Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Mehetre vs The State Of Maharashtra ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3731 Bom

                                               1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No.  826 of 2013



Appellant               :          Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Mehetre, aged about

                                   70 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of 

                                   Bhatmarg, Tahsil Babhulgaon, District 

                                   Yavatmal

                                   versus

Respondents             :          1)    The State of Maharashtra, 

represented by Collector, Yavatmal

2) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Bembla Project, Yavatmal

3) The Executive Engineer, Bembla Project,

Division Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal

Smt S. K. Paunikar, Advocate for appellant

Shri S. B. Bissa, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents no. 1 & 2

Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for respondent no. 3

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 29th June 2017

Oral Judgment

1. The appeal challenges the legality and correctness of the

judgment and order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the Adhoc Additional

District Judge, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 108 of 2005 on the

ground that the compensation granted for acquisition of land was

insufficient and not consistent with the prevailing market rate.

2. I have gone through the record and heard learned counsel for

appellant, learned counsel counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2.

3. The only point that arises for my determination is -

Whether the rate at which the compensation is determined

by the Reference Court, is just and proper ?

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed heavy reliance

upon the sale instances which were produced in evidence by the

appellant. The sale instances were of the sale deeds vide Exhibits 32, 40,

41 and 42 situated at such places as Nagargaon, Panas, Kopra (Barad)

and Kohli, These sale instances have been rejected by the Reference

Court on the ground that one of them was post Section 4 Notification and

the remaining were of different lands having no similarity with the land

involved in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried her

best to submit before this Court and convince this Court that the view so

taken by the Reference Court is not based upon the evidence available on

record. However, as rightly submitted by Shri S. B. Bissa, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri V. G.

Palshikar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, the position is entirely

otherwise. There is absolutely no evidence available on record to enable

this court to reach a conclusion that there is any similarity between the

land acquired in the instant case and the lands in those sale deeds. On

the other hand, the first witness of the appellant (who was the sole

witness) admitted in his cross-examination that the land acquired in the

instant case which was from village Nagari, was situated at a very small

place having no institutional or major infrastructural status. He has

admitted that Nagari is such a small place that it was having, at the

relevant time, population of 150 people. He also admitted that there was

no primary school or high school situated at village Nagari. He further

admitted that there was no project or any Government office available at

Nagari. In addition to this, no effort was made by the appellant to

produce any evidence in the form of report of soil surveyor. The appellant

has also failed to tender any evidence about the fertility and geological

characteristics of the land acquired in the instant case. The cumulative

effect of the lack of such material evidence is that the appellant has failed

to established similarity of his land with the land involved in the sale

deeds at Exhibits 32, 40, 41 and 42. It is also the finding recorded by the

Reference Court and rightly so. Therefore, I do not see any substance in

the argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon

judgment of the Reference Court dated 19 th July 2012 rendered in LAC

No. 12 of 2007 and also judgment of this Court dated 20 th February 2014

rendered in First Appeal No. 1035 of 2007 with Cross-Objection No. 51 of

2013. She submits that in LAC No. 12 of 2007 for the land acquired from

the same village under the same notification, the rate of land was

determined to be at Rs. 1,40,000/- per hector and since that land was

from the same village and covered by the same notification, the same rate

should also be applied in the instant case. She also points out from the

judgment dated 20th February 2014 of this Court that this Court has

considered land situated at such villages as Bhatmarg and Panas to be

similar in all respects to the land situated at village Bhatmarg and

accordingly relied upon the sale deeds of lands situated at village Panas to

grant compensation @ Rs. 1,40,000/- per hector.

6. Shri Palshikar submits that the judgment of the Reference

Court dated 19th July 2012 came much later than the impugned Award in

the present case and it was based upon one judgment rendered in LAC

No. 7 of 2007. He submits that the facts of LAC No. 12 of 2007 were

quite different than the facts of the instant case and, therefor, this

judgment is of no help to the appellant in the present case. He further

submits that equally the judgment of this Court dated 20 th February

2014 is not applicable to the instant case.

7. On going through both the judgments, I find that there is

great substance in the argument of learned counsel for respondent no. 3

and no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The

judgment in LAC No. 7 of 2007 was examined by the Reference Court in

LAC No. 12 of 2007 when it determined the rate of and to be at Rs.

1,40,000/- per hector. The facts of LAC No. 7 of 2007 are not before this

Court and, therefore, straightway, the rate of land found by the Reference

Court in 7 of 2007 cannot be followed in the instant case. As regards the

judgment of this Court dated 20th February 2014, I would say, the

acquired land was from village Bhatmarg and similarility of that land was

found with the land situated within the limits of village Panas on the

basis of evidence available in that case. The land from village Bhatmarg is

very different from the land situated at village Nagari and, therefore, even

the judgment of this Court dated 20th February 2014 is not of any help to

the appellant. There is no evidence available on record to enable this

Court to infer that lands from village Bhatmarg and Nagari are similar.

8. Even though the Reference Court suffered from the handicap

of lack of material evidence, which was to be adduced by the appellant

himself, in order to enable it to arrive at a proper valuation of the

acquired land, it is seen from the impugned judgment and order, the

Reference Court has done its best to determine the value of the land as

properly as was possible for it by resorting to some reasonable estimation

and relying upon the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in

State of Maharashtra vs. Aniruddha Shriram Ganorkar reported in

1993 Mh. L. J. 1575. Similarly, the Reference Court also drew from what

has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shaji Kuriakose

vs. Indian Oil Corporation reported in (2001) 7 SCC 650 holding that

where there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, size, shape and nature of

the land acquired and the land covered by the sale instances, it would be

permissible for the Reference Court to proportionately reduce the value of

the land reflected in the sale deeds so as to arrive at a proper figure of the

compensation that must be given to the affected person. By adopting this

method and rightly so, I find that the compensation determined by the

Reference Court @ Rs. 70,000/- per hector to be just and proper. I do not

find any illegality or material defect in arriving at such a rate by the

Reference Court. The point is answered accordingly.

8. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal deserves to be

dismissed with costs. Appeal stands dismissed with costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi