Bombay High Court
Rewaji Balu ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.:444 OF 1999
1. Zumber Dagadu Chemate,
Age: 56 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Village: Ranjani, Tal. Nagar,
District : Ahmednagar.
2. Shankar Dagadu Chemate,
Age: 53 yrs, Occ: Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Village: Ranjani, Tal. Nagar,
District : Ahmednagar.
3. Uttam Dagadu Chemate,
Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Village: Ranjani, Tal. Nagar,
District : Ahmednagar. ... APPELLANTS
(Ori. Claimants)
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra.
(Notice be served on the Govt.
Pleader, High Court of Judicature
Bombay, At : Aurangabad.) ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Opponent)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.:358 OF 1999
Rewaji Balu Chemate-Deceased His L/R,
1. Ashok Rewaji Chemate,
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Ranjani, Ta. Nagar,
District : Ahmednagar. ... APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2017 00:15:40 :::
2
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra.
(Notice be served on the Govt.
Pleader, High Court of Judicature
Bombay, At : Aurangabad.) ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Opponent)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.:359 OF 1999
Rewaji Balu Chemate-Deceased His L/R,
1. Ashok Rewaji Chemate,
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Ranjani, Ta. Nagar,
District : Ahmednagar.
2. Zumber Dagadu Chemate,
Age: 56 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Village: Ranjani, Tal. Nagar,
District : Ahmednagar.
3. Shankar Dagadu Chemate,
Age: 53 yrs, Occ: Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Village: Ranjani, Tal. Nagar,
District : Ahmednagar.
4. Uttam Dagadu Chemate,
Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Village: Ranjani, Tal. Nagar,
District : Ahmednagar. ... APPELLANTS
(Ori. Claimants)
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra.
(Notice be served on the Govt.
Pleader, High Court of Judicature
Bombay, At : Aurangabad.) ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Opponent)
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2017 00:15:40 :::
3
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
***
Mr. A. B. Gatne, Advocate for Appellants in all appeals.
Mr. S. P. Sonpawle, A.G.P. for Respondent/State Authorities in all appeals.
***
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 04th May, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award
passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar dated
27th April, 1998 in LAR No.199 of 1990 alongwith connected land
acquisition reference petitions, the original Claimants in LAR No.199
of 1990 have preferred First Appeal No.444 of 1999, original
Claimants in LAR No.200 of 1990 have preferred First Appeal No.359
of 1999 and the original Claimant in LAR No.202 of 1990 has
preferred First Appeal No.358 of 1999.
2 Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are as
follows:
a) The lands owned and possessed by the original
Claimants came to be acquired by the Government
for the purpose of construction of Ranjani
Percolation Tank, Taluka and District Ahmednagar.
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
Section 4 notification was published on 27th October,
1983 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has
awarded the compensation for the acquired lands
vide award bearing No. LAQ-SR-356/85 dated 1st
July, 1987 at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per Hectare by
treating all the lands as Jirayat lands. However, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded
any compensation for the acquired wells, Tals and
fruit bearing trees. Being aggrieved by the same,
the Appellants / original Claimants have filed above
mentioned land acquisitions reference petitions for
grant of compensation at the enhanced rate.
Initially, the Claimants have claimed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per Acre,
however, amended the claim for the acquired land
at Rs.30,000/- per Acre corresponds to Rs.750/- per
Are. It has been contended by the Appellants /
Claimants in their respective reference petitions that
the Special Land Acquisition Officer has failed to
appreciate the sale instances of the comparable
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
lands taken place at the relevant time of the
acquisition. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
has also failed to appreciate the quality and fertility
of the acquired lands. It has also been contended
that the acquired lands were wrongly classified as
Jirayat lands and in fact, irrigation facility was
available on the water of well. However, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into
consideration the same. It has also been contended
that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not
awarded any compensation for the fruit bearing
trees, Tals and wells.
b) Respondent / State has strongly resisted those
reference petitions by filing the written statement. It
has been contended that the Special Land
Acquisition Officer has personally visited the lands
under acquisition and verified its quality. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer has also collected
relevant sale instances and classified the lands as
Jirayat as well as irrigate lands on the basis of the
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
assessment of land revenue. Thus, the
Government has already paid adequate
compensation to the Appellants / original Claimants.
c) The Appellants / Claimants have adduced oral and
documentary evidence in support of their
contentions. Respondent / State has not adduced
any evidence. The learned Judge of the Reference
Court has partly allowed the said reference petitions
by common judgment and award and awarded the
compensation to the acquired lands at the enhanced
rate of Rs.12,500/- to Rs.15,000/- per Hectare. The
Reference Court has also awarded the
compensation for the fruit bearing trees such as
Jambhul trees and mango trees and the
compensation for wells and Tals constructed by the
Appellants / Claimants in their respective lands.
Hence, these appeals.
3 The learned counsel for the Appellants / Claimants
submits that the Reference Court has awarded meager compensation
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
at the enhanced rate for the acquired lands. The learned counsel
submits that the acquired lands of the Appellants / Claimants were
irrigated lands. However, the Reference Court has not considered the
same and awarded the compensation erroneously by treating the
acquired lands as Jirayat lands. The learned counsel submits that the
Appellants / Claimants have placed their reliance on two sale
instances Exhibits 33 and 53 respectively. However, the Reference
Court has not considered the same. The learned counsel submits
that the Reference Court has awarded the compensation for fruit
bearing trees, wells and Tals at a very meager rate. The Appellants /
Claimants have adduced common evidence in LAR No.199 of 1990
and examined the witnesses to substantiate their contentions about
the claim of compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees, wells and
Tals. Even the Reference Court has committed mistakes in
mentioning the trees in the respective acquired lands, which is the
subject matter of the aforesaid land acquisition reference petitions.
The learned counsel submits that so far as LAR No.199 of 1990 is
concerned, 11 Jambhul trees came to be acquired alongwith the land.
However, the Reference Court has erroneously considered 5 Jambhul
trees and even though there are no mango trees in the lands, which
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
are subject matter of LAR No.199 of 1990, awarded the compensation
for the mango trees. The Reference Court has committed similar
mistakes in other land acquisition reference petitions also. The
learned counsel submits that as per the evidence led by the
Appellants / Claimants, the Claimants are entitled for more amount for
the trees, wells and Tals compare to the compensation awarded by
the Reference Court. The Reference Court has not at all considered
the evidence led by the Claimants on this point.
4 The learned AGP for the Respondent / State submits that
the Reference Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the
Claimants, observed that some of the lands under acquisition are
Jirayat lands and some of the lands are irrigated under the well of
water. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the Reference
Court has rightly held that the lands under reference petitions, which
are subject matter of present appeals are the Jirayat lands. So far as
the sale instances Exhibits 33 and 53 are concerned, sale instance
Exhibit 33 executed after Section 4 notification of the acquired lands.
Both the sale instances are from different villages and the Appellants /
Claimants have failed to prove that those lands are similar to the
acquired lands. Even though the Reference Court has observed that
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
those sale instances Exhibits 33 and 53 respectively are not
completely comparable, considered those sale instances to find out
the trend in rising prices of the agricultural lands in the said area. The
Reference Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation for
the acquired lands. The learned AGP submits that the Reference
Court has rightly discarded the evidence of private valuer in respect of
the trees, wells and Tals for the reason that the said valuer has
carried out the inspection during the pendency of the land acquisition
reference petitions before the Reference Court and that too near
about 10 years approximately after possession of the acquired lands
was taken by the Government. Even the Reference Court has
observed that if the acquired lands are submerged in water, there is
no question of carrying out any inspection after such a long gap. The
Reference Court has, however, believed the bare words of the
Appellants / Claimants and accepted existence of the trees and
further awarded just and reasonable compensation for the trees, wells
and Tals. There is no substance in the appeals and all the appeals
are liable to be dismissed.
5 On perusal of the evidence and the common impugned
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, it appears that
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference
Court has rightly awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate by
treating the acquired lands as Jirayat lands. Even though the sale
instances Exhibits 33 and 53 respectively are from different villages
and even though the Appellants / Claimants have failed to bring to the
notice of the Reference Court the distance between the acquired
lands and the lands under sale instances, the Reference Court has
considered those sale instances to find out the exact market price of
the agricultural land in the said area. The Reference Court has
awarded just and reasonable compensation for the acquired lands. I
do not find any fault in it.
6 So far as the compensation awarded for the fruit bearing
trees and Tals are concerned, in my opinion, the Reference Court has
not considered the evidence led by the Appellants / Claimants in its
proper perspective. So far as the compensation awarded for the well
is concerned, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation for
the well as claimed by the Appellants / Claimants and as such, no
interference is required in that.
