Chintaman S/O Raibhan Ingle vs State Of Mah. Thr. The Secretary ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8503 Bom

                                                  1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

First Appeal No. 88 of 2008 

Appellant :              Chintaman son of Raibhan Ingle, aged about
                         60 years, Occ: Cultivator, resident of Deurwada,
                         Tahsil Digras, District Yavatmal

                         Versus

Respondents:             1)   The State of Maharashtra, through 
                         Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
                         Mumbai-32

                         2) The Collector, Yavatmal

                         3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                         Benefitted Zone, Amravati Project, Digras,
                         District Yavatmal 

                         4) V.I.D. C., through the Executive Engineer,
                         Arunavati Project, Digras 

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

Shri S. U. Nemade, Advocate for appellant Shri Harshal Dube, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3 Shri A. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 4

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

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 7th November 2017

Oral Judgment

1. This appeal questions legality and correctness of the

judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 rendered in LAC No. 9 of 2004 by

the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwha on the ground of inadequate

compensation.

2. Land of the appellant bearing survey number 28 having area

of 2.42 hectare situated at mouza Deurwada was compulsorily acquired

for the purposes of Arunavati Project. Notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government gazette on

7.1.1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @

Rs. 12000/- per hectare which compensation was questioned in

Reference Application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25000/- per

hectare by the impugned judgment and order. Appellant now seeks

further enhancement in the compensation by this appeal.

3. Shri S. U. Nemade, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that by a common judgment rendered in First Appeal No. 269

of 1998 and another, this Court determined the market value of the land

situated at the same village, village Deurwada which was acquired for the

same project and under the same notification to be at Rs. 65000/- per

hectare. He submits that the land so evaluated by this Court was

perennially irrigated land. He further submits that the land involved in

the present case is the similar land in terms of its fertility and potentiality

as the land acquired in FA No. 269 of 1998 with the difference that the

present land is a dry crop land and the land in FA No. 269 of 1998 was

perennially irrigated land. He, therefore, submits that appropriate

evaluation of the land in the present case may be done which, according

to learned counsel for the appellant, should be in the range of Rs.

50,000/- per hectare. Learned counsel for the acquiring body does not

dispute the fact of situation of the present land and that the land involved

in FA No. 269 of 1998 being similar in terms of fertility and potentiality

except for the facility of irrigation. He, however, submits that going by

the usual formula, the market value of the present dry crop land should

be around Rs. 40,000/- per hectare. The present land is similar to the

land acquired in FA No. 269 of 1998 in terms of it fertility, soil character

and potentiality and this land is situated in the same village as the land in

FA No. 269 of 1998. As stated earlier, there is no dispute about this fact.

Therefore, adopting the formula of 1.5 times enhancement for

determining the market value of the perennially irrigated land, I am of the

view that the market value of the present land would be of Rs. 43,000/-

per hectare and this is the value at which the compensation for the

acquired land deserves to be granted to the appellant.

4. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. It is declared that

the appellant is entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 43,000/- per

hectare for his acquired land together with all the statutory benefits at the

rate given by the Reference Court. The impugned judgment and award

stand modified in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs.

5. Before parting with the judgment, I think, a clarification

needs to be placed on record. It is seen from the compiliation of the

judgments placed before me by learned counsel for the appellant that the

common judgment rendered in First Appeal No. 269 of 1998 and First

Appeal No. 523 of 1998 on 13 th October 2014 by this Court formed the

basis for deciding the other appeals later. These appeals were FA 127 of

1996, decided on 30th August 2016; FA 592 of 1994, decided on 16 th

January 2017; FA (St) 20562 of 2015, decided on 1 st February 2017 and

FA 935 of 2017, decided on 8 th August 2017. In all these appeals, the

compensation for dry crop land was enhanced to Rs. 65,000/- per hectare

and it was enhanced to Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare for perennially

irrigated land. In FA No. 127 of 1996 (supra), a representation was

made by the appellant that the rate of Rs. 65000/- per hectare granted by

thi Court in FA No. 269 of 1998 was for the dry crop land and as the

involved in FA No. 127 of 1996 was a dry crop land, same rate deserved

to be given for that land as well. This submission was accepted by the

Court believing the representation made to be true and, therefore, this

Court granted enhancement in compensation @ Rs. 65,000/- per hectare

for the dry crop land. This was the beginning of series of representations

being made by the other appeallants in other appeals. In FA Nos. 592 of

1994, FA (St) No. 20562 of 2015 and 935 of 2017 the lands involved

were perennially irrigated and it was submitted by those appellants that

as the land situated at the same village involved in FA No. 127 of 1996

was granted compensation for the acquisition of the land the rate of Rs.

65,000/- per hectare for dry crop land, the rate of compensation deserved

to be doubled up for the similarly situated lands, but which were

perennially irrigated lands. These submissions were accepted in the later

appeals and, therefore, compensation @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare was

granted for the lands acquired from the same village and covered under

the same notification. The submissions made by the appeallanta in all

these appeals were erroneous factually and, therefore, these appeals now

would no longer be available to enable the appellants to draw support

from them for making any comparison in future.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi