Bombay High Court
V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer vs Pradhnya Sudhakar Choudhary And 2 ... on 21 September, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
(Judgment) 2109 FA 1111-2009 & XOB 6-2010 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1111/2009
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division,
Taq. & Distt. Yavatmal. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1] Pradhnya Sudhakar Choudhary,
Aged 32 years, Occu: Cultivator,
R/o. Thalegaon, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.1, Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
// WITH //
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 6/2010
Sau. Pradnya W/o Sudhakarrao Choudhari,
Aged 41 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Thalegaon, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Distt. Yavatmal.
Presently at Manikwada, Tq. Ner,
Distt. Yavatmal. CROSS OBJECTOR
(Ori. Respdt. no.1)
.....VERSUS.....
1] The State of Maharashtra, through
The Collector, Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 23:37:31 :::
(Judgment) 2109 FA 1111-2009 & XOB 6-2010 2/8
2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bembla Project, Yavatmal.
3] Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Bembla Project Division, Awdhootwadi,
Yavatmal, Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal. (Ori. Appellant)
RESPONDENTS
Shri A.B. Patil, counsel for appellant.
Shri S.S. Khadse, counsel for respondent no.1/cross objector.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3.
CORAM: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
First Appeal No. 1111/2009 and Cross
Objection No. 6/2010, both question the legality and
correctness of the award dated 22/07/2008, passed in
Land Acquisition Case No. 329/2000, by the Court of
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Yavatmal.
2] Parties to the appeal and cross objection,
shall now be referred to as the acquiring body
(V.I.D.C.), claimant (Pradnya Sudhakarrao
Choudhari) and State (State of Maharashtra and
Special Land Acquisition Officer), for the sake of
convenience.
(Judgment) 2109 FA 1111-2009 & XOB 6-2010 3/8
3] The land belonging to the claimant,
bearing Gat No. 10/1, admeasuring 10.7 HR, situated
at village Thalegaon, Tah. Babhulgaon, Distt.
Yavatmal, was acquired for the purposes of Bembla
Irrigation Proejct. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act (in short, "L.A. Act") notification was issued and
published on 29/05/1997. The Land Acquisition
Officer determined the market value of the land, to be
at Rs.23,500/- per hector. While deciding the
reference application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act,
the reference court found the market value of the
acquired land on the date of Section 4 of the L.A. Act
notification, to be much higher, and therefore,
considering the sale instances, particularly, the sale
instances vide Exh.22 and 23, found that the market
value of the acquired land was of Rs.1,20,000/- per
hector on the relevant date and accordingly it granted
compensation at this rate to the claimant, by the
impugned award. Being not satisfied by the same,
acquiring body and the claimant, are before this Court
in the present first appeal and cross objection
respectively.
(Judgment) 2109 FA 1111-2009 & XOB 6-2010 4/8
4] Shri Patil, learned counsel for the
appellant, has placed his reliance upon the
determination of the market value of the similar land
from village Thalegaon to be at Rs.1,05,000/- per
hector, in the year 1997 made in First Appeal No.
342/2005. So, he submits that the land involved in
this matter also being similar to the land involved in
the First Appeal No. 342/2005, decided on
16/02/2017, compensation at the rate of no more
than Rs.1,05,000/- per hector could be granted to the
claimant. The learned counsel for the claimants
submits that the sale instance vide Exh.22 reflected
marked value of the land situated at village
Thalegaon, in the year 1994 to be at Rs.98,700/- per
hector and if 10% escalation is considered for every
year that went by the year after 1994 till Section 4 of
the L.A. Act notification was published, the market
value of the land would come to about Rs.1,28,500/-.
He submits that in F.A. No. 342/2005, this Court had
no occasion to consider the sale instance vide Exh.22,
and therefore, this case could not be said to be
covered by the judgment of this Court in the F.A. No.
(Judgment) 2109 FA 1111-2009 & XOB 6-2010 5/8
342/2005.
5] On perusal of the judgment of this Court in
F.A. No. 342/2005, one can see that this Court did not
have any occasion to consider the sale instance vide
Exh.22, which has been made a basis for
determination of the market value in this case by the
reference Court. If that is so, I do not think that any
assistance could be sought from the adjudication
made by this Court in F.A. No. 342/2005. Thus, I am
of the view that the findings recorded by this Court in
F.A. No. 342/2005, need to be ignored while
determining the market value of the acquired land in
the present case and it is so ignored.
6] The sale deed vide Exh.22, as rightly
submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant,
reflects the market value of the similar land in the
year 1994 to be at Rs.98,700/- per hector. If
escalation at the rate of 10% per annum is allowed,
the market value of the similar land in the year 1997
would come to Rs.1,28,500/-. In the present case, the
(Judgment) 2109 FA 1111-2009 & XOB 6-2010 6/8
market value has been found by the reference court to
be at Rs.1,20,000/-, which is some what lower than
what has been found by this Court considering the
sale instance vide Exh.22. Therefore, the impugned
award needs to be modified to this extent.
7] The learned counsel for the claimant has
relied upon the judgment of the reference court at
Exh.25 and 26, wherein the value of the acquired land
was determined by the reference court at the rate of
Rs.1,00,000/- per hector, in the year 1993. But, as
rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the
acquiring body, this document could not be relied
upon, for the reason that the determination was in
respect of the land situated at a different village,
village Khadak Sawanga. The learned counsel for the
claimant submits that Khadak Sawanga is an
adjoining village, and therefore, there should be no
difficulty in considering the rate applied by the
reference court to land from village Khadak Sawanga.
I am not inclined to accept the argument. There has
to be some evidence to establish on record similarity
(Judgment) 2109 FA 1111-2009 & XOB 6-2010 7/8
of lands, which are from two different villages and
just because the villages are adjoining to each other, it
cannot be found, by considering assumed probability,
that similar rates would be fetched by the lands
situated in different villages.
8] I have already found that in the present
case, the true market value of the land, on the
relevant date, is of Rs.1,28,500/- per hector. This
finding, I must say, is also consistent with the findings
recorded by this Court in other connected appeals,
being First Appeal Nos. 687/2010, 1125/2009 and
343/2015, decided on 21/09/2017, where, there is a
similarity of lands involved in all these matters.
9] In view of above, appeal deserves to be
dismissed and cross objection deserves to be partly
allowed.
10] First Appeal No. 1111/2009 stands
dismissed. Cross Objection No. 6/2010 is partly
allowed.
(Judgment) 2109 FA 1111-2009 & XOB 6-2010 8/8
11] It is declared that the claimant is entitled
to receive compensation for the acquired land at the
rate of Rs.1,28,500/- per hector, together with same
statutory benefits as are given by the reference court.
12] The impugned award stands modified in
above terms.
13] Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Yenurkar
