The State Of Mah. Thr. Its ... vs Dipak S/O Jagdeo Garkal
2021 Latest Caselaw 8681 Bom

           fa883.2021.odt                         1

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 883 OF 2011

           1]       The State of Maharashtra,
                    through its Collector, Buldana,
                    District - Buldana.

           2]       The Executive Engineer,
                    Minor Irrigation Chikhali,
                    Dist. Buldhana.
                                                                 ....... APPELLANTS
                                                              [Orig. Non-Applicant]
                                                                            [On R.A.]

                                          ...V E R S U S...

                    Dipak s/o Jagdeo Garkal,
                    Aged Major, Occu: Agriculturist,
                    R/o Gundha, Tq. Lonar,
                    District - Buldhana

           Correct Address of Respondent sole
Amendment as
per Courts          Shri Dipak Jagdeo Garkal,
order dated
                    Plot No. 71/A, Sector S-1,
19.04.11
                    N-4 CIDCO Aurangabad,
Sd/-
Sr. Cl to GP        Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.
18.06.11
                                                          ...      RESPONDENTS
                                                          Ori. Applicant (On R.A.)

           ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Shri M.A. Kadu, learned A.G.P. for State.
           Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate for Respondent-Sole.
           ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            CORAM                         : S.M. MODAK, J.

                            RESERVED ON                   : 18.06.2021
                            PRONOUNCED ON                 : 01.07.2021





 ORAL JUDGMENT


 1]               The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered the

compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per hectare for

cultivable land to the claimant/respondent. It was not as per

his expectation. When he filed reference, the Reference Court

enhanced the compensation to Rs. 35,000/- per hectare for

cultivable land and Rs. 5000/- per hectare for non-cultivable

land. This decision was given by the Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Buldana on 16.10.2008. The appellant-acquiring

body found that the enhanced compensation was excessive

and that is why present appeal has been filed.

2] I have heard learned Advocate Shri M.A. Kadu for

the appellant and learned Advocate Shri R.G. Kavimandan for

the respondent/claimant. I have also perused the record. I

find that the claimant has adduced bulky evidence in support

of his claim for enhancement. He filed various Index-II

extracts, Crops statement and 7/12 extract and examined two

more witnesses. On going through that evidence, I do not

think that the enhancement is excessive.

3] The Reference Court has referred to all these

documents, but has not discussed the rates at which the lands

were sold for different consideration, which is depicted in

Index-II extracts. Even though it may not find a place in the

body of the judgment, it must have weighed the mind of the

Reference Court while making enhancement. The Reference

Court ought to have discussed how the lands covered under

the sale-deeds [for which Index-II extracts were filed] are

comparable to the land under acquisition. It ought to have

discussed the common factors. I find only reference of Index-

II extracts, Crop statement in the judgment. However, it does

not convince me to allow the appeal. Because the Appellate

Court can certainly go through the documents.

4] On going through the evidence and record, what I

find is there are in all five Index-II Extracts. Those lands are

situated at different villages of Gaikhed, Antri, Palaskhed,

Veni, Hirdav, Mohatkhed and Ardav of Lonar Talukas District

Buldhana. The claimant through his power of attorney

holder/father had given the distance in between all these

villages and village Gunda where the acquired land is

situated. The notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act was issued on 03.01.1991, it was for Minor

Irrigation Project, Chikhali whereas the lands under sale-deed

were sold on 25.04.1989, 15.06.1989, 20.02.1989,

24.05.1988, 16.01.1989, 22.02.1988 and 28.03.1989. It

means all the sale transactions were prior to issuance of

Section 4 notification. It is also true that some of the lands

under those sale-deeds were dry land, whereas the land

under acquisition was irrigated land. The witness has

explained how he has made arrangement of river water. He

has also explained the Rabi and Kharip Crops taken by him.

There is a Crop Statement and 7/12 extract in support of his

claim.

05] There is also evidence of Manirao Narayan

Jaybhaye a neighbouring farmer. He has purchased the land

at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre on 24.05.1988. The Index

copy is at Exhibit-71. Whereas the witness Ramdas Laxman

Devare is resident of Mohankhed, Tah. Lonar. He purchased

the land at village Mohankhed at Rs. 25,000/- per acre.

06] If I consider the sale-deeds as referred above, the

enhancement granted by the reference Court cannot be said

to be excessive. In fact, the reference Court was careful

enough in granting separate rates for irrigated land and non-

irrigated land. As the oral evidence does not support the yield

from the trees, the reference Court was pleased not to grant

any compensation for the trees. We can find the Reference

Court in Para-16 of the impugned judgment.

For the above discussion, I do not find any

interference is warranted. Hence, the appeal stands

dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. The amount

deposited, if any, be paid to respondent after transferring to

his bank account. Appellants to deposit remaining amount, if

any, within the period of three months from today. The said

amount be also paid to respondent by transfer to his bank

account. Pending applications, if any be stand disposed of.

(S.M.MODAK, J)

rkn