7 The Appellants / Claimants have examined Witness No.5
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
Gopinath Gaikwad. Said Witness Gopinath Gaikwad used to
purchase fruits by auction and then used to sell the same on retail
basis. He was doing that business. According to him, he had
purchased the fruits of 11 Jambhul trees in the acquired land owned
and possessed by Appellant / Claimant (Zumber) for an amount of
Rs.53,000/- in the year 1981 and also in the same year, purchased
the fruits of 8 mango trees for Rs.55,000/-. The receipt of auction
purchase is produced on record and marked Exhibits 28 and 27
respectively. It appears that the Reference Court has not considered
the evidence of Witness No.5 Gopinath Gaikwad in its proper
perspective and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/-
per Jambhul tree and Rs.5,000/- per mango tree. Considering the
evidence of Witness No.5 Gopinath Gaikwad, it would be just and
appropriate if the compensation is granted at the rate of Rs.5,000/-
per Jambhul tree and Rs.7,000/- per mango tree.
8 So far as the construction of Tals in the acquired lands is
concerned, the Appellants / Claimants have examined Witness No.4
Ambadas Thorat, who has constructed the wells and Tals at village
Ranjani. He was a registered contractor of B&C Department. A copy
of his registration certificate is also produced on record. According to
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
him, he has constructed 3 Tals in the acquired land of Zumber at the
rate of Rs.3,000/- each. He has also issued a receipt to that effect,
which is marked as Exhibit 27. He has constructed those Tals on 11 th
April, 1979. In the same year, he has also constructed a Tal in land
Gat No.96 at the same cost. He has deposed that in the year 1981
and onwards, he has again constructed Tals in the acquired land Gat
No.45 and Gat No.100 at the cost of Rs.9,000/- and Rs.22,500/-
respectively. It, thus, appears from his evidence that he has
constructed said Tals at the rate in between Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/-.
In view of the same, the Appellants / Claimants are entitled for
compensation for each Tal at the rate of Rs.2,750/- instead of
Rs.2,000/- as awarded by the Reference Court.
9 It further appears from the common impugned judgment
and award passed by the Reference Court that the learned Judge of
the Reference Court has committed the mistakes in mentioning the
number of trees in the acquired lands. The learned Judge of the
Reference Court has believed the words of the Appellants / Claimants
about existence of the trees. However, while granting the
compensation, awarded the compensation for the trees in respect of a
particular Gat number when the said trees are not in existence in the
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
said acquired land. Thus, the said mistakes can be corrected by
mentioning the existence of the trees in the respective acquired lands
through the following chart:
Sr. L.A.R. Number Existence of trees Rate as awarded by
No. this Court
1. LAR No.199 of 1990 11 Jambhul trees Rs.5,000/- per Jambhul tree
2. LAR No.200 of 1990 8 mango trees Rs.7,000/- per mango tree
3. LAR No.202 of 1990 8 mango trees Rs.7,000/- per mango tree
10 Thus, the Appellants / Claimants are entitled for the
compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per Jambhul tree and
Rs.7,000/- per mango tree as per the chart referred above and also
entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,750/- per Tal
alongwith all statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court.
11 The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
requires modification to that extent. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
I. First Appeal No.444 of 1999 (Zumber Dagadu
Chemate Vs. The State of Maharashtra), First
Appeal No.358 of 1999 (Rewaji Balu Chemate-
Deceased His L/R, Ashok Rewaji Chemate Vs. The
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
State of Maharashtra) and First Appeal No.359 of
1999 (Rewaji Balu Chemate-Deceased His L/R,
Ashok Rewaji Chemate and others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra), are hereby partly allowed with
proportionate costs.
II. The common judgment and award passed by the
Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar
dated 27th April, 1998 in LAR Nos.199, 200 and
202 of 1990, is hereby modified in the following
manner to the extent of compensation awarded for
the fruit bearing trees in terms of the chart below
and the compensation for Tals at the rate of
Rs.2,750/- per Tal with all the statutory benefits as
awarded by the Reference Court.
Sr. L.A.R. Number Existence of trees Rate as awarded by
No. this Court
1. LAR No.199 of 1990 11 Jambhul trees Rs.5,000/- per Jambhul tree
2. LAR No.200 of 1990 8 mango trees Rs.7,000/- per mango tree
3. LAR No.202 of 1990 8 mango trees Rs.7,000/- per mango tree
III. Rest of the judgment and award stands confirmed.
IV. Award be drawn up as per the above modification.
FIRST APPEALS 444, 358 & 359 OF 1999.odt
V. Needless to say that if any amount is paid as per
the judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court, the same shall be the part of the modified
award.
VI. All the appeals are accordingly disposed of.
[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]
ndm
