Bombay High Court
Bansi Jamsing Bhil vs Special Land Acquisition Officer ... on 25 January, 2021
Bench: V.L. Achliya
133.07FA+.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.133 OF 2007
Dilip S/o Indas Bhil
Age:- 34 years, Occu:-Agriculture,
R/o. Village Chandsaili,
Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation Project
Dhule, Tq. & Dist:- Dhule.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sinchan Bhavan
Sakri, Road, Dhule
3] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Dhule
[Copy to be served on G.P.
in the High Court of Judicature
of Bombay Bench At Aurangabad]
4] The Collector, Nandurbar
Tq. & Dist:- Nandurbar.
.. RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.418 OF 2008
Husen S/o. Bhivsan Bhil.
Age:- 40 years, Occu:-Agriculture,
R/o. Village Chandsaili,
Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation Project
Dhule, Tq. & Dist:- Dhule.
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2021 14:08:23 :::
133.07FA+.odt
2
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sinchan Bhavan
Sakri, Road, Dhule
3] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Dhule
[Copy to be served on G.P.
in the High Court of Judicature
of Bombay Bench At Aurangabad]
4] The Collector, Nandurbar
Tq. & Dist:- Nandurbar.
.. RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.136 OF 2007
Bansi Jamsing Bhil,
Age:- 39 years, Occu:-Agri.,
R/o. Village Chandsaili,
Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation Project
Dhule, Tq. & Dist:- Dhule.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sinchan Bhavan
Sakri, Road, Dhule
3] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Dhule
[Copy to be served on
Government Pleader in the
High Court of Judicature
of Bombay, Bench At Aurangabad]
4] The Collector, Nandurbar
.. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2021 14:08:23 :::
133.07FA+.odt
3
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.419 OF 2008
Toranabai W/o Onkar Bhil
Age:- 40 years, Occu:-Agriculture,
R/o. Village Chandsaili,
Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation Project
Dhule, Tq. & Dist:- Dhule.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sinchan Bhavan
Sakri, Road, Dhule
3] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Dhule
[Copy to be served on G.P.
in the High Court of Judicature
of Bombay Bench At Aurangabad]
4] The Collector, Nandurbar
Tq. & Dist:- Nandurbar.
.. RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.423 OF 2008
Kisan S/o Bhivsan Bhil
Age:- 40 years, Occu:-Agriculture,
R/o. Village Chandsaili,
Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation Project
Dhule, Tq. & Dist:- Dhule.
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2021 14:08:23 :::
133.07FA+.odt
4
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sinchan Bhavan
Sakri, Road, Dhule
3] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Dhule
[Copy to be served on G.P.
in the High Court of Judicature
of Bombay Bench At Aurangabad]
4] The Collector, Nandurbar
Tq. & Dist:- Nandurbar.
.. RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.428 OF 2008
Toranabai W/o Onkar Bhil
Age:- 40 years, Occu:-Agriculture,
R/o. Village Chandsaili,
Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation Project
Dhule, Tq. & Dist:- Dhule.
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sinchan Bhavan
Sakri, Road, Dhule
3] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Dhule
[Copy to be served on G.P.
in the High Court of Judicature
of Bombay Bench At Aurangabad]
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2021 14:08:23 :::
133.07FA+.odt
5
4] The Collector, Nandurbar
Tq. & Dist:- Nandurbar.
.. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.D.A.Mane, Advocate a/w. Mr.D.M.Pingale,
Advocate for the appellants
Mr.A.A.Jagatkar, AGP for the respondent -
State.
...
CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA,J.
DATE : 25.01.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] All these appeals are heard together
as arising out of the acquisition of land for
same project and challenge raised therein is
one and the same.
2] Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned AGP for the respondent
- State. Perused the record and proceedings.
Also perused the judgment and order dated
25.01.2018 passed by this Court [Coram :
M.S.Sonak, J.] in group of appeals arising
out of the same acquisition.
3] Before adverting to deal with the
submissions advanced, it is useful to refer
the few facts leading to filing of these
appeals. The particulars of the land owned by
133.07FA+.odt
the appellants, area of land acquired, the
compensation assessed and awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced
by the Reference Court are as under :
F.A. No. Gat No. Land SLAO granted Reference
acquired compensation Court
per hector granted
compensation
per hector
133/2007 107/8 + 1 H. 94 R. Rs.53,000/- Rs.60,000/-
[Dilip 113/6
Indas
Bhil]
428/2008 113/1 + 00 H. 26 Rs.53,000/- Rs.60,000/-
[Tornabai 4 + 5 R.
