The State Of Maha vs Sampatsingh B. Paradeshi
2022 Latest Caselaw 7292 Bom

                                                           204 and 205 fa 261 and 264 of 1995.doc


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       FIRST APPEAL NO. 261 OF 1995

             The State of Maharashtra                                ..Appellant.

                                v/s.

             Sampatsingh Babusingh Pardeshi                          ..Respondent

                                                 WITH
                                       FIRST APPEAL NO. 264 OF 1995

             The State of Maharashtra                                ..Appellant.

                                v/s.

             Keshavsingh M. Pardeshi                                          ..Respondents


             Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant-State.
             None for the Respondents.

                                                 CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 28th JULY, 2022.

P.C.

1. The State has challenged the judgment and award dated 31.7.1991

in Land Reference No. 102 of 1996 and 107 of 1996, passed by the Joint

District Judge, Nasik.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Court has held that the

claimant in the respective land reference is entitled for additional

compensation of Rs. 1,98,985.95 ps and Rs.1,34,779.24 ps with interest

and other statutory benefits.

3. Heard learned AGP for the State. I have perused the records.

P P SALGAONKAR 1 of 4

204 and 205 fa 261 and 264 of 1995.doc

4. The State Government had acquired land for construction of minor

irrigation project at Village Borkind, Taluka Sinnar. The notification

under Section 4 was issued on 24th August, 1992. The Land Acquisition

Officer declared the Award on 19th June, 1985. The Land Acquisition

Officer classified the land into three groups, and awarded compensation

at Rs.10,000/- per hectare in respect of Group I land, Rs.11,500/- per

Hectare in respect of Group II land and Rs.13,000/- per hectare in

respect of Group III land. Not being satisfied with the quantum of

compensation, the Respondent claimant filed reference under Section 18

claiming enhanced compensation.

5. It is in the evidence that the land acquired was in the outskirt of

Village Shivner and Borkhind. It is stated that Village Shivner and

Borkhind has a common Gram Panchayat and has similar amenities.

The Claimants had deposed that the acquired land was bagayat land with

irrigation facilities. They used to cultivate paddy vegetables and other

crops in the said land. They have stated that they used to transport the

vegetables to Bombay for sale.

6. The Claimants have also relied upon the sale instances in respect

of similar land and have examined C.W.2 Subhashsingh Pardeshi, who

had sold Gat No.28 of village Borkhind to one Babudada Wagh in 1972

for Rs.25,000/-. The evidence of C.W.2 Subashsingh Pardeshi reveals

that price of Jirayat land in the year 1982 in Village Borkind was was

between 80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. However, since the

P P SALGAONKAR 2 of 4

204 and 205 fa 261 and 264 of 1995.doc

Agreement for sale was of the year 1972, they had sold the land at

Rs.25,000/- per hectare.

7. The Claimants had also examined C.W. 3 Babudada Wagh , who

had purchased Gat No.28 of Village Borkhind from Thansing Pardeshi

for Rs.25,000/-. This witness had stated that he had paid Rs.23,500/- to

Thansingh Pardeshi and had taken possession of the land in the year

1976. The Claimants had also relied upon the sale instance in respect of

Gat No.295 of Shivde Village. They had examined C.W.4 who is

purchaser to the said sale deed, who had stated that he had purchased the

land by sale deed dated 30.04.1982 (Exhibit 33) land admeasuring 46

gunthas from Gat No. 295 for sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. He has

stated that the nature of the acquired land is similar to the sale deed land.

8. The Claimants also relied upon another sale deed at Exhibit 35 and

examined the purchaser C.W.5 Vithal Bhika Wagh for Rs.10,000/-. This

witness had deposed that he had purchased 12 guntha land of Gat

NO.227 from Anand Bhima Wagh for Rs.10,000/-. The said land was

bagayat land which had irrigation facilities and was situated in village

Shivde. The evidence adduced by the claimants reveal that the land

was irrigated land situated in Shivde Village. The Reference Court has

also observed that the sale instances produced by the Claimants are

comparative instances to determine the market rate of the acquired land.

Relying upon the sale deeds and the evidence of witnesses, the

Reference Court has observed that the compensation determined by the

P P SALGAONKAR 3 of 4

204 and 205 fa 261 and 264 of 1995.doc

Land Acquisition Officer is much below the prevailing market rate and

the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per

hectare in respect of the irrigated land and Rs.1000/- per hectare for pot

kharaba land. The determination of the compensation is based on the

evidence on record. Hence, I do not find any justifiable reason to

interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence the appeals are

dismisssed.

9. Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

                                                              (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)




P P SALGAONKAR                                                                                         4 of 4