Bombay High Court
Shankar S/O Murlidhar Sharma vs State Of Mah. Thr. Special Land ... on 28 September, 2021
Bench: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
204FA 330-2009.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2009
Shankar s/o Murlidhar Sharma,
aged about 52 years, Agriculturist,
Resident and Post Eranda, Tq. Barshitakli,
District Akola.
...APPELLANT
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
through Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Punjabrao Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola.
...RESPONDENT
Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for the respondent.
.....
CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 28, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. Present is an Appeal filed by the appellant/
claimant challenging the judgment and award dated
07/02/2004 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge,
Akola in Land Acquisition Case No. 108/1996, whereby the
Reference Court has awarded compensation to the appellant/
claimant @ Rs.25,000/- per hectare for his land bearing Survey
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2021 22:16:24 :::
204FA 330-2009.odt 2
No.118, situated at Village Anjani Bk., admeasuring 1.75
hectare ("the subject property"), which was acquired for the
purpose of construction of village tank.
3. The facts, necessary to decide the present Appeal,
may be stated as under :
i. The subject property was acquired by the Land
Acquisition Officer ("LAO") by issuing notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act"), which
was published in the Government gazette on 26/05/1994. The
further notification, under Section 6 of the Act, was published
on 15/06/1995, and the award came to be passed on
16/11/1995. The LAO fixed the amount of compensation for
the suit property @ Rs.21,000/- per hectare.
ii. Being dissatisfied with the amount of
compensation, as has been awarded by the LAO, the appellant/
claimant preferred proceedings under Section 18 of the Act,
and claimed compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre. The
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2021 22:16:24 :::
204FA 330-2009.odt 3
appellant/ claimant states that the land is fertile and aakhar
land. He used to get net income @ Rs.7,000 - Rs.8,000/- per
acre, and the land was his only source of income. The LAO has
not considered the fertile quality of the land.
iii. The claimant examined himself below Exh.13,
wherein he deposed that his land is fertile and aakhar land.
That he was getting Rs.7,000/- - Rs.8000/- per acre per year.
The land was his only source of income and he lost his
permanent income. That he was taking Kharip crop of cotton
and tur and Rabi crop of Harbhara from his land. He has
brought on record receipt for the said crops. After taking
possession of the acquired land, he harvested crop of cotton of
24 quintals and 64 kilograms from his remaining 4 acres of
land. The receipt of the said crop, issued by cotton federation,
is also placed on record. He further states that he has also
taken crop of tur of about 5 quintals from his remaining land.
The receipt of the same dated 24/01/1994 is placed on record.
He has also filed on record 7/12 extract of his land. He has also
placed on record certificate of Talathi of Village Anjani Bk.
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2021 22:16:24 :::
204FA 330-2009.odt 4
indicating the rate of the land, as per the Government record,
at more than Rs.26,000/- per acre. The appellant/ claimant
claimed enhanced amount of compensation at least @
Rs.40,000/- per acre.
iv. The respondent/ State neither filed written
statement nor cross-examined the claimant witness.
v. The Reference Court, on the basis of material on
record, granted compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per hectare along
with other statutory benefits. For reaching this valuation, the
Reference Court relied on the certificate issued by the Talathi of
Village Anjani Bk. This judgment is impugned in this Appeal.
4. I have heard Shri Sohoni, learned counsel for the
appellant/ claimant, and Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned A.G.P. for
the respondent/ State.
5. Shri Sohoni, learned counsel, brought to the notice
of this Court a mistake committed by the Reference Court or it
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2021 22:16:24 :::
204FA 330-2009.odt 5
may be a typographical mistake that in the discussion part of
the judgment, while referring to the certificate of Talathi of
Village Anjani Bk., the Reference Court, in para 9, has recorded
as under :
"9. XXXX As per said certificate, the valuation of his total 3
hectare 4 R land is Rs.2,25,000/-. So relying on these
documents, Adv. Deshpande for the applicant submitted that
the market price of the acquired land in 1994 was more
than Rs.1/- per hect.XXXX"
The learned counsel submits that considering the
aforesaid part of the submissions of the learned counsel,
recorded by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment,
the Reference Court ought to have granted compensation @
Rs.25,000/- per acre instead of Rs.25,000/- per hectare.
The learned counsel further referred to the
judgment delivered by the Reference Court in LAC No.
109/1996, wherein for the adjoining land, which was acquired
out of the same notification and for the same purpose, the
Reference Court has awarded compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2021 22:16:24 :::
204FA 330-2009.odt 6
acre.
6. Ms. Haider, learned A.G.P., verified quantum of
enhancement in the aforecited judgment, and made a
submission that the State has not filed any Appeal against the
said judgment, and the rate for the land adjacent to the subject
land @ Rs.25,000/- per acre has been accepted by the State.
7. I have considered the submissions put forth on
behalf of both the sides, and perused the record.
8. At the outset, a perusal of the impugned judgment
would indicate that although the Reference Court has
adjudicated the market value of the subject land @ Rs.25,000/-
per hectare, relying on the certificate issued by the Talathi of
Village Anjani Bk., however, at the same time, the Reference
Court has failed to consider the valuation as per the said
certificate of his total land ad measuring 3 hectare 45 R valued
at Rs.2,25,000/-, and therefore, after calculation, it would
come to Rs.65,217/- per hectare and Rs.26,000/- per acre.
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2021 22:16:24 :::
204FA 330-2009.odt 7
9. Considering the inconsistency between the
discussion in the judgment and directions in the operative part
of the impugned judgment, coupled with the fact that the
Reference Court, for the adjoining land, which came to be
acquired out of the same notification, has granted
compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per acre, in the considered
opinion of this Court, on the ground of parity, the appellant/
claimant is also entitled to receive compensation @
Rs.25,000/- per acre.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned
judgment of the Reference Court needs modification. Hence, I
pass the following order :
ORDER
i. The Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The respondent/ State shall pay compensation @
Rs.25,000/- per acre to the appellant/ claimant for the subject
land along with statutory benefits and interest.
iii. Needless to say that the compensation already paid
to the appellant/ claimant shall be deducted from the aforesaid
amount of compensation.
iv. The respondent/ State shall deposit the enhanced
amount of compensation in terms of the order of this Court
with the Registry of this Court within a period of twelve weeks.
Thereafter, the appellant/ claimant is permitted to withdraw
the same.
11. The Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE
******
Sumit
