Bombay High Court
Exec Utiv E Engineer,Vidarbha ... vs Ashok Panjabrao Pise And 4 Others on 25 November, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 FA285.08.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2008
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 33 OF 2020
............
First Appeal No. 285 of 2008
APPELLANT : Executive Engineer,
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Bembla Project Division, Tilakwadi,
Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. Ashok S/o Panjabrao Pise,
Aged 59 years,
2. Parag S/o Ashok Pise,
Aged about 31 years,
3. Rupesh S/o Ashok Pise,
Aged about 34 years,
All R/o Dighi, Tq. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
4. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Yavatmal.
5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bembla Project, Yavatmal.
with
Cross-Objection No. 33 of 2020 in First Appeal No.285 of 2008
CROSS-OBJECTORS : 1. Ashok S/o Panjabrao Pise,
(Present Respondent Aged 62 years, Occu. Agriculturist
Nos.1 to 3)
2. Parag S/o Ashok Pise,
Aged about 34 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
2 FA285.08.odt
3. Rupesh S/o Ashok Pise,
Aged about 37 years, Occu. Agriculturist
All R/o Dighi, Tq. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. Executive Engineer,
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Bembla Project Division, Tilakwadi,
Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bembla Project, Yavatmal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Appeal No. 285 of 2008
Mr. Amol B. Patil, Advocate for the appellant-VIDC
Mr. S. V. Ingole, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3
Ms. Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for respondent nos.4 and 5
Cross-objection No. 33 of 2020
Mr. S. V. Ingole, Advocate for the Cross-objectors
Mr. Amol B. Patil, Advocate for the respondent no.1/VIDC
Ms. Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 and 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal filed by the Executive Engineer, Vidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC), Bembla Project,
Yavatmal and the cross-objection filed by claimants -Ashok Panjabrao
3 FA285.08.odt
Pise and two others, are being decided by this common judgment
since these two proceedings arise out of the judgment and decree
passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc District Judge, Yavatmal in Land
Acquisition Case No. 476/2003, dated 19.12.2006.
2. Heard Shri Amol B. Patil, learned counsel for appellant-
VIDC, Mr. S.V. Ingole, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants/
cross-objectors and Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the State authorities, in detail.
3. The facts giving rise to these two proceedings are in very
short compass and those are detailed herein below :
4. The State of Maharashtra disclosed its intention to
acquire various properties for public purpose for construction of
Bembla project by publishing Notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the LA Act"
for the sake of brevity), on 04.02.1999. The notification under
Section 6 of the L.A. Act to acquire the property of the cross-
objectors, was lastly published on 31.01.2000. (In this judgment, the
4 FA285.08.odt
cross-objectors will be referred to as 'claimants' for the sake of
brevity.) The property which was acquired by the State belonging to
the claimants was a plot bearing plot No. 133 along with the
structure standing thereon. The plot area is 91.40 sq.meter along
with structure standing thereon, situated at village Dighi, Tah.
Babhulgaon, Dist.Yavatmal, which was used by the claimants as their
residential house. The proceedings were registered as Land
Acquisition Case No. 4/47/97-98 of village Dighi, Tah. Babhulgaon,
Dist. Yavatmal before respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer
(SLAO), Bembla Project, Yavatmal. On 10.04.2002, the learned
SLAO declared the Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. Insofar
as claimants are concerned, the SLAO fixed the market price of open
portion of the plot as Rs.6,855/- and he fixed the market price of
constructed area as Rs.1,85,725/-. Thus, he granted Rs.1,92,280/-
as a market price for plot area and constructed area. Along with this,
statutory components were also awarded to the claimants.
5. The claimants were dissatisfied with the fixation of
market price of their acquired property. Therefore, though under
protest they accepted the amount offered by the SLAO, within the
5 FA285.08.odt
period of limitation, they filed the proceedings in the Reference
Court under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The proceedings filed by the
claimants under Section 18 of the L.A. Act were registered as Land
Acquisition Case No. 476/2003. It appears that the said was allotted
on the file of learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal, who
ultimately decided the same by the impugned judgment.
6. Before the Reference Court, the claimants claimed
Rs.1,010/- per square meter as market price for open plot and
Rs.2,850/- per square meter for constructed area. They also claimed
Rs.85,000/- for wooden material and damage, Rs.20,000/- towards
gobar gas plant and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for change of
business and place for resettlement.
7. The claim put forth by the claimants was contested by
the Executive Engineer, Bembla Project, Yavatmal by filing written
statement (Exh.17). In view of the rival pleadings, following three
issues were struck below Exh.18 :-
1] Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhance
compensation ? If yes, to what extent ?
6 FA285.08.odt
2] Whether the reference petition is filed within
limitation ?
3] What costs and order ?
8. In order to prove their case, for and on behalf of the
claimants, claimant Ashok Panjabrao Pise entered into the witness
box. He was thoroughly cross-examined. The claimants also
examined Shri Chandrashekhar Wankhade, a Valuer. His evidence is
at Exh.45. Through him, the claimants proved the Valuation
Certificate (Exh.46). Needless to mention, Shri Wankhade, a Valuer
was also cross-examined by the appellant and the learned District
Government Pleader for the State.
