Haribhau S/O Wamanrao Thakre vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Collector, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3740 Bom

                                        1                                        J-FA-362-12

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                           FIRST APPEAL NO. 362 OF 2012

 Haribhau s/o Wamanrao Thakare,
 Aged about : 60 years,
 Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Khadaksawanga,
 Tq. Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal.                                      ..... APPELLANT

                                   ...V E R S U S...

 1. The State of Maharashtra
    through the Collector,
    Yavatmal.

 2. Collector, Yavatmal.

 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
    Minor Irrigation Works, No.1 Yavatmal.

 4. The Executive Engineer,
    Irrigation Corporation,
    Bembla Project Division,
    Near Gopal Mangal Karyalaya
    Awadhootwadi, Yavatmal,
    Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal.                                           ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri A. V. Bhide, Advocate for the appellant.
 Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
 Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              WITH

                           FIRST APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2015

 Vidarbha Irrigation Development 
 Corporation, Through Executive Engineer,
 Bembla Project Division,
 Near Gopal Mangal Karyalay,
 Awadhootwadi, Yavatmal,
 Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.                                                 ..... APPELLANT




::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017                                          ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:05 :::
                                         2                                        J-FA-362-12

                                   ...V E R S U S...

 1. Haribhau s/o Wamanrao Thakare,
    Aged about : 45 years,
    Occu. Agriculturist, 
    R/o Khadaksawanga,
    Tq. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal.

 2. The State of Maharashtra
    Through the Collector,
    Yavatmal.

 3. The Collector, Yavatmal.

 4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
    Minor Irrigation Works No.1, 
    Yavatmal.                                                          ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for the appellant.
 Shri A. V. Bhide, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
 Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    CORAM:-    
                                               SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                                     ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

29/06/2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

Since these appeals arise out of the Judgment and

Award passed by the Reference Court dated 5 th September, 2011

directing the State Government to pay compensation @ Rs.1,15,000/-

per hectare, for the acquired land to the claimant and rejecting the

other claims made by the claimant, they are heard together and are

decided by this common Judgment. First Appeal No.261/2015 filed by

3 J-FA-362-12

the VIDC, challenges the award enhancing the compensation for the

acquired land and directing the VIDC to pay it @ Rs.1,15,000/- per

hectare. According to the VIDC, the grant of compensation for the land

@ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare is excessive. Whereas, the claimant has

filed First Appeal No.362/2012 seeking further enhancement of

compensation as per the prayer made in the reference application as

also, compensation for the mango tree, well, etc.

The land of the claimant was acquired for the

construction of building and houses for the Project Affected Persons of

village Khadaksawanga by the Section 4 Notification issued on

09/05/1996. After issuance of Section 6 Notification, the Land

Acquisition Officer passed the award on 10/10/1997. The Land

Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the acquired land @

Rs.28,000/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied with the grant of meagre

compensation, the claimant made an application under Section 18 of

the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for enhancement of compensation. The

claimant sought compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.60/- per

square meter. The claimant also sought compensation for the mango

tree, the well and for the loss of occupation, etc. The Reference Court,

on appreciation of the evidence on record, by the Judgment and Award

dated 05/09/2011 directed the State and the VIDC to grant

compensation for 12 hectares and 4 R of the acquired land of the

4 J-FA-362-12

claimant @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. The award of the Reference

Court is challenged by the VIDC in First Appeal No.261/2015. The

claimant has challenged the award and has sought higher

compensation, in First Appeal No.362/2012.

Shri Bhide, the learned counsel for the claimant

submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in granting

compensation @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. It is

submitted that the land had great non-agricultural potential and hence,

it was necessary for the Reference Court to grant compensation @

Rs.60/- per square meter as claimed by the claimant. It is submitted

that the Reference Court has however, by relying on the Judgments in

two Land Acquisition Cases bearing Nos. 320/2000 and 280/2000

directed the State Government to pay compensation @ Rs.1,15,000/-

per hectare. It is stated that the land involved in the said Judgments

was agricultural land and hence, higher compensation is liable to be

paid to the claimant in this case, as his land is irrigated land. It is

submitted that the Reference Court committed a serious error in not

considering the evidence tendered by the claimant for grant of

compensation for the mango tree and the well. It is stated that the claim

of the claimant in this regard has been brushed aside with a single

sentence in the Judgment / Award of the Reference Court that the

claimant had not produced any cogent evidence in this regard. It is

5 J-FA-362-12

submitted that though a valuation report was not tendered, the

Reference Court ought to have granted at least some compensation for

the mango tree and the well.

