Bombay High Court
Bhagwat Rama Bangar vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 30 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
FA 509/02
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.509/2002
Bhagwat Rama Bangar,
age 41 yrs., occu.agri.,
r/o Taradgavan Tq.Georai Dist.Beed.
...Appellant..
(Org.claimant)
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Beed.
2]
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad,
Beed.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri D.R. Jayabhar, Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.D. Namde, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent no.2.
.....
CORAM: M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE: 30.01.2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2] The appellant, dissatisfied with the
compensation determined by the Reference Court, questions
FA 509/02
- 2 -
the judgment and award dated 20.8.2001 on several grounds
urged by learned counsel for the appellant.
3] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
sale deeds at Exhibits 18 and 20 were in respect of
comparable lands from the same village. As per the sale
instances, the rate was Rs.2555=55 per Are in the year
1992 i.e. atleast two years prior to the date of issuance
of Section 4 notification dated 4.8.1994. He submits
that there was absolutely no reason to make deductions to
the extent of almost 70% whilst accepting that the sale
instances were in respect of comparable lands. He
submits that the escalation atleast should have been 10%
p.a. He submits that the appellant's land was a seasonal
irrigated land and this is evident from the fact that
there was a well in the acquired land. For all these
reasons, he submits that compensation of atleast
Rs.2,000/- per Are was required to be determined by the
Reference Court.
4] Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits
that the two sale deeds were in respect of small plots
i.e. 9 Ares and 10 Ares when the appellant's acquired
land admeasured 3 Hectare 75 Ares. He submits that the
FA 509/02
- 3 -
lands in the sale deed were on the bank of the stream
and, therefore, were of much superior quality. He
submits that the sale deed lands are very close to
village Shekta and, therefore, not comparable to the
acquired land. For all these reasons, he submits that
the deductions made by the Reference Court were most
appropriate and the impugned judgment and award warrants
no interference. He submits that this appeal be,
therefore, dismissed.
5] In order to evaluate the rival contentions,
records were perused. The Reference Court has accepted
in evidence the sale instances at Exhibits 18 and 20.
Both the sale instances are of the year 1992 i.e. atleast
two years prior to the issuance of Section 4
notification. The vendor in case of Exhibit 18 and the
purchaser in case of Exhibit 20 came to be examined. The
Reference Court was, therefore, quite right in relying
upon the sale instances at Exhibits 18 and 20 as useful
pieces of evidence for determination of the rate of
compensation payable in respect of the acquired land.
The Reference Court has held that since the sale
instances relate to the small area and acquired area was
FA 509/02
- 4 -
substantially large, deduction of 25% is warranted. This
is quite correct and to that extent, the submission of
learned counsel for the respondent no.2 will have to be
accepted. The Reference Court has also held that the
sale instances of concerned lands, which were on the bank
of the stream and in that sense had ready availability of
water supply. For this factor, the Reference Court has
ordered deduction of further 20%. This is also correct
and to that extent, the submission of learned counsel for
the respondent no.2 will have to be accepted.
6] The Reference Court has, however, deducted
further 25% on the ground that the lands, which formed
the subject matter of Exhibits 18 and 20, were closer to
the village Shekta as compared to the acquired land.
This deduction is entirely unjustified. The village
Shekta is itself a small village. There is no dispute
that the sale instances at Exhibits 18 and 20 are from
the village Shekta so also the acquired lands are in the
village Shekta. In these circumstances, deduction of
further 25% on the ground of proximity to the village is
entirely unjustified. At the highest, the deduction of
5% could be tolerated.
FA 509/02
- 5 -
7] This means that from out of the rate of
Rs.2555=55 per Are, as determined by the two sale
instances, maximum deduction of 50% could have been made
for the purpose of determining market rate in respect of
the acquired land. However, before such deduction is
made, escalation of atleast 10% p.a. was required to be
granted because the sale instances relate to the year
1992, whereas Section 4 notification in the present case
was issued only on 4.8.1994. The rate as on the date of
issuance of Section 4 notification in respect of the two
sale instances would, therefore, have to be taken at
Rs.3,000/- per Are. By making 50% deduction, the rate in
respect of the acquired land will have to be determined
at Rs.1500/- per Are.
8] The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The
compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.720/- per Are to
Rs.1500/- per Are. The appellant is entitled to
proportionate statutory benefits and interest on the
enhanced compensation. The respondents are directed to
compute the compensation, statutory benefits and
interest, and thereafter deposit the same in this Court
within a period of eight weeks from today. Upon deposit,
FA 509/02
- 6 -
the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same
unconditionally. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S. SONAK, J.)
ndk/c3011822.doc