The record shows that no officer stepped into the
witness box for and on behalf of the State. After hearing the learned
respective counsel and after appreciating all the evidence, the
learned Judge of the Reference Court partly allowed the reference
and directed the authorities that they are liable to pay Rs.62,580/- as
an enhanced compensation together with 12% additional component
on the enhanced compensation from the date of Notification dated
04.02.1999 till the date of Award dated 10.04.2002. They were also
directed to pay 30% solatium on the enhanced amount of
7 FA285.08.odt
compensation. They were also directed to pay interest @ 9% per
annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of
Award i.e. 10.04.2002 till one year. The authorities were also
directed to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the aggregate amount
of compensation from the date of Award i.e. 10.04.2002 till its actual
realization.
9. Appellant - Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division,
Yavatmal was aggrieved by the said judgment and therefore, an
appeal was preferred before this Court under Section 54 of the L.A.
Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
10. The appeal was admitted on 27.03.2008 (Coram : C.L.
Pangarkar, J.). Notices were issued to the claimants. They appeared.
They also filed cross-objection. The cross-objection was barred by
limitation and therefore, they filed an application for condonation of
delay. The application for condonation of delay was allowed by this
Court (Coram : N.W. Sambre, J.) on 17.12.2018 and the cross-
objection was also admitted.
8 FA285.08.odt
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the claimants, following points fell for my
determination :
1] Whether interference is necessary with the
judgment and decree passed by the learned
Reference Court ?
2] What Order ?
12. The only point that was agitated before this Court by the
learned counsel for the appellant Mr. A.B. Patil, is that the learned
Reference Court has committed an error in considering the
constructed area as 88.25 sq.mtr., which has been mentioned in the
Valuation Report. He submitted that in the Award, the SLAO has
calculated the area under construction as 79.25 sq. mtr. Thus, the
Refence Court has granted more compensation for area of 9 sq.mtr.
13. As against this, Mr. S.V. Ingole, learned counsel for the
claimants submitted that the learned Judge of the Reference Court
has fixed the market price as Rs.400/- per sq.mtr., which is found to
be inadequate by this Court in catena of decisions and he pointed out
a decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 416/2008 dated
03.12.2019 (V.I.D.C. .vs. Himmatrao Dinanath Kothekar and others ),
9 FA285.08.odt
in which reliance was kept on the decision in First Appeal No.
794/2018 dated 25.06.2019, wherein the High Court has fixed the
compensation @ Rs.500/- per sq.meter towards open area of the
properties of village Dighi.
14. Fairly, the learned counsel for the appellant has stated
that in numerous First Appeals, either filed by V.I.D.C. or by the
claimants, various Benches of this Court have found that adequate
price is Rs.500/- per sq. mtr. in respect of the house properties which
are acquired for Bembla Project of village Dighi itself. This Court
appreciates the fairness of the learned counsel for the appellant. In
that view of the matter, the price fixed for the open area by the
learned Judge of the Reference Court @ Rs.400/- per sq.meter is
inadequate and needs to be interfered with.
15. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant about excess payment of 9 sq.mtr area is concerned, in my
view, that cannot be considered favourably. True it is that in the
Award, the area was found to be 79.25 sq.mtr. by the SLAO. Since,
the claimants were dissatisfied with the fixation of the price, they
10 FA285.08.odt
approached before the Reference Court by filing reference petition.
Therefore, the entire Award qua the claimants was questioned before
the Reference Court. Not only that, in order to substantiate their
claim, they examined Shri Chandrashekhar Wankhade, a Valuer and
he proved the Valuation Report (Exh.46). Perusal of the Valuation
Report (Exh.46) would show that built up area was 88.25 sq. mtr.
Shri Wankhade was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned
counsel for the appellant. However, the learned cross-examiner had
not even touched the area in issue as appearing in the Valuation
Report. The expert has proved its valuation report, in which he has
specifically pointed out the area of construction. In that view of the
matter, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the learned Judge of the Reference Court has awarded more
compensation in respect of 9 sq.mtr. of land, needs to be discarded.
16. Though, the claimants have claimed compensation of
Rs.85,000/- for wooden material, Rs.20,000/- for gobar gas plant
and Rs.25,000/- for change of business and place, no cogent
evidence was adduced by the claimants before the Reference Court
and therefore, in my view, the learned Judge of the Reference Court
11 FA285.08.odt
was absolutely right in disallowing the said. Resultantly, I pass the
following order :
ORDER
1. First Appeal filed by Executive Engineer, V.I.D.C, Bembla
Project Divn., Yavatmal stands dismissed.
2. Cross-objection filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3/
claimants is partly allowed.
3. The claimants will be entitled to receive compensation
@ Rs.500/- per sq. mtr. in stead of Rs.400/- per sq.mtr.
for 91.40 sq.mtrs and not for 12.15 sq. mtrs., as
observed by the Reference Court.
4. Insofar as compensation given by the Reference Court in
respect of construction is concerned, the same is
maintained.
5. The appellant is directed to pay 12% additional
component on the enhanced compensation from the
date of Notification dated 04.02.1999 till the date of
Award i.e. 10.04.2002.
6. The appellant is also directed to pay 30% solatium on
enhanced amount of compensation.
12 FA285.08.odt
7. The appellant is also directed to pay 9% per annum
towards interest on the enhanced compensation from
the date of Award i.e. 10.04.2002 till one year.
8. The appellant is also directed to pay interest @ 15% per
annum on the aggregate amount of compensation from
the date of Award i.e. 10.04.2002 till its actual
realization.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
enhanced amount along with additional components, as
stated above, will be deposited before this Court within
a period of four months from today. On such deposit,
the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the same.
10. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No
order as to costs.
JUDGE
Diwale
Digitally signed byPARAG
PRABHAKARRAO DIWALE
Signing Date:26.11.2021
17:21
