The State Of Maharashtra vs Sau Godabai W/O Sidraya Patil
2022 Latest Caselaw 7309 Bom

                                                               918 fa 153 of 94 and 154-94.doc


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 153 OF 1994

             The State of Maharashtra                       ..Appellant/Applicant.
                             v/s.

             Dhonappa Pama Koli & Ors.                            ..Respondents

                                              WITH
                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 155 OF 1994

             The State of Maharashtra                       ..Appellant/Applicant.
                             v/s.

             Sau Godabai w/o. Sidraya Patil.                            ..Respondents

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

                                          CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 28th JULY, 2022.

P.C.

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 13.08.1992

in LAR No. 118 of 1990 and LAR No.120 of 1990. By the impugned

judgment, the Reference Court partly allowed the reference under

Section 18 filed by the Respondent Claimants, and enhanced the

compensation to Rs.15,000/- per hectare.

2. The records reveal that the land of the Respondent was acquired

by the Government for the purpose of canal. Notification under Section

4 was published on 8.11.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer Awarded

P P SALGAONKAR 1 of 3 918 fa 153 of 94 and 154-94.doc

total compensation of Rs.4508/- in respect of land admeasuring 53 R

from Gat No.66 (subject matter of LAR 118 of 1990 in First Appeal 153

of 1994), and compensation of Rs.2415/- in repsect of land admeasuring

41R from Gate No.108 (subject matter of LAR 120 of 1999 in First

Appeal No.155 of 1994). Being aggrieved by the compensation, the

Respondent-claimants made a reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act.

3. The Reference Court, after considering the evidence on record has

enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per hectare.

Accordingly, the Reference Court awarded total compensation of

Rs.8150/- to the respondent-claimant in First Appeal No.153 of 1994

and Rs.6150/- to the respondent-claimant in First Appeal No. 155 of

1994. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the State has

preferred these appeals.

4. I have perused the records and considered the submissions

advanced by the learned AGP for the State. The records reveal that the

land of the Respondent-claimant was acquired for the purpose of canal.

The respondent-claimant had claimed that the compensation awarded by

the Land Acquisition Officer was far below the market rate of the

acquired land as on the date of Section 4 notification. The records

reveal that the Claimants had relied upon several sale instances. The

Reference Court held that the acquired land was unirrigated land and

hence did not rely upon the sale instances at Exhibit 16 to 18 and 39 to

P P SALGAONKAR 2 of 3 918 fa 153 of 94 and 154-94.doc

40. The Reference Court has observed that the Land Acquisition

Officer had relied upon the sale instances of the year 1981. Though

Section 4 notification was published on 8.11.1984, the Reference Court

has relied upon the sale instances at Exhibit 19 which was in respect of

unirrigated land forming part of Gat No.66, part of which was acquired

for the same purpose, which was also acquired for percolation tank. The

Reference Court has observed that the land which is the subject matter

of the sale instance is in the close vicinity of the acquired land and relied

upon the sale instances. The Reference Court had determined the

market rate at Rs.30,000/- per hectare. After deducting the amount

awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Appellant State is liable to

pay Rs.3641/- to the respondent claimant in First Appeal No.153 of 1994

and Rs.3699/- to the Respondent in First Appeal No. 155 of 1994, with

interest and other statutory benefits. The amount enhanced is very

meagre. Moreover, the determination of the market rate is based on the

sale instances.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined

to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence both the appeals stand

dismissed.

                                                         (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)




P P SALGAONKAR                                                                              3 of 3