Bombay High Court
Executive Engg.Purna Medium ... vs Buddhu S/O Moti Bhokru (Korku) ... on 4 January, 2021
Bench: S. M. Modak
1 FA 152.19 judg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No.152/2019
The Executive Engineer,
Purna Medium Project, Achalpur Division,
Achalpur Camp, Tah Achalpur, District Amravati Presently
Executive Engineer, Medium and Minor Irrigation Division,
Achalpur, District Amravati. .... Appellant
(On R.A.)
(Ori.N.A. No.3)
-Versus-
1] Buddhu Moti Bhokru (Korku) (Ori. Applicant)
Dead through Legal Heir's :-
1-a. Rupchand Kishirao Bhokare,
Age 30 years, Occ.-Labour.
1-b. Chhaya w/o Naresh Kasdekar,
Age 40 years, Occ.-Household,
R/o.-Ozzar, Post Mathara, Tah. Achalpur, District Amravati.
1-c. Chanda w/o Ramdas Kasdekar,
Age 30 years, Occ.- Labour,
R/o.-Karajagaon, Tq. Chandur Bazar, Dist. Amravati.
1-d. Fulwanti Kashirao Bhokare,
Age 60 years, Occ.-Household,
1-e. Laxmi w/o Bhagwantrao Tote,
Age 60 years, Occ.-Household,
1-f. Shanta w/o Fulchand Lokhande,
Age 55 years, Occ.-Household,
Respondent nos. 1-a, 1-d to 1-f R/o Vishroli,
Tah Chandur Bazar, Dist- Amravati.
2. The State of Maharashtra (Ori. N.A. No.1)
through the Collector, Amravati.
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer, (Ori.N.A. No.2)
Minor Irrigation Works, Amravati, Tah and Dist. Amravati. .... Respondents
(On R.A.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.B. Patil, Adv with Shri Bhushan Dafle, Adv for appellant.
Shri Raju Kadu, Adv for resp. no.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for resp. nos. 2 and 3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 15:42:16 :::
2 FA 152.19 judg
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 04-01-2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned Advocate Shri P.B. Patil for the appellant-V.I.D.C.,
learned Advocate Shri Raju Kadu for respondent nos. 1-a to 1-f and learned
AGP Shri M.A. Kadu for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. There is an application for withdrawal of the amount deposited
towards compensation. The Reference Court has decided the amount of
compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per hectare. Considering the area of
the claimants, it comes to Rs. 44,000/-. Considering the amount of
compensation on the last date this Court has expressed a wish to avail of the
possibility of settlement.
3. Today learned Advocate Shri Patil has expressed a difficulty that if
the matter is compromised and if they will agree for certain rate, the farmers
may come with a similar proposal by taking recourse to the provisions of
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In view of that, it was decided
to hear the matter on merits.
4. Learned Advocate Shri Raju Kadu, relied upon the observations of
this Court in First Appeal No.1268/2008 dated 20-01-2020. Wherein, there
was a land acquired for Purna Medium Project and Section 4 Notification was
issued on 15-10-1996 and the land involved in that appeal was from village
Vishroli, Tq-Chandur Bazar, District Amravati. That is from the similar village
in which the land involved in this appeal is situated. With their assistance, I
have perused the record. On reading the judgment under challenge, it reveals
that the Reference Court has considered the sale instance in all five numbers.
Out of that two sales are from the same village Vishroli whereas, the three
3 FA 152.19 judg
other sale instances are from same Chandur Bazar Taluka but from 3 different
villages. The Reference Court has taken average of the consideration of all
these five sale instances. Accordingly, on that basis, the Reference Court has
decided the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per hectare.
5. According to the learned Advocate Shri Patil for the appellant, when
the sale instance from the said village is available, the learned Reference Court
ought not to have considered the sale instances from the other villages. So also
the Reference Court has considered the two sale instances of the same village
but they are of the year 1999 that is post Section 4 Notification. Whereas sale
instance from village Gaurkheda was also of post Section 4 Notification i.e. of
the year 1999. It is contended that the learned Reference Court ought to have
given a deduction when it considered post Section 4 Notification sale
instances. Accordingly, on these grounds there is a challenge to the quantum
fixed by the Reference Court.
6. As against this, learned Advocate for the claimants supported the
method adopted by the Reference Court. My attention is brought to the
observations that the respondents therein have not adduced any evidence. In
addition to that, alternatively, it is submitted that if this Court finds that
excessive amount has been fixed by the reference Court then in that
eventuality this Court may consider the amount of compensation fixed by this
Court in First Appeal No.1268/2008. Therein, this Court has fixed
compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per hectare in respect of lands
acquired from the same village Vishroli.
