Bombay High Court
Uttam Raghunath Patil And Anr vs Special Land Acquisition ... on 18 April, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat
First Appeal No.140 of 2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.140 OF 2021
1. Uttam Raghunath Patil,
Age:57 years, Occ. Agri.,
2. Bhausaheb Raghunath Patil,
Age : 52 years, Occ. Agri.,
Both r/o. Bhamre, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon ..Appellants
Vs.
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
M.I.W. Jalgaon
2. Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Jalgaon ..Respondents
----
Mr.V.S.Khairnar and Mr.G.N.Kulkarni, Advocates for appellants
Mr.S.N.Morampalle, AGP for respondent no.1
Mr.S.R.Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 13, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 18, 2022
ORDER :-
This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 ("Act of 1894", for short). The challenge herein is to the
judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) No.945 of
2005, whereby the amount of compensation in respect of the land
acquired came to be enhanced to Rs.75,000/- per hectare for Jirayat
land and Rs.10,000/- per hectare for Potkharab land (uncultivated
land). Having not been satisfied with the enhancement of the
compensation, the original land owners have preferred present
appeal.
2. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as
follows:-
The land ad-measuring 1 H 54 R in Gut Nos.83 and 84,
situated at village Bhamre Bk. each with Potkharab land ad-
measuring 0.06 R and 0.07 R, respectively, came to be acquired for
minor irrigation project at village Sarve Khajole, Dist. Jalgaon.
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in official
gazette on 05.09.1996. Award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894
was passed on 17.04.1998.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants - land owners would
submit that it was the claim of the appellants - land owners that the
lands were perennially irrigated. There was a well in the land gut
no.83. Two sale instances (Exhs.13 and 14) were relied on. Without
assigning cogent reasons, the Reference Court discarded the sale
instance (Exh.14), whereunder 1 H land was sold for Rs.88,000/-.
Learned counsel would submit that in a group of LARs decided on
28.09.2000, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/-
per hectare for unirrigated land, whereas, for irrigated land the rate
awarded was Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare. The appellants are, thus,
entitled for enhancement of compensation equal to that of granted
vide the judgment and award dated 28.09.2000 passed in LAR
No.590 of 1999 and connected matters.
5. Learned AGP for the respondent-State and learned
counsel for the acquired body would, on the other hand, submit that
the Reference Court had granted compensation equal to that of one
claimed in the reference itself. The lands were unirrigated. In the
reference application, there is no mention of existence of well. 7/12
extract of both the lands indicate that the crops raised were Jirayat
crop. According to learned counsel, the amount of compensation
awarded by the Reference Court was, in fact, more than the market
price of the land acquired. Both of them, therefore, urged for
dismissal of the appeal.
6. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the
evidence relied on and the authorities placed on record.
7. Admittedly, the land ad-measuring 1 H 60 R (1 H 54 R
plus 6 R Potkharaba) and the land ad-measuring 1 H 61 R (1 H 54 R
plus 7 R Potkharaba) in Gut Nos.84 and 85, respectively, were
acquired for minor irrigation project at village Sarve Khajole, Dist.
Jalgaon. Notification under Section 4 of Act of 1894 was published
in September, 1996. The award was passed on 17.04.1998. The
Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation considering both the
lands to be unirrigated. The appellants, therefore, preferred the
Land Acquisition Reference under Section 18 of Act of 1894. Perusal
of the reference, undoubtedly, indicates that there is no mention of
existence of a well in any of these two lands. Admittedly, the
appellants were served with various statutory notices required to be
issued during acquisition proceedings. It appears that to none of
these notices, the appellants raised any objection for considering the
land to be unirrigated. In the reference application itself, the
appellants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per
hectare for Jirayat land and Rs.10,000/- per hectare for Potkharaba
land. The Reference Court, relying on this demand, granted the
same. If, however, we peruse clause (3) of the reference application,
it speaks of a claim of the claimants in addition to the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Under that column, the
claim was made for Rs.75,000/- per hectare. This is, therefore, to
be taken as a claim in addition to and/or over and above what was
granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. Be that as it may.
8. 7/12 extract of the lands acquired are on record. In
land gut no.83, existence of a well is shown. The appellants, in oral
evidence, reiterated the same. However, there is no well in the land
gut no.84. The crops taken in both these lands indicate to be
unirrigated crops. Exhibit-20 is a copy of the judgment and award
passed in a group of references arising out of acquisition of the lands
from the very village and for the very purpose under the same
acquisition proceedings. The Reference Court granted compensation
at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare for Jirayat land and
Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare for irrigated land. On the principle of
parity, the appellants-land owners are, therefore, entitled to
compensation at the same rate. It is observed that the land gut
no.83 is only treated to be irrigated land in view of existence of a
well therein. For want of cogent and reliable evidence, it cannot be
observed that the land in gut no.84 was irrigated on the water of the
well in land gut no.83. The crop pattern negates the claim of the
appellants. Before the reference court itself, the appellants-land
owners had relied on the common judgment in a group of LARs. The
Reference Court ought to have enhanced the compensation equal to
that of granted in said group of LARs.
9. Since those appeals were allowed on the ground of parity
and the claim based on the sale instances (Exh.13 and 14) being
lesser than one granted in the group of LARs, same are not taken
into consideration. It has, however, to be observed that the sale
instance (Exh.13) is of the year 1993, whereunder, 1 H 25 R
unirrigated land was sold for Rs.88,000/-; whereas, the sale
instance (Exh.14) pertain to the land from the very village itself
namely, Bhamre Khurd. There is evidence to suggest that the sale
instances from the vary village, Bhamre Bk., was very much
available for being relied on. The sale instance (Exh.14) is,
therefore, not relied on.
10. For the reasons herein above, the appeal is partly
allowed in terms of the following order:-
(i) The amount of compensation granted by the Reference
Court under the impugned award in respect of land gut
no.83 is enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare, except
for Potkharaba land.
(ii) The amount of compensation granted by the Reference
Court under the impugned award in respect of land gut
no.84 is enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare, except
for Potkharaba land.
(iii) The rate of compensation in respect of Potkharaba land
to stand unaltered.
(iv) Rest of the terms of the impugned award also to stand
unaltered.
(v) Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall
be awarded from the date of the award, provided the
appellants shall not be entitled for interest and any other
monetary benefits for the period from the date of the
impugned judgment and award to the date of
registration of the present appeal, since there was delay
of little over seven years in preferring the present
appeal.
[R.G.AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
