Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Mumtajkhan Bahudur Khan Pathan on 19 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
{1}
fa45503.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.455 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra Appellant
Versus
Mumtajkhan Bahadurkhan Pathan
age major, occ. agriculturist
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad Respondent
Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, AGP for appellant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Heard Mr.S.P.Deshmukh, learned A.G.P. for the appellant.
Respondent is neither present nor represented, through served.
2 The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award
dated 25.04.1997, by which the Reference Court has enhanced the
compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer from
Rs.700/- per Arte to Rs.1500/- per Are in respect of the acquired land.
3 Mr.Deshmukh, learned A.G.P., submits that the sale deed
dated 02.01.1989 (Article B), relied upon by the claimant, was not in
respect of comparable land and, therefore, the Reference Court erred in
relying upon the same and enhancing the compensation. He submits
that the sale deed was in respect of dry land and, therefore, the
Reference Court was in error in mechanically doubling the rate. For
these reasons, he submits that the impugned award may be set aside
and the compensation determined by the SLAO be restored.
{2}
fa45503.odt
4 In this case, the Reference Court has relied upon the sale
instance dated 02.01.1989, which pertains to sale of land from very same
village. On perusal of record, there is evidence which establishes that
the acquired land was in fact irrigated land, whereas, the land, which is
the subject matter of sale deed, was dry land. In these circumstances,
no error can be said to have been committed by the Reference Court in
relying upon the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra &
others Vs. Vithal Shinde & others, 1993 LAC 223, in which, it was held
that, normally the market price of the irrigated land is double than the
price of the dry land in the said locality. The rate, as reflected in the sale
deed, was Rs.795/- per Are. The Reference Court has, on this basis,
awarded compensation @ Rs.1500/- per Are. There is absolutely no
infirmity in such determination, particularly because, the sale deed was
of the year 1989 and Section 4 Notification in respect of acquisition of
land in the present case was of the year 1993. This means that some
escalation was, in fact, due to the claimant. However, since the claimant
has not filed any Cross-objection, there is no reason to interfere with the
determination made by the Reference Court.
5 Apart from the aforesaid, it is necessary to point out that
the enhancement, in the present case, is well within the limits prescribed
by the State Government itself in Government Resolution dated
03.11.2016, as amended from time to time. The Government Resolution
dated 03.11.2016 records a policy decision of the State Government not to
institute appeals or to settle already instituted appeals where
compensation awarded by the Reference Court is less than four times the
compensation prevalent as per the Ready Reckoner rates on the date of
issue of Section 4 Notification. Generally, the compensation awarded by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer corresponds to the ready reckoner
rates prevalent on the date of issue of Section 4 Notification. In effect,
therefore, the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 records policy
decision of the State to settle the matters where enhanced compensation
{3}
fa45503.odt
is less than four times the rate determined by the SLAO, where such rate
broadly corresponds to the ready reckoner rates. This formula applies to
the lands located in rural areas. Since, the land, which form subject
matter of present appeal, was located in rural area, there is no dispute
that it is this formula, which will be applicable to the present appeal.
6 In the present matter, as noted earlier, the SLAO had
determined compensation at the rate of Rs.700/- per Are. The Reference
Court has determined compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per Are.
This is well within the limits prescribed under the Government
Resolution dated 03.11.2016. Accordingly, this appeal can be disposed of
in terms of the State's own policy as set out in Government Resolution
dated 03.11.2016. However, since the learned A.G.P. had no written
instructions for withdrawal of appeal, the matter was heard on merits
and is disposed of.
7 For the aforesaid reasons, appeal is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
( M.S. SONAK)
adb/fa45503 JUDGE