Onkar
Bhil]
419/2008 107/3 00 H. 50 Rs.53,000/- Rs.60,000/-
[Tornabai R.
Onkar
Bhil]
418/2008 102/1-1 1 H. 01 R. Rs.56,000/- Rs.60,000/-
[Husen
Bhivsan
Bhil]
423/2008 102/2 1 H. 01 R. Rs.56,000/- Rs.60,000/-
[Kisan
Bhivsan
Bhil]
136/2007 120/2 2 H. 00 R. Rs.56,000/- Rs.60,000/-
[Bansi
Jamsing
Bhil]
4] In brief, it is the contention of
the appellants - original claimants that the
aforesaid lands were acquired for the
construction of minor irrigation tank,
Susari, vide notification dated 09.11.1995
issued u/s. 4 [1] of the Land Acquisition
133.07FA+.odt
Act. The lands referred above were taken in
possession by the acquiring body on
24.07.1999 by private negotiation. The notice
u/s. 12 [2] of the Land Acquisition Act was
issued on 13.07.1999. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer has determined the
compensation as mentioned above in the range
of Rs.53,000/- per hector to Rs.56,000/- per
hector. Being aggrieved with the compensation
determined and awarded by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, the appellants -
claimants made references u/s.18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, seeking enhancement of
compensation. They have claimed compensation
@ Rs.6 lac per hector. According to the
appellants, above mentioned lands situated
closed to the municipal limits of the
Municipal Council, Shahada. So also the lands
were situated near road. They have also
claimed that the lands were provided with
irrigation facility and they were taking
double crops. In support of the case for
enhancement, they have urged to refer and
rely the evidence adduced in LAR No.46 of
2001 arising out of the acquisition of land
from same project from village Godipur. The
Reference Court though recorded the findings
that the compensation awarded by the Special
133.07FA+.odt
Land Acquisition Officer inadequate still
awarded meager compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per
hector. Being aggrieved by the judgments and
orders dated 30th & 31st October, 2002, passed
by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Shahada,
District Nandurbar, separately passed in each
of the references which are under challenge,
the appellants - claimants have preferred
these appeals.
5] In brief, it is the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellants that
by notification dated 09.11.1995 issued u/s.4
of the Land Acquisition Act, the lands from
the villages, namely, Navalpur, Chandsaili,
Godipur, Mohide-Tarfe-Haveli were acquired
for the aforesaid minor irrigation project.
Although villages are adjoining and lands
acquired are of one and the same quality, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as
the Reference Court has awarded the
compensation at different rate. The lands in
question are from the village Chandsaili. In
LAR No.18/2001, compensation has been
assessed @ Rs.2 lac per hector by treating
the land as bagayat land. In LAR No.46/2001,
the market value of the land has been
determined @ Rs.1,06,000/- per hector. In LAR
133.07FA+.odt
Nos. 47/2001, 25/2001 and 45/2001, the lands
from the village Mohide-Tarfe-Haveli acquired
for same project the compensation has been
awarded vide judgment and award dated
24.04.2001 by the Reference Court @
Rs.1,25,000/- per hector, Rs.1,50,000/- per
hector and Rs.2,50,000/- per hector
respectively. In this background, it is
contended that there is much variance in
determination of the compensation by the
Reference Court. The lands in question are
from the same area acquired under the one and
the same notification and are same quality
and market value. The lands in question are
situated at the bank of the river Susari and
at a distance of 1 kilo meter from Shahada
town. Nearby to the lands acquired, there is
a State Highway. In the vicinity, there are
ginning and pressing factory, colleges,
schools, Hospitals, Banks, petrol pump, etc.
The lands acquired were black deep cotton
soil and the appellants were taking two crops
in a year. In LAR No.46/2001, the evidence
has been adduced. In the year 1992, two sale
transactions in respect of land at village
Chansaili were taken place. By sale deed
dated 15.10.1992, the land admeasuring 41 R.
from block No.71/1 of village Chansaili was
133.07FA+.odt
sold for sale consideration of Rs.1,15,000/-
per acre. Similarly, vide sale deed dated
03.10.1992, the portion of land admeasuring
consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. Both the said
lands were jirayat lands. The Reference Court
has refused to act upon said sale instances,
which were prior to three years of
acquisition of land by observing that the
sale instances are not bona fide transactions
and cannot be treated as comparable sale
instances. It is observed that the vendors
had taken huge loan and to meet legal
necessities of their family demanded maximum
price and same cannot be treated as
comparable sale instances. It is submitted
that the reasons and findings recorded by the
Reference Court in that respect are totally
perverse and without any basis.
