Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Navnath Rama Gadhave on 29 June, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO.463/16 & anr.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Osmanabad
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Osmanabad ...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Subhash s/o. Bhimrao Gadhave,
Age: Adult, Occu.Agri.,
R/o. Bhoom, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2016
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Osmanabad
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Osmanabad ...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
Shri. Navnath Rama Gadhave,
Age: Adult, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Bhoom, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimants)
...
Mr. P.G. Borade and Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, A.G.P. for Appellants
Mr. Wakure Sanjay A., Advocate for Respondents
...
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
Dated: June 29, 2017
...
2 FA NO.463/16 & anr.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
. Heard finally with consent.
1. Since the present appeals are filed against
common judgment and award passed by the Court of IInd
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Osmanabad, on 6 th of
October, 2009 in LAR No. 471/2000 and LAR No.474/2000,
I deem it appropriate to decide both these appeals by
common reasoning.
2. The lands which are the subject matter of the
present appeals were acquired for the purpose of Bhoom
Percolation Tank at Bhoom. Notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act in that regard was published in
the Government gazette on 24th February, 1994, and
award under Section 11 came to be passed on 17th of
August, 1998. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had
offered the compensation to the respondents who are
hereinafter referred to as the claimants, at the rate of
Rs.250/- per Are i.e. Rs.10,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied
with the amount of compensation so offered, the claimants
filed applications under Section 18 of the Act to the
Collector, Osmanabad who, in turn, forwarded the said
application to the Civil Court for adjudication. The
claimant had claimed the compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh) per acre before the Reference
Court. In order to substantiate the claim so raised by
them, in addition to their own evidence, the claimants had
relied upon one sale instance at Exh.19. No oral or
3 FA NO.463/16 & anr.
documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the State.
Learned reference Court, after having considered the oral
and documentary evidence brought before it, determined
the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of
Rs.50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty thousand) per acre and,
accordingly, enhanced the amount of compensation. It
has to be stated that the land which was the subject
matter of LAR No.474/2000 was admeasuring 1 Hectare 53
Are whereas the land which was subject matter of LAR
No.471/2000 was admeasuring 17 Are. Aggrieved by the
award passed by the Reference Court, the State has
preferred present appeals.
3. Learned A.G.P. has assailed the common
awards appealed against on several grounds. Learned
A.G.P. submitted that there was no sufficient evidence on
record so as to determine the market value of the acquired
lands at Rs.50,000/- per acre. Learned A.G.P. further
submitted that the only evidence which was adduced by
the claimants was a sale instance at Exh.19. Learned
A.G.P. further submitted that the land which was the
subject matter of the said sale deed was comparatively a
small piece of land and as has come on record was at a far
distance from the acquired lands. As such, according to
learned A.G.P., the same could not have been base for
determining the market value of the subject lands.
Learned A.G.P. further submitted that ultimately the
market value has been determined by the Reference Court
by making out some guess work and is thus admittedly not
4 FA NO.463/16 & anr.
based on evidence. Learned A.G.P. submitted that on the
contrary if the award under Section 11 of the Act is
perused, it reveals that the Special Land Acquisition
Officer had considered more than 15 sale instances
happened between the period 1991 to 1994 and has,
thereafter, determined the market value of the acquired
lands. Learned A.G.P. submitted that since the market
value has been determined by the Reference Court on
surmises needs to be set aside and the price as was fixed
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer needs to be
confirmed. Learned A.G.P., therefore, prayed for
allowing both the appeals.
4. Mr. Sanjay A. Wakure, Adv., appears for
respondents in both the appeals. Learned counsel
appearing for the respondents i.e. original claimants, has
supported impugned Judgment and Award.
5. With the assistance of learned A.G.P., I went
through the evidence adduced in the matter and the other
material on record, more particularly, the sale instance at
Exh.19 and the award passed under Section 11 of the Act.
After having perused the aforesaid evidence, apparently, it
does not appear to me that any interference may be
required in the impugned judgment and award.
Admittedly, the only evidence which was adduced before
the Reference Court was by the claimants. The State has
not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. It is,
thus, evident that for determination of the market value,
5 FA NO.463/16 & anr.
the only material which was before the Reference Court
was the sale instance at Exh.19.
6. I have carefully perused the recitals in the sale
deed at Exh.19. It reveals that the land admeasuring 42
Are, out of survey No.236-A situate at Bhoom was sold by
registered sale deed executed on 17 th of December, 1991,
by one Bhagwat Gadhave to Ashabai Mali for consideration
of Rs.70,000/-. In the evidence before the Court though
it was sought to be stated that as per the Government
valuation the consideration of the said land was
Rs.1,83,000/- in fact, the land was sold at Rs.70,000/-.
Thus, the said land was sold at the rate of Rs.1666/- (One
thousand six hundred sixty six) per Are. From the
discussion made by the Reference Court in paragraph nos.
22 to 25 of the judgment, it is revealed that the Reference
Court has not blindly relied upon the said sale instance.
The discussion made by the Reference Court goes to
suggest that it has considered the aspect of convenience in
purchasing the subject land of Exh.19 by the purchaser
therein and the location of the said land. However,
based on the said sale instance, some guess work was
carried out by the Reference Court and ultimately it has
fixed the market value of the subject land at the rate of
Rs.50,000/- per acre.
7. Admittedly, the land which was subject matter
at Exh.19 was sold on 17.12.1991 whereas, the subject
lands were acquired in the year 1994 after about a period
6 FA NO.463/16 & anr.
of more than two years. However, since the possession of
the said land was taken in the year 1992, there was no
difficulty in considering the sale instance at Exh.19 to be a
base for determining the market value of the acquired
lands. All these factors are duly considered by the
Reference Court and, thereafter, the market value of the
subject land has been determined by the Reference Court
at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre.
8. After having considered the entire material on
record, it does not appear to me that the market value as
has been determined by the Reference Court is
unreasonable or excessive. It also cannot be held that
the same was determined without any evidence therefor.
Moreover, as I have earlier stated, the only evidence which
was before the Reference Court for determining the
market value was adduced by the claimants and no
evidence was adduced by the State to substantiate the
defenses raised by it. Perusal of the impugned
judgment further reveals that the Tribunal has declined to
accept the request of the claimants to award some more
compensation for the well which was also acquired in the
said proceedings and to enhance the amount of
compensation for the trees existing in the acquired land.
The Reference Court has rejected the claims raised by the
claimants in that regard.
9. For the reasons stated above, it does not
appear to me that any interference is required in the
7 FA NO.463/16 & anr.
common judgment and award impugned in the present
appeals. The Appeals being devoid of substance, stand
dismissed, however, without any order as to the costs.
. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
( P.R. BORA, J. )
AGP/