Shri P. B. Patil, the learned counsel for the VIDC

submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in granting

compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. It is

submitted that the grant of compensation by the Reference Court at the

said rate is very excessive. It is submitted that since the claimant had

not produced any cogent evidence in support of his claim for

compensation for the well and the tree, the Reference Court has rightly

denied the compensation for the said items. It is submitted that the

Land Acquisition Officer had considered the sale transactions of similar

lands to rightly determine the market value of the land of the claimant.

Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader appearing for the State Government has supported the case of

the VIDC. It is submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in

enhancing the compensation for the acquired land and granting it @

Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. The learned Assistant Government Pleader

sought for dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimant.

6 J-FA-362-12

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the record and proceedings, it appears that the following

points arise for determination in these appeals:-

1) Whether the Reference Court was justified in

granting compensation for the acquired land @

Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare and/or whether the same is

liable to be reduced or enhanced ?

              2)      Whether   the   claimant   would   be   entitled   to

              compensation for the well and the mango tree ?



              3)      What order ?

To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it

would be necessary to consider the evidence tendered by the parties.

The claimant has tendered oral as well as documentary evidence. No

evidence is specifically tendered on behalf of the State Government and

the VIDC in defence. The claimant had mainly relied on the award

passed by the Reference Court in two land acquisition cases of the year

2000 i.e. Land Acquisition Case Nos.320/2000 and 280/2000. The land

in the nearby vicinity of the acquired land was acquired by the Section 4

Notification issued on 15/09/1994. Since no sale instances or awards

7 J-FA-362-12

pertaining to village Pratappur in which the acquired land of the

claimant was located were filed, the Reference Court rightly relied on

the awards passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos.320/2000 and

280/2000 on which reliance was also placed by the claimant. In those

cases, the Section 4 Notification was issued on 15/09/1994 whereas in

the present case, the Section 4 Notification was issued on 09/05/1996.

There is no dispute about the fact that village Khadaksawanga is located

in the nearby vicinity of village Pratappur where the acquired land is

located. The Reference Court therefore gave much weightage to the

award passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos.320/2000 and 280/2000

while determining the compensation in the case of the acquired land of

the claimant. We find that the Reference Court was justified in giving

much weightage to the awards passed in the two land acquisition cases

as no other relevant material that could have determined the market

value of the land was placed by the claimant before the Reference

Court. Since in those cases, the compensation was awarded @

Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare, considering the fact that the Section 4

Notification in this case was issued more than one and half years later,

the Reference Court rightly determined the compensation for the land

of the claimant @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare. While placing reliance on

the Judgment and Awards in Land Acquisition Case Nos.320/2000 and

280/2000, the Reference Court rightly discarded the evidence in the

form of the awards in Land Acquisition Case Nos.228/1999 and

8 J-FA-362-12

181/1999. In Land Acquisition Case Nos.228/1999 and 181/1999, the

acquired lands were open plots of village Khadaksawanga and the

acquired land in this case was dry crop agricultural land. We find that

the Reference Court has appreciated the evidence tendered by the

claimant in the right perspective while determining the compensation

for the acquired land @ Rs.1,15,000/- per hectare.

Though the Reference Court was justified in

determining the compensation for the land @ Rs.1,15,000/- per

hectare, the Reference Court was not justified in refusing to grant

compensation for the well and the mango tree. It is apparent from the

Schedule annexed to the Award on which reliance was placed by the

claimant that a well was located in the acquired land and one mango

tree was also standing on the same. If that be so, the Reference Court

ought to have granted compensation for the well and the mango tree. In

the circumstances of the case, by considering the Judgments in the

other Land Acquisition Cases and by applying same guess work, it

would be necessary to direct the State Government and the VIDC to pay

compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the well and Rs.5,000/- for the mango

tree to the claimant.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, First Appeal

No.261/2015 is dismissed. First Appeal No.362/2012 is partly allowed.

9 J-FA-362-12

The Award of the Reference Court is modified. While confirming the

award granting compensation for the acquired land at Rs.1,15,000/- per

hectare, we direct the State Government and the VIDC to grant

additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the claimant for the well and

Rs.5,000/- for the mango tree with statutory benefits. Order

accordingly. No costs.

                       JUDGE                                                  JUDGE




 Choulwar