Bombay High Court
Rajaram Rama Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
{1}
fa22.03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2003
Rajaram s/o Rama Chavan
age 57 years, occ. agriculture
r/o Bhosa, Tq. & Dist. Latur Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Zilla Parishad,
Latur. Respondents
Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for respondents.
CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 5th JANUARY, 2018
JUDGMENT :
1. None for appellant. Learned AGP Mr. Phule appears for
respondents.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment
and award dated 4th February, 2002 to the extent that the award
has not granted to the appellant compensation at the rate of
Rs.71,000/- per Hectare in respect of the acquired land.
3. Learned AGP submits that the reference Court has only
enhanced compensation from Rs. 22,000/- per Hectare to
Rs.50,000/- per Hectare. He submits that compensation of
Rs.50,000/- per Hectare is quite adequate and there is no case
{2}
fa22.03.odt
made out to order any further enhancement. He points out that
the land which is subject matter of sale-instance at Exh.16 was
superior to the acquired land. He points out that the reference
Court has rightly held that the acquired land was not Bagayat land
but only dry land. On this basis, learned AGP submits that this
appeal may be dismissed.
4. Since, neither the appellant nor his advocate were present,
this Court, with the assistance of learned AGP, has examined oral
as well as documentary evidence on record. In the light of such
evidence, the question which arises is whether the reference Court
was right in restraining the compensation to Rs.50,000/- per
Hectare or whether some additional compensation is due to
appellant-claimant ?
5. In this case, on behalf of appellant-claimant, three
witnesses, including the claimant himself came to be examined.
The first witness is Abbas Abdul Karim who has signed as a
witness on the sale-deed at exh. 16 by which, the vendor Girjabai
sold her property in the vicinity. As per this sale-deed dated
08.04.1991, the rate comes to Rs. 71,000/- per Hectare. The sale-
deed is admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.16 since, the
attesting witness has deposed to the same. In the cross
examination, a suggestion was put to this witness that the quality
and fertility of the land of Girjabai is similar to the acquired land.
The claimant has examined himself in which he has stated that the
acquired land as well as the land which is subject matter of sale-
deed were Bagayat lands. The claimant has deposed that the
quality and fertility of the acquired land was quite good and was
{3}
fa22.03.odt
used to raise crops like jawar, sugarcane, wheat etc. In the cross
examination, no serious challenge is raised to such deposition.
The third witness is Yuvraj Baburo Nilendgekar who is a
Draftsman in Zilla Parishad, Latur. This witness has deposed to
the date of delivery of possession of the land and therefore, his
evidence is not very useful for the purpose of determining the rate
of compensation.
6. On behalf of respondents, no evidence has been led.
Documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of appellant.
In fact, this documentary evidence has been considered by the
reference Court in paragraph no. 15 of the impugned award. This
documentary evidence is in the form of 7/12 extracts and, the
reference Court has held that, on the basis of same, it is clear that
the acquired lands were used to raise crops like jawar, sunflower,
wheat etc. Further, reference Court, on the basis of such
document, has held that the quality and fertility of the acquired
land was quite good. The discussion in paragraph no. 15 of the
impugned award is infact, entirely in favour of the appellant.
7. In paragraph no. 16 of the impugned award however, the
reference Court has refused to rely completely on the sale-instance
at Exh.16, for reasons, which do not commend acceptance. In
paragraph no. 16 of the impugned award, the reference Court has
held that the sale-instance dated 08.04.1991 being within one year
from the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the vendee must have paid more
consideration to the vendor and purchased the said land with an
intention that said sale-instance can be used as a guide in order to
{4}
fa22.03.odt
fix compensation to the acquired lands by the Land Acquisition
Officer. This reason is quite unsustainable and is in the nature of
surmises and conjectures.
8. It is settled position in law that the sale-deed prior to
issuance of section 4 notification constitutes good and proper
evidence. In this case, the sale-instance is dated 08.04.1991.
Section 4 notification was published on 22.11.1992. There is no
evidence led on behalf of respondents that the factum of
acquisition in 1992 was publicized in the locality. Besides, this is
a sale between two unrelated parties having no direct nexus with
the appellant-claimant. In these circumstances, there was
absolutely no justification to discard or in any case, to refuse to
give adequate consideration to the sale-instance at Exh.16.
9. In paragraph no. 17 of the impugned award, the reference
Court has held that the quality and fertility of the land under the
sale-instance is better than the quality and fertility of the acquired
land. However, it is held that the land, which is subject matter of
sale-instance is Bagayat land but the acquired lands were not
Bagayat lands. Now, if evidence on record, both oral as well as
documentary, is perused, then, there is absolutely no basis to
sustain such findings. Infact, in paragraph no. 15 of the impugned
award, the reference Court has itself held that the quality and
fertility of the acquired land was good and that the land was used
to raise crops like Jawar, Sunflower, Wheat etc. From perusal of
the sale-deed, it cannot be said that the quality and fertility of the
land, which is subject matter of sale-deed, was better than the
quality and fertility of the acquired land. Infact, the witnesses
{5}
fa22.03.odt
have deposed to the issue of comparability and such evidence has
not been shaken during the course of cross-examination.
Accordingly, there was no reason to discard or in any case, deny
evidence in the form of sale-instance at Exh.16.
10. Therefore, taking into consideration sale instance at Exh. 16
as the basis and, by making appropriate deductions, mainly
towards minor variations in the quality and fertility relating to two
lands, it will be appropriate that the compensation is determined
at Rs.65,000/- per Hectare instead of Rs.50,000/- per Hectare as
determined in the impugned award.
11. The impugned award is accordingly modified. Compensation
is now directed to be determined at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per
Hectare instead of Rs.50,000/- per Hectare. In respect of other
aspects, the impugned award is left undisturbed. Needless to add
that the appellant will be entitled not only to the enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per Hectare but also all
consequential benefits arising therefrom.
12. Respondent are directed to deposit the difference between
compensation awarded by the reference Court and the
compensation now determined, within a period of three months
from today. This is on the basis that respondents have already
paid compensation as awarded by the reference Court. If, the
same has not been paid, respondents are directed to deposit the
same within three months from today. Upon such deposit,
appellant shall be at liberty to withdraw the same.
{6}
fa22.03.odt
13. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
( M.S. SONAK, J. )
dyb
