any such pleading nor any such evidence was
adduced by the claimants. The claimants have
relied upon the sale instance at Exh. 16 and the
compensation has been awarded on the basis of the
said sale instance. When the sale instance
relied upon by the claimants has been accepted
and fully relied upon by the Reference Court, it
does not appear to me that any case is made out
by the claimants for seeking enhancement in the
amount of compensation so awarded by the
Reference Court.
12) For the reasons stated as above, the
first appeals filed by the State as well as the
Cross objections filed in four matters by the
original claimants, deserve to be dismissed and
are accordingly dismissed, however, without any
order as to costs. Pending civil application, if
any stands disposed of.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
