Bombay High Court
Venkatrao Gaovindrao Jadhav vs State Of Mah Thr Collector, Latur on 27 January, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat
FA-777-2006+group.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 777 OF 2006
1. Sambhaji s/o Irappa Budde [Died]
Through legal representatives
1/1. Raju s/o Sambhaji Budde
Age 45 years, Occu. Agril.,
1/2. Smt. Padmini Sambhaji Budde
Age 70 years, Occu. Agril.,
1/3. Premalabai w/o Venkat Valampalle
Age 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o. Village Kavthali Taluka Chakur
District Latur
1/4. Subhadrabai w/o Dhondiram Kote
Age 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Village Vaigaon Taluka Chakur
District Latur
1/5. Rukhmini @ Laxmibai w/o Uddhav Bolge
Age 48 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Village Sailu Taluka Renapur
District Latur
1/6. Ambubai Shivaji Pundkare
Age 45 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Village Kumbharwadi Taluka Renapur
District Latur
1/7. Venkat s/o Sambhaji Budde
Age 40 years, Occu. Agril.
1/8. Namdeo s/o Sambhaji Budde
Age 35 years, Occu Agril.,
Both R/o Village Kavthali Taluka Chakur
District Latur ... Appellants
1 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2022 04:40:20 :::
(( 2 )) FA-777-2006+group
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Colllector, Latur) ... Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2005
Mahadu s/o Govind Jadhav
Age: 30 years, Occupation: Agri
R/o Kavthali, Taluka Chakur
District: Latur ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Latur,
Taluka and District Latur ... Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2006
Venkatrao Govindrao Jadhav
Age: 33 years, Occu: Agri.,
R/o Kavthali, Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Collector,
Latur) ... Respondent
2 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2022 04:40:20 :::
(( 3 )) FA-777-2006+group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2006
1] Raghunath Krashna Dombale [Died] Through Lrs.
1/1] Tukaram s/o Raghunath Dombale
Age 55 years, Occu. Agricultural
1/2] Gunda s/o Raghunath Dombale
Age 52 years, Occu. Agricultural
R/o. Kavthali Tq. Chakur District Latur
1/3] Bhamabai w/o Balaji Shelke
Age 50 years, Occu. Agricultural
R/o Chakur Tq. Chakur District Latur
1/4] Muktabai w/o Vilas Kamble
Age 48 years, Occu. Agricultural
R/o Vaigaon Tq. Chakur District Latur ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Collector, Latur) ... Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 776 OF 2006
Govind Mahadu Budde
Age: 38 years, Occu: Agri.,
R/o Kavthali, Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Collector, Latur) ... Respondent
3 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2022 04:40:20 :::
(( 4 )) FA-777-2006+group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 778 OF 2006
1. Ram Krishna Dombale (died)
Through his L.Rs.
1-A] Phulabai Wd/o Rama Dombale
Age 70 years, Occu: Household/Agril.,
R/o Kavthali, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur
1-B] Bhagirathi D/o Rama Dombale
Since her marriage
Sanjivani W/o Baburao Shendge
Age 45 years, Occu: Agril./Household,
R/o Hatkarwadi Post. Nalegaon,
Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur
1-C] Dnyanoba s/o Rama Dombale,
Age 43 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o Kavthali, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur
1-D] Nivratti Rama Dombale
Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Kavthali, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Collector, Latur) ... Respondent
....
Mr. G. K. Sontakke, Advocate for appellants
Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for respondent - State
....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
RESERVED ON : 08th OCTOBER, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 27th JANUARY, 2022
4 of 10
(( 5 )) FA-777-2006+group
J U D G M E N T :-
. These appeals, filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, are being decided by this common judgment,
since they are inter-connected.
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under:
The agricultural lands belonging to the appellants herein
have been acquired for construction of percolation tank. The
notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 14.02.1991.
The award came to be passed in January, 1995. The Land Acquisition
Officer (Collector), offered compensation at the rate of Rs.22,000/-
and 25,000/- per Hectare for the lands in group Nos. 1 and 2,
respectively.
Having been dissatisfied with the amount of
compensation offered by the Collector, the appellants herein,
preferred respective Land Acquisition References (LARs). The
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur (Reference Court), vide
his common judgment and award dated 30.09.2003, enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs.27,500/- per Hectare. Feeling
5 of 10
(( 6 )) FA-777-2006+group
aggrieved by inadequate enhancement in the amount of
compensation, the present appeals have been preferred.
3. Heard.
The learned Advocate for the appellants would submit
that comparable sale instances vide Exhibits 32 and 34 were
produced on record of the Reference Court. Compensation ought to
have been granted relying on those sale-deeds. The learned Advocate
would further submit that in L.A.R. No.742 of 2003, decided on
07.02.2006 and connected References, the Reference Court granted
enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per Acre
(Rs.1,500/- Per Are). The said References were arising out of the
land acquisition proceedings initiated for the very purpose for which
the lands of the appellants herein have been acquired. In short, the
learned Advocate has urged for grant of compensation on the ground
of parity.
4. The learned AGP would, on the other hand, submit that
although the judgment and order dated 07.02.2006 pertains to the
lands acquired for the very purpose from the very village, the
decision therein has no bearing on this group of appeals, since the
6 of 10
(( 7 )) FA-777-2006+group
notification under Section 4 in respect of the lands which are the
subject matter of L.A.R. No.742 of 2003 and connected L.A.Rs was
published in January 1998 i.e. six years after the notification in
respect of the lands the subject matter of the present appeals was
published in the Government Gazette.
5. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the
impugned judgment and award. Also perused the relevant evidence
and the authorities relied on. There can be no dispute as to what has
been observed by the Apex Court and the High Court as well in the
following two decisions, respectively.
(i) Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs. Vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer and another - 2019 DSGL
(SC) 1623;
(ii) Bayaji Tatya Kalunge Vs. State of Maharashtra - 2007
(Supp.) Bom. C.R. 771.
6. If the case of the present appellants is really similar or at
par with the facts and circumstances of the L.A.Rs, they would
necessarily be entitled for grant of compensation at the rate
Rs.60,000/- per Acre on the ground of parity. Same is however not
the case herein. Although, the subject matter of the present appeals
7 of 10
(( 8 )) FA-777-2006+group
and the lands in L.A.R. No.742 of 2003 and others were situated at
one and the same village and have been acquired for the very
purpose i.e. for construction of percolation tank. There is quiet
distinction between the land acquisition proceedings of the two sets
of L.A.Rs. The distinction is as follows:
Present Appeals LAR
1. Notification under Section 4 Notification under Section 4
was published in the was published in the
Government Gazette on Government Gazette on
14.02.1991. 15.01.1998.
2. The date of award is The date of award is
25.10.1994 08.09.1999
Compensation was required to be offered/granted on the
basis of the market value of the lands acquired as of the date of
notification under Section 4 i.e. as of 14.02.1991 and not
15.01.1998. This makes all the difference. The appellants are,
therefore, not entitled for enhancement of compensation on the
ground of parity.
7. Nothing has been argued on the merits of the appeals.
Still this Court went through the impugned judgment and award to
find the Reference Court to have awarded adequate compensation to
8 of 10
(( 9 )) FA-777-2006+group
the appellants herein, sale instances Exhibits 31 and 32 have not
been relied on for the reason:-
"29. ...... CW2 Pralhad has stated following details. He
owned piece of land which situated adjacent to the land
which he subsequently purchased from Sadanand and
therefore, it was easy and convenient for him to supervise
and cultivate the land purchased by him. There is one big
mango tree over the land which he purchased from
Sadanand and while purchasing the land, he also
purchased 5 and share in the produce of mango trees
situated over sy. no. 48. Distance between village Kavthali
and lands acquired is about 1 ½ kms. It was suggested to
him that he purchased land from Sadanand by offering
more amount than the prevailing market price because it
was convenient for cultivation."
8. Another sale instance Exh.34 has been discarded as it
pertains to purchase of land admeasuring only 4 Ares, a very small
piece of land compared to the subject matter of the present appeals.
Both the sale instances (Exh. 32 and 34) pertain to the lands situate
at different villages, namely, Shivankheda and Kharola. The
appellants herein did not place on record sale instances in respect of
the lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands.
9. It is reiterated that the learned Advocate for the
appellants herein simply urged for grant of enhancement in the
compensation based on principle of parity. The said contention has
9 of 10
(( 10 )) FA-777-2006+group
been dispelled for the reasons given herein above. Nothing further
was argued.
10. As such, the appeals fail. The same are therefore,
dismissed.
[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]
SMS
10 of 10
