Suresh Mahadeorao Ajmire vs State O F Mah., Thr. Collector, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8343 Bom

                                                  1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

First  Appeal No. 1139 of 2010 

Appellant :              Suresh son of Mahadeorao Ajmire, 
                         Agriculturist, resident of Kotha (Fattepur),
                         Tahsil Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal

                         Versus

Respondents:             1) The State of Maharashtra, through 
                         Collector, Yavatmal

                         2) The Sub-Divisional Officer & Special 
                         Land Acquisition Officer, Bembla Project, 
                         Yavatmal having its Office in the New 
                         Administrative Building, Collectorate, Yavatmal

                         3) The Executive Engineer, Bembla Project, 
                         Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, 
                         Awadhutwadi, Yavatmal

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms Vijaya Thakare, Advocate for appellant Shri B. M. Lonare, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents 1 & 2 Shri Amol Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 3

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 2nd October 2017

Oral Judgment

1. By this appeal, legality and correctness of the order dated 4 th

January 2006 rendered in LAC No. 50 of 2004 by 4 th Adhoc Additional

District Judge, Yavatmal has been questioned on the ground of grant of

inadequate compensation.

2. The land of the appellant bearing Gat No. 90 admeasuring

1.62 HR situated at village Kotha (Fattepur) was acquired for the

purposes of Bembla Project. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

notification was published 24th August 2000. The Land Acquisition

Officer determined the market value of the acquired land to be at Rs.

63,686/- per hectare while in the reference application under Section 18

of the Act, the Reference Court determined the market value of the

acquired land on the higher side or to be precise, at Rs. 70,000/- per

hectare. The appellant was not satisfied with such determination of

compensation and that is the reason now why he has come up in this

appeal before this Court.

3. I have heard Ms Vijaya Thakare, learned counsel for the

appellant; Shri B. M. Lonare, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Amol Patil, learned counsel for

respondent no. 3. I have gone through the record and proceedings

including the impugned judgment and award.

4. Now, the only question that arises for my determination is :

Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference

Court is just and proper ?

5. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the

compensation so awarded is unjust and improper and he submits that the

acquired land being similarly situated to the land involved in the sale

instance vide exhibit 35 situated at village Kotha, the same rate has been

fixed by this Court in a group of appeals starting from First Appeal No.

1263 of 2009, decided on 26th July 2012. This is, however, disagreed to

by learned counsel for respondent no. 3. He submits that in the aforesaid

group of appeals, the lands acquired were from different village, village

Fattepur whereas the land acquired in this case is from village Kotha

(Fattepur).

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that an

appropriate order in this matter be passed.

7. On going through the judgment of this Court rendered in the

aforesaid group of appeals, I find that this court considered as relevant

the sale instance of the land situated at village Kopra in which value of

the land as per the sale consideration was worked out to be at Rs.

1,24,000/- per hectare in the year 1994. It is further seen that the land

involved in that case was a similar piece of land and, therefor, balancing

the equity, this court determined the value of the land to be at Rs.

96,000/- per acre in the year 1994. It is also seen that Section 4

notification in that case was issued on 31.12.1998 and, therefore,

granting enhancement in value @ 10% for a period of four years, this

Court determined th market value of the land involved in those appeals to

be at Rs. 1,35,000/- per hectare.

8. Significantly, this very same sale instance has been relied

upon by the land owner in the present case. This sale instance is at

Exhibit 35. Of course, the Reference Court kept this sale instance out of

consideration on the ground that no evidence has been led by the land

owner to show that the land of this sale transaction and the acquired land

were similar to each other in terms of quality, fertility and potentiality.

However, I find such reasoning as difficult to accept.

9. Perusal of evidence of land owner, P. W. 1 would show that

he has asserted in his examination-in-chief that the land of the sale

instance vide Exhibit 35 is comparable to the acquired land. He has tried

to demonstrate this fact by adducing evidence, a village map which is at

Exhibit 41. This map, I must say, has not been considered by the

Reference Court in order to find out the truthfulness of the stand taken by

the land owner. Since the map is a proved document, now its task would

fall upon the shoulder of this court and performing it, I find that the land

involved in the sale instance vide Exhibit 35 could be said to be an

adjoining land as far as the acquired land is concerned. This Court, in the

aforesaid group of appeals, has found that the lands from the adjoining

villages could be considered as relevant and similar as some evidence was

led in that regard by the claimants. There is some evidence in this case

also adduced by the land owner and it is to the effect that these lands are

comparable to each other. On going through the cross-examination of the

land owner taken on behalf of the appellant, one would find that there is

nothing in the entire cross-examination to disbelieve or reject such

positive assertion made by the land owner. So, taking into consideration

the evidence of the land owner as well as the village map (Exhibit 41), I

am of the view that there is a similarity in all respects between the

acquired land and the land involved in the sale instance vide Exhibit 35.

As such, this sale instance could be relied upon for appropriatly

determining the market value of the acxquired land.

10. This Court in the said group of appeals, has already worked

out the market value of the land involved in the sale instance to be at Rs.

96,000/- per acre in the year 1994. In the present case, Section 4

notification has been issued on 24 th August 2000. So, for a period of six

years, 60% enhanced compensation would have to be granted and

granting so, I find that the true market value of the acquired land would

approximately be of Rs. 1,53,000/- per hectare. I further find that the

land owner is entitled to receive compensation at this rage and the

compensation deserves to be given to him at this rate only together with

all the statutory benefits at the same rate as are granted by the Reference

Court. The point s answered accordingly.

11. The appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be granted

compensation @ Rs. 1,53,000/- per hectare for his acquired land

together with all statutory benefits at the same rate as are granted by the

Reference Court. The impugned judgment and order stand modified in

the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi