State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Draupadabai Namdeo Lokhande
2017 Latest Caselaw 9155 Bom

                                               1




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No. 153 of 2006



Appellants               :          1. State of Maharashtra 

                                    2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

`                                   Minor  Irrigation Works, Buldhana

                                    versus

Respondent               :          Draupadabai Namdeo Lokhande, aged 

about 53 years, Occ: Farmer, resident

Khardi, Tahsil and District Buldana

Ms H. N. Jaipurkar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants

None for respondent

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 29th November 2017

Oral Judgment

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated

13.4.2004 rendered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana

commonly in or about 81 matters and challenge raised in this appeal is to

the market value of the land acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 150

of 1998 fixed by the Reference Court.

2. The land of the respondent bearing Gat No. 110,

admeasuring 0.79 R situated at mouza Kardi, Tahsil and District Buldana

together with all the lands in the vicinity, was acquired for the purpose of

construction of a water tank. Notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act was published in the Government gazettee on 16.9.1993.

The Land Acquisition Officer in his Award passed under Section 11 of the

Land Acquisition Act granted compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.

26,000/- per hectare. Acceptance of this rate by the claimant was under

protest and so was followed by an application filed under Section 18 of

the Land Acquisition Act seeking more compensation. The application on

being referred to the Civil Court, was decided on merits on 13.4.2004,

thereby granting enhanced compensation @ Rs. 75000/- per hectare for

the acquired land. This has not been accepted by the appellants and

hence, this appeal.

3. I have heard Ms H. N. Jaipurkar, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the appellants. Nobody appears on behalf of the

respondent. I have gone through the record of the case including the

impugned judgment and order.

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

Whether the compensation granted by the Reference

Court is just and proper ?

5. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, the

compensation is unjust and improper. She submits that the sale instances

vide exhibits 24 and 26 respectively dated 28.3.1990 and 4.12.1984 were

not comparable to the lands involved in the sale instances. She further

submits that the lands involved in the sale instances were having

advantage of irrigation facilities from the well situated in the adjoining

land and, therefore, were the lands perched atop higher pedestal as

compared to the acquired land which was admittedly a dry-crop land.

6. On going through the impugned judgment and order and

record of the case, however, I do not find that this is a case wherein the

argument of learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants can

be accepted. It is seen from the impugned judgment and order that the

rates reflected in the sale instances at exhibits 24 and 26 were of Rs.

1,50,000/- per hectare in the year 1990 and Rs. 75,000/- per hectare in

the year 1984 and these were the lands which were not having any well

or built-in irrigation facility, but were the lands having right to draw water

in some minor percentage from the well situated in the adjacent land and,

therefore, the Reference Court treated the lands involved in exhibits 24

and 26 as the lands not having built-in irrigation facility, but having

irrigation facility in minor percentage from the adjoining land and as

such, the Reference Court did not grant the same rate as reflected in the

sale deeds for the various acquired lands as compensation. The

Reference Court reduced the market value reflected by the sale instances

considerably. For the lands which were inherently dry-crop lands, but

were dependent upon well water from the adjoining land in minor

percentage, the Reference Court fixed the market value @ Rs. 90,000/-

per hectare at the time of Section 4 notification which was issued three to

nine years after the sale deeds at exhibits 24 and 26 were executed. For

the pure dry-crop lands with no irrigation facility from adjoining land,

the Reference Court fixed the market value of such lands at Rs. 75,000/-

per hectare. There were some other acquired lands which had built-in

irrigation facility through the wells situated at the adjacent lands and the

Reference Court fixed their rates at Rs. 90,000/- per hectare and also

granted some additional compensation for the well and trees, if any..

Such an approach of the Reference Court cannot be faulted with and

there is no material available on record to term it as unjust or

unreasonable or illogical or illegal.

7. In the present case, the acquired land was a dry-crop land

and it has been considered to be having market value of Rs. 75000/- per

hectare. This rate granted by the Reference Court, in view of the above

discussion, will have to be considered as based upon just and proper

evaluation of the market value of the land in question and as such,

deserves to be confirmed by this Court. It is so confirmed. The point is

answered accordingly.

8. In the result, this appeal needs to be dismissed and it is

dismissed accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi