Bombay High Court
Murlidhar S/O Biharilal Mantri vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 23 June, 2021
Bench: S. M. Modak
xob.21.16.jud 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CROSS OBJECTION NO.21 OF 2016
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.372 OF 2016
Cross Objector : Murlidhar s/o Biharilal Mantri,
(Org. Claimant) Aged about 45 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
(On R.A.) R/o. Pedgaon, Tah. Risod, Distt. Washim.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] The State of Maharashtra,
(Org. Respondents) through the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(On R.A.) Washim.
2] Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Washim,
Tq. & Dist. Washim.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for the Cross-Objector
Mrs. U.A. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
RESERVED ON : 19th JUNE, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd JUNE, 2021.
J U D G M E N T :-
By the award dated 26/02/2014 passed by the Court of Civil
Judge Senior Division, Washim, two parties were aggrieved. Acquiring
Body - V.I.D.C. was aggrieved because they contend that enhancement
granted by the Reference Court is excessive. That is why, they preferred
First Appeal No.372/2016. Whereas claimant is aggrieved, because he
xob.21.16.jud 2/7
contends that even enhancement is inadequate and, hence, he filed
present cross-objection.
02] V.I.D.C. has withdrawn their appeal on 08/12/2018, because
enhancement was within prescribed limit of enhancement as per different
Government Resolutions. So, now the issue is, whether the claimant is
entitled to get further enhancement. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.26,500/- per hectare, whereas it
was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare by the Reference Court. Now,
the original claimant wants it to Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare.
03] Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied upon following
materials/evidence :
(a) Sale-Deed by which he purchased the land on 17/08/1995.
(b) Availability of well water in the acquired land.
(c) Rate fixed by Reference Court in connected L.A.C. No.38/2003.
04] Whereas, according to learned Advocate Smt. U.A. Patil, all above
materials were properly considered by the Reference Court. According to
her, rate fixed in connected proceedings can be considered only when lands
are situated in similar situation. According to her, it is not the situation
herein.
xob.21.16.jud 3/7
05] The necessary details as reflected from the evidence and record
are as follows :
(a) Particulars of land Gut No.172 - 1 H 8 R
(b) Location Village Zakalwadi, Tah. &
Dist. Washim.
(c) Government Notification under 02/04/1998.
Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act.
(d) Purchased of this land by the 17/08/1995 for Rs.2,30,000/-
claimant. from Shri Ajit Kumar
Nandlalji Gangwal.
(e) Rate Fixed by Special Land Rs.26,500/- per hectare.
Acquisition Officer.
(f) Rate enhanced by Reference Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare
Court vide judgment dated
26/02/2014.
06] The claimant examined himself & his vendor Shri Ajitkumar
Gangwal. 7/12 Extract [Exh.19], copy of registered sale-deed [Exh.20]
and copy of judgment in L.A.C. No.38/2003 [Exh.25] are the material
documents. From the respondents' side, there was no evidence.
07] It is very well true that Reference Court in connected L.A.C.
No.38/2003 has enhanced the rate from Rs.38,500/- per hectare to
Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court in that judgment relied
upon following circumstances :
xob.21.16.jud 4/7
(a) Location of land - Same Village Zakalwadi.
(b) Date of Section 4 Notification - 02/04/1998 (same).
(c) Contemporaneous sale-deed.
(d) Existence of well in the land itself.
(e) Rate fixed in connected proceedings.
(f) Evidence of valuer Shri Gulhane.
08] So location, use of land, date of Section 4 Notification are the
same. The main area of dispute is crop harvested and facility of irrigation
available. It is true that on 7/12 Extract [Exh.19], there is reference of
percentage of share in well water amongst the claimant (6 paise) and
vendor Ajit Kumar Nandlal (94 paise). So, the claimant is not having
exclusive right to use well water. About location of this well, there is
reference in the sale-deed [Exh.20] (Internal Page 6). The well is situated
in the land belonging to Nandlal Gyanchandji Gangwal, the father of
claimant's vendor. The vendor has given one anna right to use well water
to the claimant. These factors do suggest availability of well water to
certain extent.
09] There is dispute amongst both the sides about crop cultivated
from this land. It is true that in the claim affidavit filed before Reference
Court, claimant has not mentioned about cultivation of any crop in the
land. It is also true that the claimant nowhere says, what infrastructure he
xob.21.16.jud 5/7
has created for carrying well water to the field. At the same time, it is
also true that there is reference of cultivation of crops "Soyabin,
Harbhara" on 7/12 Extract.
10] It is very well true that the Reference Court has not discussed
these aspects (about well water and crop) in the impugned judgment. So
to certain extent, the claimant succeeds in asking for enhancement. This
Court feels that enhancement should not be to the extent of Rs.1,20,000/-
per hectare as fixed in connected L.A.C. No.38/2003. It is the "availability
of well water to fullest extent and evidence of valuer about type of
construction of well" are the factors which are not in existence in case
before us.
11] There is one more factor on which there is heavy reliance by
learned Advocate Shri Paliwal. The sale-deed between claimant and his
vendor was executed three years (17/08/1995) earlier to publication of
Section 4 Notification on 02/04/1998. The total consideration for 1 hectare
and 8 Ares land was Rs.2,30,000/-. According to claimant, this is not
considered by the Reference Court. According to learned Advocate Mrs.
Patil, there is no proof that the land was purchased by the claimant for
non-agricultural use.
12] It is true that there is no evidence of non-agricultural use of the
land. So also the sale-deed is dated 17/08/1995 is just earlier to land
xob.21.16.jud 6/7
acquisition proposal of 1996-97. So also, the consideration in the sale-
deed is not per hectare consideration but lumpsum consideration. So, the
same cannot be considered.
13] For above discussion, the claimant is entitled to get
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,10,000/- per hectare. So, compensation
and the benefits need to be calculated at that rate. Hence, cross-
objection needs to be partly allowed. Hence, the directions :
I. Cross objection is partly allowed.
II. The rate fixed by the Reference Court in the judgment,
dated 26/02/2014 in L.A.C. No.157/2012 is modified as
follows :
(a) Claimant is entitled to get compensation at the rate
of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupee One Lakh Ten Thousand
Only) per hectare for acquired land bearing at Gut
No.181, 1 Hectare 8 Ares.
(b) Claimant is entitled to get the benefits at modified
rate.
(c) Amount of compensation be recalculated at above
rate.
xob.21.16.jud 7/7
III. The appellants to pay (after deducting amount already
paid) that amount to claimant within a period of three
months from today.
IV. Once the amount is deposited, Office to transfer that
amount to the bank account of cross-objector on furnishing
bank details.
V. Deficit Court Fee, if any, be recovered from claimant.
VI. Applications pending, if any, be disposed of.
VII. Cross objection is disposed of in the light of above order
(S.M. MODAK, J.)
*sandesh