6] Learned counsel for the appellants
further submitted that in group of appeals
arising out of the same acquisition decided
vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2018 by
this Court [Coram : M.S.Sonak, J.] in First
Appeal Nos.643/2003, 647/2003, 677/2003,
1098/2004 and 74/2004 in respect of the
acquisition of land from village Mohide-
133.07FA+.odt
Tarfe-Haveli for same project as well as same
notification issued u/s. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, dated 09.11.1995 enhanced
the compensation @ Rs.2 lac per hector. It is
submitted that the case of the appellants
stand at par with the appellants, whose cases
were decided by judgment and order dated 25 th
January, 2018 by this Court and urged to
award the compensation at same rate.
7] On the other hand, learned AGP
appearing for the respondent - acquiring body
supported the award passed by the Reference
Court. It is submitted that as per the award
passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, the lands owned by the appellants -
claimants were jirayat land. Although it is
claimed that the land owned by the claimants
were irrigated land; appellants - claimants
have failed to adduce evidence to prove that
the lands were provided with constant source
of irrigation and under cultivation as
irrigated land. Neither any 7/12 extract nor
the crop statements of their respective lands
were produced to prove the use of the land as
bagayat / irrigated land. It is pointed out
that none of the appellants have stepped into
witness box. They have simply filed pursis to
133.07FA+.odt
the effect that evidence adduced in LAR
No.46/2001 to be considered for the purpose
of deciding reference filed by them. It is
submitted that witnesses examined in said LAR
has deposed to the extent of claimant in said
case. He has not deposed anything about the
lands owned by the appellants and subject
matter of acquisition. In that view, the
evidence adduced in LAR No.46/2001 cannot be
relied in support of reference filed by the
appellants.
8] It is submitted that the
compensation in group of appeals decided vide
judgment and order dated 25.01.2018 passed by
this Court [Coram : M.S.Sonak, J.] cannot be
treated as basis to award compensation at the
rate of Rs.2 lac per hector. It is submitted
that in these appeals the Court has
specifically observed that there is evidence
to effect that the lands were provided with
source of water supply though the Acquisition
Officer has shown the same as jirayat land.
Learned AGP submits that the judgment and
award passed by the Reference Court is based
upon due appreciation of pleadings and
evidence adduced by appellants and there is
no perversity in the impugned judgments and
133.07FA+.odt
orders passed by the Reference Court, which
are under challenge and urged to dismiss the
appeals.
9] I have carefully examined the
impugned judgments and orders passed in
respective appeals by the Reference Court in
the light of overall facts of the case,
nature of evidence adduced and decision in
the connected cases arising out of the
acquisition of land for same project. The
fact is not in dispute that vide notification
dated 09.11.1995 issued u/s. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, the lands from the villages
namely, Navalpur, Chandsaili, Godipur,
Mohide-Tarfe-Haveli were acquired for minor
irrigation project i.e. Susari tank. The said
villages are situated adjacent to each other.
The award dated 27.02.1999 passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer reflects
that the lands were situated nearby to
Shahada-Khetia State Highway. It is observed
in the award itself that Shahada-Khetia State
Highway which proceeds towards Madhya Pradesh
passes through the land acquired. It is also
observed that some portion of the State
Highway also falls under submergence area of
the lands acquired from said villages. So
133.07FA+.odt
also State Highway from Shahada to Dhadgaon
passes through some of the lands which were
acquired. In the award itself it is also
observed that nearby to Shahada-Khetia State
Highway there are two villages namely
Lonkheda and Brahmanpuri. In Lonkheda, there
are schools, colleges, library, Polytechnic
and Engineering Colleges. So also one
Sandipani Public School also located at a
distance of two kilo meters away from the
land acquired. It is also observed that there
are sugar factories and milk dairy in the
vicinity. It is also observed that nearby to
said villages there are factories like Tapi
chemicals, Maruti chemicals and Ganesh
Fertilizers. All four villages from where the
lands were acquired provided with State Road
transport facility. The lands are shown to be
situated at a distance of about 10 kilo
meters from Shahada Taluka Headquarter and 15
kilo meters from Khetiya District in Madhya
Pradesh. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
has further observed that there is a railway
station at Dondaicha, which is about 40 kilo
meters away from the lands acquired. It is
also observed that the lands are black deep
cotton soil lands and agriculturists were
taking crops like sugarcane, banana, cotton,
133.07FA+.odt
wheat, peanuts, tur, jwar, bajari, etc. In
some of the lands acquired, the Land
Acquisition Officer found the existence of
well, bore well, pipe lines for the purpose
of irrigation. It is also observed that crop
statements of lands acquired spell out that
some of the lands were under cultivation as
irrigated or semi-irrigated. The lands were
broadly classified as jirayat, semi irrigated
and irrigated based upon the crop statements
of the last three years. Thus, if we consider
the overall facts showing the location and
potential of lands acquired in the award then
it can safely infer that the lands in
question were fertile lands and located
nearby State Highway and developed locality.
