Bombay High Court
Keshao Thaora Chavan vs State Of Maha., Thr. Collector, ... on 2 March, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 479-FA-171-06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 171/2006
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.370/2007
FIRST APPEAL NO. 171/2006
APPELLANT : Keshao Thaora Chavan,
Aged about : 72 years,
Occu : Agriculturist,
R/o Hanwatkhed, Tq. Sindhkhedraja,
District - Buldana.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Buldana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Amruta Gupta, Advocate with Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. M. A. Kadu, AGP for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 370/2007
APPELLANTS : 1. Shantabai w/o Ukanda Chavan,
Aged about : 64 years,
Occ : Cultivator.
2. Ukanda Somla Chavan,
Aged about : 65 years,
Occ : Retired.
Both R/o Hanwatkhed,
Tq. Sindhkhedraja, Dist. Buldana.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Buldana.
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:34:44 :::
2 479-FA-171-06.odt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Amruta Gupta, Advocate with Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. M. A. Kadu, AGP for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 02/03/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Both these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 can be decided by this common Judgment as the Land Acquisition
Cases have been decided together by the Reference Court.
2. In First Appeal No.171/2006, land admeasuring 3 Hectare 41 R. from
Gut No.59 and land admeasuring 5 Hectares 0.08 R. from Gut No.54 came to
be acquired. The Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on
30/06/1989 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on
25/03/1991. He awarded sum of Rs.13,000/- per Hectare for the acquired
land and also granted compensation for the wells. The Reference Court
enhanced the amount of compensation for the land at Rs.20,000/- per
hectare. No enhancement was granted for the wells.
3. In First Appeal No.370/2007, land admeasuring 1 hectare 18 R from
Gut No.44 and 1 Hectare 25 R from Gut No.42 came to be acquired by the
3 479-FA-171-06.odt
same notification. Similar compensation also came to be granted and
thereafter, enhanced by the Reference Court.
4. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
Reference Court ought to have granted further compensation for the acquired
lands as well as for the wells. It was submitted that sale instance dated
14/06/1991 was placed on record on the basis of which it was clear that the
acquired land was entitled for higher compensation. Reference was made to
various crops taken in said lands and the existence of wells in each land. It
was submitted that though the sale instance dated 14/06/1991 was a post
notification sale instance, the same could be relied upon and in that regard,
the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Chindha
Vithal Sonawane Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 1975 Mh.L.J. 468.
It was then submitted that the claimants had deposed about the amounts
spent for construction of the wells and therefore, those amounts were also
liable to be granted. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellants are
entitled for further compensation.
5. Shri M A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the sale
instance relied upon was of village Malkapur, while the acquired lands were
4 479-FA-171-06.odt
from village Hanwatkhed. The distance between both the villages was about
4 kms. It was then submitted that there was no evidence placed on record to
indicate the value of the wells. Therefore, there was no basis whatsoever for
granting further enhancement. The Land Acquisition Officer had treated the
acquired lands as irrigated and this fact was also taken into consideration by
the Reference Court. He, therefore, submitted that the appeals were liable to
be dismissed.
6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the record of the case and I have given due consideration to their
respective submissions. The following point arises for consideration :
i) Whether the appellants are entitled for higher compensation ?
Insofar as the lands are concerned, the appellants have relied upon
sale instance dated 14/06/1991. Though, it is true that a post notification
sale instance can be taken into consideration while determining fair
compensation as observed in Chindha Vithal Sonawane (supra), it can be
seen that said sale instance pertains to village Malkapur while the acquired
land is from village Hanwatkhed. There is no map on record to indicate
location of the acquired land in comparison with the lands which are the
5 479-FA-171-06.odt
subject matter of the sale instance. The claimant in Land Acquisition Case
No.5/1991 has admitted that distance between both villages was about 4
kms. Hence, said sale instance cannot be taken into consideration for absence
of evidence with regard to its location.
7. The record indicates that the acquired lands were irrigated and each
land had a Well therein. This finding is recorded by the Reference Court in
Paragraph Nos.17 and 18. The Reference Court, however, has proceeded to
treat the land as dry crop land on the ground that there was evidence with
regard to crops irrigated in said land. This finding is recorded in paragraph
16 of the Judgment. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L. Rs. Vrs. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2012 SC 481, said finding cannot be
sustained. If the existence of Wells is not in dispute, then the acquired land
would have to be treated at least as perennially irrigated land. Hence, an
amount of Rs.30,000/- per hectare can be granted as fair compensation.
8. Insofar as compensation for the Wells is concerned, the same has been
granted by the Land Acquisition Officer after perusing the valuation report
prepared by him. There is no further evidence led by the claimants before the
Reference Court to seek enhancement in the amount so awarded. Hence, the
6 479-FA-171-06.odt
appellants would be entitled for compensation only for the land by treating
the same as perennially irrigated land. The point as framed is answered by
holding that the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the amount of
compensation.
9. Accordingly, the following order is passed :
ORDER
i) The judgment of the Reference Court in Land
Acquisition Case Nos.7/1991 and 5/1991 is partly
modified. It is held that the appellants are entitled for
enhancement in the amount of compensation for the land
@ Rs.30,000/- per hectare alongwith all statutory
benefits.
ii) Rest of the award stands confirmed.
Iii) Appeals are partly allowed in aforesaid terms. No
costs.
JUDGE
Choulwar