7. It is important to consider certain dates. In case of appeal before
us Section 4 Notification was issued on 15-08-1996, whereas in disposed of
First Appeal No.1268/2008 Section 4 Notification was issued on 15-10-1996
4 FA 152.19 judg
that is the same date. In both these matters land was acquired for Purna
Medium Project. It is also true that in both these appeals the land is from the
same village Vishroli. It is true that the awards were declared on different
dates in the disposed of appeal and in the present appeal.
8. I agree to the contention of learned Advocate for the appellant, that
when the sale instances from the same village Vishroli were available, it was
not necessary for the Reference Court to consider the sale instances from
different villages. It is true that the valuation of the land changes from village
to village. So I am inclined to consider only the two sale instances from the
same village Vishroli which are described at serial nos. 2 and 3 from the table
reproduced in para 16 of the judgment of the reference Court. It is also true
that the Reference Court has not given any special reason for considering the
sale instances from other three villages. No doubt, it is true that the two of the
sale instances from the other villages they are in the proximity in time. But the
fact that they are from different villages is sufficient not to consider them.
9. So if we concentrate on two sale instances from the same village,
their dates are 23-04-1999 and 01-06-1999. It means they are approximately
three years after Section 4 Notification dated 15-08-1996. If the sale instances
prior to Section 4 Notification are not available the Court can in the limited
situation considered the post notification sale instances. However, in that
eventuality, the Court has to reduce the price. In a given case, it can be 10%.
So, following calculations can be done by considering the following details-
S.N Date of Sale Block/ Village Area sold Consideration
instance S.No.
1 23.04.199 255 Vishroli, Tal. 93 R Rs.1,88,172/- p.h.
Chandur Br.
2 01.06.1999 295 Vishroli, Tal 81 R Rs. 86,419/- p.h.
Chandur Br.
Total Rs.2,74,591/- p.h.
5 FA 152.19 judg
10. So we take average of these two sale considerations, it comes to
Rs.1,37,295.50/- rounder up to Rs. 1,37,296/-per hectare and if we considered
deduction at the rate of 10% for one year and calculated for four years
(because notification is of the year 1996 and the sales are of the year 1999) it
comes to Rs 54,920/- (Rs. 13,729.55/- rounded up to Rs.13,730/- per year x
4 years). So this amount has to be deducted from the average consideration
of Rs. 1,37,296/-. So it comes to Rs. 82,376/- per hectare. The land of
contesting respondents is 40 R, so per acre consideration comes to Rs.32,950/-.
(Calculation referred above is on the basis of calculation given and mutually
accepted by both the sides.)
11. Now it will be material to see whether this consideration can be
accepted or whether the rate fixed by this Court in First Appeal No.1268/2008
is to be accepted. The claimants heavily relied upon the rate of Rs.80,000/-
per hectare fixed in that disposed of appeal. It is true that in that appeal the
lands are from the same village. So also it is true that this Court has also
considered the sale instances from the same village (reproduced in para 8). It
is important to consider that those sale instances are prior to Section 4
Notification dated 15-08-1996 in that appeal. Whereas in the appeal before us
sale instances are post Section 4 Notification. So I think the rate fixed in
disposed of appeal by this Court appears to be more rational. It is for the
reason that sale instances are prior to Section 4 Notification in that case. So I
think that Rs. 80,000/- per hectare will be the proper compensation in the
present appeal also. So I am inclined to allow the appeal partly. So the
compensation needs to be recalculated. Hence, the following directions -
ORDER
(a) Appeal is partly allowed.
6 FA 152.19 judg
(b) The respondent no.1-a to 1-f are entitled to receive compensation
at the rate of Rs. 80,000/-per hectare for their area that is 40 R.
(c) The respondent no.1-a to 1-f are entitled to receive similar
statuary benefit and the interest as granted by the Reference Court
only on the amount fixed by this Court as mentioned above.
(d) The appellant is directed to pay that compensation to the
respondents within the period of three months.
(e) The compensation already paid, if any, is to be deducted from the
above amount of compensation.
(f) Once the amount is deposited respondent no.1-a to 1-f are
entitled to get that amount in equal proportionate.
(g) All civil applications are disposed of.
(h) The parties to bear their own costs.
(i) Claimants to do the calculation of Court fee on the rate fixed above
and either to pay/entitle to refund of Court fee subject to
verification by the office.
(S.M. Modak, J.)
Deshmukh
