Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Bhaskar Vithal Bhoite on 19 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
{1}
fa7205.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2005
1 The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(MIW) Jalgaon
2 The Executive Engineer
(MIW) Jalgaon Appellants
Versus
Bhaskar Vithhal Bhoite
age 30 years, occ. agri
r/o Kalamsara, Tq. Pachora
Dist. Jalgaon Respondent
Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for appellants.
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE : 19h January, 2018.
P.C. :
1 Heard Mr.Phule, learned A.G.P. for appellants.
Respondent is neither present nor represented, though served.
2 The challenge, in this appeal, is to the judgment and
award dated 07.01.2002, made by the Reference Court enhancing
the compensation from Rs.47,975/- per hectare to Rs.3,70,000/-
per hectare for bagayat land and Rs.1,85,000/- per hectare for
jirayat land. Besides, the Reference Court has awarded
compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per Tamrind tree, Rs.5000/- for Biba
tree and Rs.5000/- per Bor tree.
{2}
fa7205.odt
3 The learned A.G.P. submits that the sale deed relied
upon by the Reference Court did not pertain to the same village
from which the land is acquired in the present case. He submits
that there is no proper evidence as regards comparability. He
submits that there is absolutely no evidence in support of the price
which has been determined by the Reference Court in respect of
various trees. He submits that the claimant in this case failed to
examine any expert from Horticulture department. He submits
that burden of establishing that the enhancement is due and
payable is always on the claimant, which burden the claimant has
failed to discharge in this case. For all these reasons, Mr.Phule
submits that the impugned award may be set aside.
4 Upon due consideration of submissions made by
Mr.Phule and upon perusal of the material on record as well as
impugned award, this does not appear to be a case which warrants
interference in this appeal. The Reference Court has relied upon a
sale transaction in respect of G.No.654 in respect of adjacent
village, in which, land admeasuring 81 ares was sold @
Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. There is evidence on record that the
land, which formed subject matter of sale deed, was comparable in
terms of the area, fertility and other characteristics to the acquired
land. The land was in immediate neighbouring village and it is not
the case of the appellants that some sale instances were available
from the same village, but same were not produced. Accordingly,
there is no infirmity in the Reference Court relying upon the sale
instance dated 09.05.1994. The Reference Court has rightly held
that since, the sale instance is one and half year prior to issuance
of Section 4 Notification i.e. 21.12.1995, the escalation @ 10% per
{3}
fa7205.odt
year is due. On this basis, the Reference Court has determined
the compensation in respect of jirayat land @ Rs.1,85,000/- per
hectare. It is judicially accepted that unless evidence to the
contrary is produced, generally the compensation in respect of
bagayat land is twice the jirayat land. On this basis, the
Reference Court has determined the compensation in respect of
bagayat land @ Rs.3,70,000/- per hectare. So far as compensation
for trees is concerned, the claimant has deposed to the income
which he was earning from fruits of such trees or otherwise as to
the value of such trees. Generally, these are the rates which are
awarded in respect of Tamrind, Biba and Bor trees. Accordingly,
there is no reason to interfere with the impugned award.
5 This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
M.S.SONAK
JUDGE
adb/fa7205