So also the source of water was available for
irrigation and persons whose lands were
acquired taking crops like sugarcane and
bananas etc.
10] On account of acquisition of land
number of references were came to be filed.
In LAR No.46/2001, the claimant has examined
himself and examined two witnesses to prove
the sale instances in respect of sale
transactions three years prior to
notification u/s.4 of the Land Acquisition
133.07FA+.odt
Act. By those sale instances of three years
prior to acquisition of lands in question, it
has been proved that the land admeasuring 41
R. from village Chandsaili was purchased for
valuable consideration of Rs.1,15,000/- vide
registered sale deed dated 15.10.1992
executed in between Ramakant Nathu Patil and
Dattu Vallabh Patil i.e. sale deed at Exh.27.
Similarly, the claimant has proved that vide
registered sale deed dated 03.10.1992
executed in between Ravindra Bansi Patil and
Nagin Murar Patil the lands bearing Gat No.92
admeasuring 41 R. situated at village
Chansaili was purchased for Rs.1,10,000/-
vide sale deed Exh.28. Both the lands
purchased in the year 1992 were jirayat
lands. There is no challenge to the evidence
adduced by the claimants. The acquiring body
has not adduced any evidence to counter the
case of the claimants in LAR No.46/2001. For
the purpose of deciding the reference, the
appellants have relied the evidence adduced
in LAR No.46 of 2001 by claiming that their
lands were bagayat land and therefore the
compensation should have been determined by
considering those sale instances. The market
value ought to have been determined double
the value of said sale instances as their
133.07FA+.odt
lands being under use as irrigated lands. The
sale instances are from same village.
11] Perusal of the reasons and findings
recorded by the Reference Court reflects that
though the Reference Court has held that the
compensation assessed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer in the matter of the
appellants found to be inadequate and
requires enhancement still the Reference
Court has awarded meager compensation. The
compensation awarded by the SLAO has been
enhanced to Rs.60,000/- per hector from
Rs.53,000/- & Rs.56,000/- per hector.
12] In my view, the reasons and findings
recorded by the Reference Court are perverse
and not sustainable in law. In this context,
it is useful to refer the findings recorded
by the Reference Court in LAR No.38 of 2001
[which is under challenge in F.A.No.133 of
2001], wherein in para Nos.12 to 14, the
Court has observed as under :
12] The moot question before me
is determination of market price of
the acquired land on the date of
notification, under section 23 of
the Act. For determination of the
133.07FA+.odt
same, it is necessary to see whether
the sale instances are bonafide
transactions and those transactions
are comparable sales. On going
through the sale instances, it is
apparently seen vendors incurred
huge loan amount to meet legal
necessities of the family, however
they demanded maximum price by
giving vide publicity and after
receiving maximum price they
executed registered sale deeds. In
view of this circumstances, it can
be certainly said that, it is
substantial price which was expected
by the vendor from the purchaser. No
explanation is sought by the
claimant as to under what
circumstances maximum price was paid
to the vendors. Therefore the
transaction cannot be said bonafide
transactions. Further, acquired land
is a large portion. On the other
hand, sale instances are small
portions of land, but still then the
purchasers paid maximum price.
Therefore, though sales cannot be
said comparable sales to the
acquired lands.
13] It is pleaded by the
claimant that, he was taking
irrigated crops. To establish this
fact, he has not filed 7/12 extract
nor he laid oral evidence. The
evidence is laid in the LAR
No.46/2001. The witnesses have not
stated the same thing in the said
LAR. In the absence of such material
piece of evidence I am of the view,
claimant fails to prove he was
133.07FA+.odt
taking irrigated crops. It is stated
by Land Acquisition Officer in the
award that well and tube well was
there in the acquired land but did
not find water in the well. The Land
Acquisition Officer on the basis of
fertility of the soil awarded market
value of Rs.53,000/- for bagayat
land. The land of the claimant
Jaysing is situated at Godipur. On
the contrary, the land of claimant
is in the agricultural limits of
Chandsaili. Certainly there is
difference in the fertility of the
lands. Considering the potentiality
of the acquired land, I think
Rs.60000/- per hectare would be
reasonable amount per hectare.
Hence, claimant is entitled to
compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per
hectare.
14] From the above discussion,
I have no hesitation to hold that
the claimant succeeded in proving
that the compensation of the suit
acquired lands awarded by the
opponent No.1 is inadequate. Hence,
recorded my finding to issue No.1 in
the affirmative. As the claimant
fails to prove the market value of
the acquired land at Rs.6,30,000/-
hence recorded my finding to issue
No.2 in the negative. As I have held
that suit acquired land fetches
market value of Rs.60,000/- per
hectare, hence I have recorded my
finding to issue No.3 accordingly.
13] The perusal of the reasons and
133.07FA+.odt
findings quoted above spell out that though
the Reference Court has reached to the
conclusion that the compensation assessed by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer as
inadequate and not reasonable compensation
and same requires enhancement still enhanced
the compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per hector
without recording the basis on which the
enhancement has been made to the extent of
Rs.60,000/- per hector. It is very strange to
observe that without any evidence brought on
record to the effect that the sale instances
relied cannot be treated as bona fide
transactions still the Reference Court has
observed that the sale instances relied as
Exhibit 27 and 28 cannot be acted upon as
same are not bona fide transactions. In
absence of any evidence being brought on
record, the Reference Court grossly erred in
treating the same as not bona fide
transactions. It is rather surprising to note
that the Reference Court has observed that
the said sale transactions were executed for
maximum price as vendors were heavily
indebted and no explanation has been sought
by the claimants from witnesses as to under
what circumstances maximum price was paid to
those vendors. If the claimants have relied
133.07FA+.odt
upon those sale instances in support of their
claims, there was no reason for them to bring
such explanation. It is pertinent to note
that acquiring body has not brought any
evidence to discard said evidence and not to
act upon those sale instances. Normally, if
the person is indebted and require money to
repay loan or address any other necessities
or compulsion then such person would not get
the maximum price of his land. He would agree
to sale his land for the value much lower
than the real and true market value of his
property. In that view the reasons and
findings recorded by the Reference Court to
refuse to act upon the sale instances
produced at Exh.27 and 28 are totally
perverse and unsustainable in law. Thus, in
view of the perversity in the judgments and
orders passed by the Reference Court, which
are subject matter of appeals, I am of the
view that the impugned judgments and orders
deserves to be interfered and modified in
exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this
Court.
14] The lands in question were
admittedly located in village Chandsaili,
which was adjoining to villages Mohide-Tarfe-
133.07FA+.odt
Haveli, Godipur and Navalpur. Perusal of the
impugned judgments and awards passed by the
Reference Court in connected matters reflects
that the compensation has been awarded at
different rates in respect of lands from same
villages and same quality. The lands
belonging to the appellants were part of
village Chandsaili. The said two sale
instances referred above also from same
village. The said villages shown to be
located close to each other. The lands
acquired for said project were located in
close proximity of two State Highways. So
also the lands were situated close to nearby
villages where facilities like Schools,
Colleges, Polytechnic and Engineering
Colleges were in existence. The said villages
were provided with transport facilities. The
state highway was passing through portion of
the lands acquired. Some portion of the land
also came under submergence area of said
project. In that view it can be safely
inferred that the lands acquired were
situated in close proximity of developed
locality. By sale deeds at Exh.27 and 28, it
has been proved that three years prior to the
acquisition of land owned by appellants, the
agricultural land from village Chandsaili was
133.07FA+.odt
sold for a value in the range of
Rs.1,10,000/- per acre. It is also pertinent
to note that the land which was subject
matter of First Appeal No.74 of 2004 from
village Mohide-Tarfe-Haveli, the Reference
Court has enhanced the compensation from
Rs.1,18,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per hector.
Similarly, in respect of the land which was
subject matter of the First Appeal No.1098 of
2004 the Reference Court has enhanced the
compensation from Rs.80,240/- per hector to
Rs.1,06,000/- per hector. There was much
variance in determination of the compensation
by the Reference Court in respect of lands
acquired for same project from same village
and adjoining villages. Since the lands were
acquired for same project and situated close
to each other there cannot be much disparity
in assessment of compensation by Special Land
Acquisition Officer.
15] By the judgment and order dated
25.01.2018 passed by this Court in group of
appeals arising out of same acquisition, this
Court has considered the disparity as to the
determination of the compensation by the
Reference Court lands from adjoining villages
and award of compensation at different rates.
133.07FA+.odt
In para Nos.10, 11, 12 and 13, the Court has
observed as under :
10. Insofar as First Appeal No.74/2004
is concerned, based upon appellants'
own arguments, the same is required
to be dismissed. The appellants have
placed reliance on sale-deeds in LAR
Nos.47/2001 and 25/2001 in which the
Reference Court has awarded
compensation at Rs.1,25,000/- per
Hectare and Rs.1,50,000/- per
Hectare. These sale-deeds were in
respect of acquisition which
commenced vide notification dated
22-10-1995, however, in the present
case, section 4 notification is
dated 09.11.1995. The Reference
Court, has awarded compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare in respect
of Bagayat lands. Accordingly, the
compensation awarded seems to be
quite adequate. First Appeal
No.74/2004 is therefore, liable to
be dismissed and the same is hereby
dismissed.
11. Insofar as remaining appeals are
concerned, however, the material on
record indicates that though the
lands being Jirayat lands, there was
some source of water supply, on the
basis of which, the crops were
grown. There is reasoning to this
effect in the award which is subject
matter of challenge in First Appeal
No. 643/2003. It is on this basis
that Reference Court has awarded
compensation as would be possible in
respect of Jirayat lands.
133.07FA+.odt
Compensation awarded is however,
inadequate, since, from the evidence
on record, if Bagayat lands in
Mohide-Tarfe-Haveli village fetch
Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare, then,
there is no reason as to why the
same compensation should be denied
to the lands in Chandsaili village.
12. Award in respect of LAR No. 45/2001
is again in respect of lands of
village Chandsaili awarding
compensation at Rs.2,50,000/- in
respect of Bagayat lands. Accepting
contention of learned AGP Mr Virdhe
that theres is no direct evidence
about comparability, still,
considering that land is from the
same village, the disparity cannot
be as much. Insofaras sale-instance
at Exh.34 and Exh. 36 are concerned,
though, vendors have deposed that
the lands purchased by them were
Jirayat lands, they have also
deposed as to the quality and
fertility of the lands. Thus, it can
be safely held that even said lands
were comparable to Bagayat lands.
Taking into consideration the sale-
instance as also award in LAR No.
45/2001 and making more deductions
for want of proper evidence, it will
be appropriate if the lands which
are subject matter of appeals other
than First Appeal No. 74/2004, are
also granted compensation at the
rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per Hectare.
This will also achieve some sort of
parity, although in such matter,
achievement of parity is not
essential.
133.07FA+.odt
13. From the material on record, it
ultimately appears that proper rate
at which the appellants deserve to
be compensated is Rs.2,00,000/- per
Hectare and not anything less than
the said rate.
16] Thus, considering the overall facts
of the case, the reasons and findings
recorded by the Reference Court, the evidence
relied in support of the claim for
enhancement and the judgment and order dated
25.01.2018 passed in the connected group of
appeals, I am of the view that there is no
reason for this Court to take a view contrary
to the view taken in appeals decided vide
judgment and order dated 25.01.2018 passed by
this Court [Coram : M.S.Sonak, J.]. In the
instant cases also, in the award passed by
SLAO, it is noted the existence of well in
some of lands and compensation has been
determined as that land and well in
existence. In the award itself it is
mentioned that the lands acquired were
fertile lands and situated nearby to river.
They were provided with source of irrigation.
In that view, the lands in question being
under use as irrigated or semi irrigated
cannot be ruled out. In that view, the
133.07FA+.odt
appellants - claimants deserves to be awarded
compensation at par with the appellants in
group of appeals decided vide judgment and
order dated 25th January, 2018, as referred
above.
17] In the result, the appeals deserve
to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the
appeals are partly allowed. The compensation
awarded by the Reference Court @ Rs.60,000/-
per hector in each of the references is
enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- per hector.
Needless to observe that the appellants shall
entitle to receive additional compensation
together with statutory benefits and interest
in terms of provisions of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The additional compensation
together with statutory benefits and interest
shall be paid to appellants within six [6]
months from the date of this judgment and
order.
18] In the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
19] The appeals are disposed of in above
terms.
133.07FA+.odt
20] The modified awards be drawn in each
of the appeals in above terms.
21] Civil Applications, if any, pending
in Appeals be treated as disposed of.
[V.L.ACHLIYA]
JUDGE
DDC
