Bombay High Court
The Ex. Director And Ex. Engineer, ... vs Mangalbai Chandrashekhar ... on 13 June, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.2450 OF 2019 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7093 OF 2019
The Executive Director, And
The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project Division at Latur
Under the Statutory Corporation
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Aurangabad ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Mangalbai Chandrashekhar Halkude
Died, through L.Rs.
1-A) Mahesh Chandrashekhar @ Chandrappa Halkude
Age major, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Pangaon (Ramwadi), Tahasil Renapur,
District Latur.
1-B) Ushabai Vaijanathappa Chukewar,
Age major, Occu. Agriculturist
R/o as above.
1-C) Sanjivani Nagnath Nabade,
Age major, Occu. Agriculturist
R/o as above.
2. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Latur. ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Shri Anand Chawre, Advocate for appellant
Shri N.D. Kendre, Advocate for respondents No.1-A to 1-C
Shri A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondent No.2.
.......
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2022 00:07:33 :::
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 2 ::
FIRST APPEAL NO.2451 OF 2019 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7096 OF 2019
The Executive Director, And
The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project Division at Latur
Under the Statutory Corporation
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Aurangabad ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Pradeep Laxman Gite,
Age major, Occu. Agriculturist
R/o Pangaon (Ramwadi),
Tahasil Renapur, District Latur.
2. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Latur. ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Shri Anand Chawre, Advocate for appellant
Shri N.D. Kendre, Advocate for respondents No.1
Shri A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondent No.2.
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2452 OF 2019 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7098 OF 2019
The Executive Director, And
The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project Division at Latur
Under the Statutory Corporation
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Aurangabad ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Prasad Narayan Gite,
Age major, Occu. Agriculturist
R/o Pangaon (Ramwadi),
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2022 00:07:33 :::
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 3 ::
Tahasil Renapur, District Latur.
2. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Latur. ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Shri Anand Chawre, Advocate for appellant
Shri N.D. Kendre, Advocate for respondents No.1
Shri A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondent No.2.
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2453 OF 2019 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7100 OF 2019
The Executive Director, And
The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project Division at Latur
Under the Statutory Corporation
The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Aurangabad ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Mathurabai Narayan Gite,
Age major, Occu. Agriculturist
2. Sanjay Prasad Gitte,
Age major, Occu. Agriculturist
Both R/o Pangaon (Ramwadi),
Tahasil Renapur, District Latur.
2. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Latur. ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Shri Anand Chawre, Advocate for appellant
Shri N.D. Kendre, Advocate for respondents No.1
Shri A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondent No.2.
.......
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2022 00:07:33 :::
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 4 ::
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
Date of reserving judgment : 7th December, 2021
Date of pronouncing judgment : 13th June, 2022
JUDGMENT:
This group of four appeals is taken up for final
hearing at admission stage since common questions of facts
and law arise therein. The appeals have been preferred by
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd.
(G.M.I.D.C.), acquiring body, against a common judgment and
order dated 16/7/2016, passed by Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Latur in respective Land Acquisition References
(L.A.Rs.) particularly L.A.R. Nos.1072/2000, 259/2003,
198/2004 and 199/2004. The challenge herein is to grant of
enhancement in amount of compensation offered by Land
Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) for compulsory acquisition of
agricultural lands of the respective land owners/ respondents.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as
follows :
The agricultural lands specifically described in the
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 5 ::
impugned judgment and award were acquired for construction
of Renapur Medium Project, at village Pangaon, Taluka
Renapur, District Latur. Notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) was published on
1/12/1996. The L.A.O. offered the compensation at a rate of
Rs.920/- per R. Having been dissatisfied with the amount of
compensation offered by the L.A.O., the respective land
owners preferred the L.A.Rs. The learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, by his common judgment and order dated
16/7/2016, decided the 10 L.A.Rs. The judgment and order
passed in 4 of those 10 L.A.Rs. has been questioned in these
appeals by the acquiring body. The Reference Court enhanced
the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for unirrigated
land and granted a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre as
compensation for irrigated lands.
3. Shri Anand Chawre, learned counsel for the
appellants - acquiring body initially urged for admitting the
appeals. He then made submissions on merits of the matter.
According to him, the lands were unirrigated. There was no
evidence in proof of irrigation facility. The Reference Court
granted compensation considering the unirrigated lands as
irrigated one. The Reference Court has also blindly relied on
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 6 ::
judgment and award passed in L.A.R. No.195/2001. The sale
instances relied on by the respondents/ land owners had
special features. The sale price quoted in the said reference
was on very higher side. According to learned counsel, the
interest has also been awarded in breach of Full Bench
judgment of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457]. The learned
counsel, therefore, urged for allowing the appeals with
reducing the amount of compensation to one offered by the
L.A.O.
4. Shri N.D. Kendre, learned counsel for the
respondents - land owners would, on the other hand, submit
that, the Reference Court, after having considered the nature
of lands and source of irrigation thereto, granted adequate
compensation. According to him, the sale instance relied on
pertained to the land situated within the vicinity of the lands
acquired. The sale instance pertained to unirrigated land.
