State Of Mah. Thr. Collector, ... vs Vilasrao Digambar Ghuge
2017 Latest Caselaw 8640 Bom

                                                  1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

First Appeal No. 627  of 2006

Appellant :              State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Washim

                         Versus

Respondent:              Vilasrao Digambar Ghuge, adult, Cultivator,
                         resident of Malegaon, District Washim

                         ............

X-Objection No. 9 of 2006

Appellant : State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Washim

Versus

Respondent: Vilasrao Digambar Ghuge, adult, Cultivator, /X-Objector resident of Malegaon, District Washim

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellant Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for respondent/x-objector

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 13th November 2017

Oral Judgment

1. This appeal filed by the State takes an exception to the

higher determination of compensation made by the Reference Court in

respect of the compulsory acquisition of land bearing Gat No. 414 situated

at Malegaon, District Washim which land was acquired for the purpose of

Malegaon Irrigation Project.

2. The cross-objection filed by the land-owner Vilasrao Ghuge

whose land has been compulsorily acquired, also similarly objects to the

determination of the compensation made by the Reference Court with the

difference in the fact that the land owner is desirous to get more

compensation.

3. Parties to both the proceedings i.e. The State of Maharashtra

and the land owner shall now be referred to as the "State" and the "land

owner" respectively for the sake of convenience.

4. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

was published in the Government Gazette on 25.5.2000 while the Award

under Section 11 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on

24.5.2001. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market

value of the acquired land to be of Rs. 42,500/- per hectare, which was

enhanced to Rs. 55,2000/- per hectare by the Reference Court, which

decided the reference application under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act on its own merits by the judgment and order dated

28.4.2005 rendered in Land Acquisition Case No. 94 of 2004.

5. The land owner in his evidence before the Reference Court

heavily relied upon the sale instances which were the sale deeds of the

lands situated on Seloo Bazar to Malegaon Road. They were at Exhibits

42 and 43 and bear the dates 30.9.1997 and 14.1.2000 respectively. They

were, however, rejected by the Reference Court. The Reference Court

considered the two of the sale transactions, which had figured in the

Award of the SLAO at Sr. Nos. 7 and 9 and by drawing a mean value of

these two transactions and considering the acquired land to be a dry crop

land, fixed the market value of the dry crop land at the rate of Rs.

1,20,000/- per hectare for the sake of payment of compensation to the

land owner. This approach of the Reference Court was not to the

pleasure of both the rival parties, the State and the land owner and that is

why both of them are before this Court in the present appeal and the

cross-objection.

6. I have heard Shri M. A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for appellant State and Shri R. L. Khapre, learned counsel for the

land owner. I have gone through the record of the case. Now, the only

point which arises for my determination is :

Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference

Court is just and proper ?

7. According to learned counsel for the land owner, the

Reference Court has already found that the land bearing Gat No. 414 was

irrigated land and if that was so, there was no reason for the Reference

Court to have determined the compensation for the acquired land by

considering it to be a dry crop land. He also points out that a portion of

Gat No. 414 admeasuring 1.20 hectare belonged to Jaisingrao Digambar

Ghuge, real brother of this land owner and it was also compulsorily

acquired for the same project for which this Court determined the rate of

that land considering it to be the irrigated land @ Rs. 2,35,000/- per

hectare. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the land

acquired in the present case is different part of Gat No. 414 and,

therefore, appropriate order be passed as regards the determination of

rate of the acquired land.

8. Sofar as the grounds taken by Shri Khapre, learned counsel

for the land owner for seeking equality of treatment is concerned, I do not

see factual incorrectness in the same. Therefore, same treatment to the

land involved in the present appeal would have to be given as was given

to the land involved in First Appeal No. 628 of 2006 which was also

another part of Gat No. 414 belonging to Jaisingrao Digambar Ghuge, real

brother of cross-objector herein.

9. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the land owner is

entitled to enhqanced compensation for his irrigated acquired land @ Rs.

2,35,000/- per hectare and I direct that the same be given to him by the

acquiring body.

10. About the valuation of the orange trees, I must say, there is

no dispute about number of orange trees, which is 200. I find that the

valuation caried out by the Refrence Court is not consistent with the

valuation made in other cases of the same area. In other cases from the

same area, by and large, the valuation was revolving around Rs. 3500-

Rs.4000 per orange trees. I see no reason to apply different rate for

orange trees in this case which were nine years old at the relevant time.

Therefore, instead of Rs. 3000/- per orange tree (the rate granted by the

Reference Court), the land owner would be entitled to receive Rs. 3500/-

per orange tree in the present case and I find the acquiring body must pay

the same for 200 orange trees to the land owner. The land owner would

also be entitled to same statutory benefits as have been granted by the

Refrence Court, but on the enhanced compensation determined under this

judgment and order.

11. In the result, appeal and cross-objection are partly allowed.

It is directed that the land owner be paid compensation for

his acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2,35,000/- per hectare and Rs. 3500/-

per orange tree, which are 200 in number, together with all statutory

benefits to be given at the same rate as granted by the Reference Court

with slight modification as follows:

The balance outstanding amount of the compensation

payable to the land owner shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum

under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of award

which is 24.5.2001, for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of

15% per annum till realization of the entire amount.

Liberty is granted to the land owner to initiate appropriate

proceedings for recovery of rental compensation, in accordance with law.

Additional court fees be paid, if not paid.

The impugned Award stands modified in the above terms.

Parties to bear their own costs.

Appeal as well as Cross-objection stand disposed of.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi