Kantabai Uttamrao Shinde And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 461 Bom

                                         (1)                   22 FA 720 of 2015



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                      22 FIRST APPEAL NO. 720 OF 2015
                           WITH CA/10190/2017  
1.    Sow.Kantabai w/o Uttamrao Shinde
      Age: 57 years, Occu.: Household & Agri.
      R/o.Bachegaon, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded.

2.    Pradeep s/o Uttamrao Shinde
      Age: 33 years, Occu.: Agri
      R/o.Bachegaon, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded.

3.    Jaisingh s/o Ganeshrao Bachegaonkar
      Age: 27 years, Occu.: Agri.
      R/o.Bachegaon, Tq.Dharmabad, 
      Dist.Nanded.                            ..Appellants

                                    VERSUS
1.    The State of Maharashtra
      Though District Collector, Nanded.

2.    Dy.Collector (Land Acquisition),
      Upper Penganga Project, Nanded.

3.    The Executive Engineer,
      Upper Penganga Project, Div. No.6, 
      Nanded.                                ..Respondents


                              ...
       Advocate for Appellants : Mr.M.D.Narwadkar and 
                                  Mr.S.K. Dhabekar
        AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.K.N.Lokhande
        Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr.S.G.Bhalerao
                              ...




     ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018              ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 00:45:39 :::
                                     (2)                     22 FA 720 of 2015



                                    CORAM :  M.S.SONAK, J.

DATE : 15.1.2018

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1) Heard Mr.M.D.Narwadkar learned counsel for the

appellants, Mr.K.N.Lokhande learned AGP for the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.S.G.Bhalerao for respondent

No.3.

2) In this case, the parties were already put to notice

that the appeal will be taken up for final hearing at the

stage of admission itself. Records and proceedings were

also called for.

3) Since the appellants were dissatisfied with the

amount of compensation awarded to them by the Land

Acquisition Officer, they applied for a reference under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking for

enhancement in compensation. Reference was actually made

to the Reference Court and the same was numbered as

(3) 22 FA 720 of 2015

L.A.R. No.49 of 2012.

4) The Reference Court framed and answered the Issues

in the following manner.

                              "ISSUES                         FINDINGS

     1 Do the claimants prove that         In the affirmative
       compensation awarded to them by
       respondent No.2 is inadequate ?

     2 Do they prove that they were        In the affirmative
       neither present nor represented
       before respondent No.2 when the 
       award was made ?

     3 Do they prove that 14 R excess
       land is acquired by respondent 
       No.2 without payment of 
       compensation against it ?          In the affirmative
     4 Is the reference within 
       limitation ?                        In the affirmative

     5 Are the claimants entitled to
       enhanced compensation ? If yes,
       at what rate ?                                In the affirmative

     6 What order and award ?                        The petition is 
                                                     dismissed as not
                                                     maintainable." 


5)    In   the   aforesaid   circumstances,   it   is   clear   that

most of the issues came to be answered in favour of the

appellants. The Reference Court has held that the

(4) 22 FA 720 of 2015

reference was applied for within the period of limitation

and therefore, was validly made and required to be

disposed of on merits. The Reference Court has held that

the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer

to the appellants was inadequate. Further, the Reference

Court has determined the market value as on the date of

issuance of Section 4 Notification as Rs.5,95,081/- per

hectare. After deciding all these issues in favour of

the appellants, however, the Reference Court has chosen

to dismiss the Reference as not maintainable by holding

that this is a case of mis-joinder of causes of action.

6) The Reference Court has reasoned that the three

appellants have no relation with one another and since

their lands were separate, each of the appellants should

have applied for a reference separately. On this sole

basis, the entire Reference has been rejected.

7)    In   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances   of   the





                                     (5)                     22 FA 720 of 2015

present case, neither the reasoning nor the approach of

the Reference Court can either be sustained or

appreciated. In the first place, it is quite clear that

Sow.Kantabai Uttamrao Shinde (appellant No.1) is a widow

of Late Uttamrao Shinde and Pradip Uttamrao Shinde

(appellant No.2) was the son of deceased Uttamrao Shinde.

Since, their lands came to acquired, they applied for

reference well within the period of limitation. There is

nothing wrong in these two appellants making any joint

application for reference. There is no dispute that two

sets of Court fees were paid by these two appellants.

The rejection by the Reference Court, was therefore not

justified.

8) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even

appellant No.3, Jaisingh Ganeshrao Bachegaonkar is in

relation of appellant Nos.1 and 2. However,

Mr.S.G.Bhalerao learned counsel for respondent No.3

submits that appellant No.3 has absolutely no relation

(6) 22 FA 720 of 2015

with the two appellants and therefore could not have

joined in the reference applied for by appellant Nos.1

and 2.

9) Though, there may be substance in the submission of

Mr.Bhalerao learned counsel, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that this

was a valid ground to dismiss the Reference as not

maintainable. The land of appellant No.3 was also

acquired under the same Notification as the lands of

appellant Nos.1 and 2. All the appellants have paid the

Court fees as prescribed. At the highest, the joinder of

the appellant No.3 to the Reference proceedings

instituted by the first two appellants may have been a

irregularity. Such irregularity in the peculiar facts of

the present case was not sufficient to deprive them of

enhanced compensation. The references could have been

ordered to be split and disposed of accordingly. On the

basis of such technicalities or procedural requirements,

(7) 22 FA 720 of 2015

substantive reliefs should not have been denied to the

appellants.

10) In the present case, there is no dispute that the

lands of the three appellants have been acquired. The

plea of the appellants is for compensation as per the

market value on the date of issuance of Section 4

Notification. The appellants have already lost their

lands and now that the Reference Court has already

determined market value, there is no reason to deprive

the appellants of the same on the basis of some technical

consideration. When technical consideration and

substantial justice are pitted against one another, then

later must be permitted to prevail, particularly, when

the appellants have already lost their lands and they are

only claiming for compensation in accordance with law.

11) In this case, the Land Acquisition Officer had

determined the compensation by fixing the market value @

(8) 22 FA 720 of 2015

Rs.5,28,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court in the

impugned Award has enhanced this compensation to

Rs.5,95,081/- per hectare. Taking into consideration

extent of land acquired this is not any substantial

increase. Infact, the State Government has taken a

policy decision vide Government Resolution dated

3.11.2016 (as amended from time to time) not to institute

or pursue appeal against the orders where the

compensation enhanced by the Reference Court is less than

four times the compensation amount as per the Ready

Reckoner Rates prevailing on the date of issuance of

Section 4 Notification. Normally, the rates determined

by the Land Acquisition Officer correspond to the Ready

Reckoner Rates on the date of issuance of Section 4

Notification. In this case, the enhancement is only from

Rs.5,28,000/- per hectare to Rs.5,91,081/- per hectare.

There is no reason to deprive the appellants this

enhanced rate.

(9) 22 FA 720 of 2015

12) For all the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is

allowed. The impugned Award to the extent it holds that

the Reference was not maintainable for mis-joinder of

causes of action, is hereby set aside. The rest of the

Award dated 31.10.2014, is however, restored and upheld.

This means that the Reference of the appellants is hereby

allowed and market value of the acquired lands is now

fixed @ Rs.5,95,081/- per hectare. The respondents are

directed to rework the compensation and statutory

benefits on the basis of the enhanced value now

determined and pay enhanced compensation to the

appellants within a period of 12 weeks from today.

13) The appeal is allowed, however, there shall be no

order as to costs.

14) Civil Applications pending, if any, are also

disposed of.

[M.S.SONAK, J.] SPT/22 FA 720 of 2015