According to him, there are catena of authorities on the point
that compensation for irrigated land shall be double the rate
granted for unirrigated land. In support of his contentions,
the learned counsel relied on the following two authorities to
ultimately urge for dismissal of the appeals.
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 7 ::
(1) State of Maharashtra & anr. Vs. Baliram Girdhar Patil
[ 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 82 ]
(2) Special Land Acquisition Officer (III), Jalgaon & anr. Vs.
Bhagwat Vithal Sonwane [ 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 308 ]
5. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused
the evidence relied on. Gone through the impugned judgment
and award. The lands have been acquired for construction of
Renapur Medium Project. Notification under Section 4 was
published on 1/12/1996. Award was passed on 8/7/1999.
The details are as under :
Amount
Sr. Land Gut No. Amount
First Appeal enhanced by
& acquired offered by
No. No. Reference
area L.A.O. (Rs.)
Court (Rs.)
1 2450/2019 77 920/- per R 1,00,000/-
1 H 98 R per acre
2 2451/2019 145 920/- per R 2,00,000/-
98 R per acre
3 2452/2019 145 920/- per R 2,00,000/-
77 R per acre
4 2453/2019 135 920/- per R 2,00,000/-
2 H 42 R per acre
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 8 ::
6. Admittedly, the acquired lands were situated at
village Pangaon. Exh.25 is a sale instance dated 29/3/1996.
It pertained to the land situated at village Pangaon itself. The
said sale instance is very much relevant since the date of
execution thereof is nine months before the notification under
Section 4 came to be published. Under the said sale instance,
81 R land was sold for Rs.1,95,000/-. The land covered by
the sale instance was unirrigated one. Rate per R was little
over Rs.2400/-. The Reference Court rounded it off to
Rs.2500/- per R and granted compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/-
per acre for unirrigated land. The land belonging to
Mangalbai Halkude was unirrigated one. Its Gut Number was
77. She was, therefore, granted compensation @
Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.
7. The Reference Court found the lands belonging to
other respondents - land owns herein to be irrigated one.
The Reference Court, in paragraph No.17 of its judgment
observed, "The 7/12 extracts of the acquired lands of the
claimants Prasad, Pradeep and Mathurabai show that well and
tubewells were there in the lands acquired. It means, the
lands had water source. Cash crops like sugarcane, gram,
groundnut, toor, chilly, cotton and sunflower were being raised
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 9 ::
therein. Nothing contrary has been shown to disagree with
the observations made by the Reference Court in paragraph
No.17 of the impugned judgment. It is true that each case
has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. It is
also true that the compensation to be granted for irrigated
land need not necessarily be at a rate double the one granted
for unirrigated lands.
8. In case of Baliram Patil (supra), it has been
observed :-
"Market price of dry crop land and irrigated
land - If the market price of dry crop land is
worked out, for working out the market price of
irrigated land, in absence of any other evidence
on record, double the market rate of jirayat land
has to be awarded."
9. The Reference Court found some of the lands to
be irrigated one. These lands contained well, tube-well and
pipeline. Cash crops were being raised therein. For want of
contra evidence, the Reference Court was justified in granting
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for such lands. This
Court finds no reason to interfere with the quantum of
compensation granted by the Reference Court.
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 10 ::
10. It is not known as to whether appeals have been
preferred against judgment and awards passed in other
L.A.Rs. which were decided by the Reference Court vide
common judgment and award impugned herein. It appears
that, the lands comprised in those L.A.Rs. had fruit bearing
trees, structure etc. therein. This Court refrains itself from
making any observations whether the Reference Court was
justified in granting separate compensation as regards fruit
bearing trees etc. Needless to mention, appeals, if any,
preferred against the awards passed in those L.A.Rs. would
necessarily be decided on their own merits.
11. The Reference Court has directed to pay interest
on the amount of compensation from the date of publication
of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In view of this
Court, the same is in breach of the judgment of the Full Bench
in case of Kailash Rangari (supra). To that extent,
interference with the impugned award is, therefore, called for.
Interest is, therefore, directed to be paid from the date of
award. With the above observations, the appeals are
disposed in terms of the following orders :
First Appeal No.2450/2019 with
connected appeals
:: 11 ::
ORDER
(i) The First Appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) Clause (6) of the impugned award/s is modified as
under :
The respondents further do pay interest to the claimants
on the aforesaid enhanced compensation at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of award passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer for the first year i.e. 8/7/1999 to 7/7/2000
and at the rate of 15% per annum from subsequent year from
8/7/2000 till the date of payment of compensation.
(iii) Rest of the terms of the impugned award/s to stand
unaltered.
(iv) Amounts in deposit with this Court be paid to the
respective respondents/ land owners in terms of the modified
award/s.
(v) In view of disposal of First Appeals, Civil Applications
are disposed of.
( R. G. AVACHAT )
JUDGE
fmp/-
