Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Prabhakarrao Ramrao Sanap & Ors on 25 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
{1}
fa774.05.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 774 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra Appellant
Versus
1. Prabhakarrao s/o Ramrao Sanap
age 45 years, occ. agriculturist
r/o Paundul, Tq. Patoda,
Dist. Beed.
2. Ramesh s/o Ramrao Sanap
age 38 years, occ. agriculturist
r/o as above.
3. Suresh s/o Ramrao Sanap
age 35 years, occ. agriculturist
r/o as above
4. Prakash s/o Ramrao Sanap
age 33 years, occ. agriculturist
r/o as above.
5. Kishor s/o Ramrao Sanap
age 30 years, occ. agriculturist
r/o as above.
6. Bhagwan s/o Ramrao Sanap
(Deceased through LRs)
6-A Simabai w/o Bhagwan Sanap
age major, occ. household
r/o Paundul, Tq. Patoda
Dist. Beed.
6-B Sudarshan s/o Bhagwan Sanap
minor under guardianship of
Simbai w/o Bhagwan Sanap
age major, r/o Paundul
Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 01:22:51 :::
{2}
fa774.05.odt
7. Vidya d/o Ramrao Sanap
age 19 years, occ. agri.
8. Subhadrabai w/o Ramrao Sanap
age 70 yrs, occ. & r/o as above.
through General Power of Attorney
Ramesh s/o Ramrao Sanap Respondents
Mr. A.M. Phule, advocate for appellant.
Ms. Sunita Sonawane, advocate holding for Mr. L.L. Thorat,
advocate for respondents 1 to 5, 6A, 6B, 7 and 8.
CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Phule, learned AGP for the State and
Ms. Sonawane, learned counsel for respondents-claimants.
2. Since the record and proceeding had already been called for
and a very short issue was involved in this appeal, which relates to
the year 2005, the same is taken up for disposal.
3. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award
dated 25.04.2005, by which, the reference Court has enhanced
compensation from Rs. 170/- per Are to Rs. 875/- per Are.
4. Learned AGP Mr. Phule submits that the two sale-deeds
upon which reliance is placed by the reference Court are not
comparable sale instances. He submits that if this evidence is
excluded, then, there is no evidence to justify any enhancement.
On this ground, Mr. Phule submits that the impugned judgment
and award may be set aside.
{3}
fa774.05.odt
5. Ms. Sonawane, learned counsel for respondents submits that
the sale-deed Exh. 21 is infact, in respect of the land adjacent to
the acquired land and bearing the same quality. Sale-deed at Exh.
42 is in respect of land which was half kilometer away from the
acquired land and the quality of the said land was same as the
quality of the acquired land. On the basis of two sale-deeds,
enhancement was granted and, there is absolutely no legal
infirmity in the enhancement so awarded.
6. Reference Court, in awarding enhancement has indeed relied
upon sale-deeds at Exh. 41 and 62. Sale-deed at Exh. 41 appears
to be in respect of the land which is adjacent to the acquired land.
Reference Court has considered both oral as well as documentary
evidence on record to conclude that the quality of both the lands
was almost the same. The sale-deed at Exh. 62 is in respect of
land about half kilometer away from the acquired land but, bears
the same quality as that of the acquired land. On the basis of two
sale-deeds, which were executed almost two years prior to the date
of section 4 notification, the reference Court determined the rate at
Rs. 875/- per Are as on the date of execution. As contended by
Ms. Sonanwane, learned counsel for respondents, there is really no
legal infirmity in the reasoning as well as conclusion recorded by
the reference Court.
7. In this case, there is other evidence as well, to justify the
enhancement. However, it is not necessary to refer to such
evidence since, on the basis of sale instances, which are indeed
comparable, the reference Court was well justified in determining
enhancement in the rate of compensation.
{4}
fa774.05.odt
8. For aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
( M.S. SONAK, J. )
dyb
