Bombay High Court
Sitaram Venkatrao Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr ... on 2 May, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat
First Appeal No.2036/2021 with
F.A. No.2037 & 2038/2021
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.2036 OF 2021
Pandharinath s/o Laxuman Jadhav
Age years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Bhaswadi, Tq. Mukhed,
District Nanded ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through District Collector,
Nanded
2. The Executive Engineer,
Vishnupuri Prakalp,
Division No.1, Nanded
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
M.I.W., Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Shri S.N. Patil, Advocate holding for
Shri K.B. Jadhv and Shri A.B. Shinde, Advocates for appellant
Shri B.V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 & 2
Mrs. S.D. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2037 OF 2021
1) Digambar Kisan Khandagale,
Age 73 years, Occ. Labour
2) Kisan Manikrao Khandagale,
Died, through L.R.
Digambar Kisan Khandagale,
Age 73 years, Occu. Labour.
R/o Bhaswadi, Tq. Mukhed,
District Nanded ... APPELLANT
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2022 00:15:51 :::
First Appeal No.2036/2021 with
F.A. No.2037 & 2038/2021
:: 2 ::
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through District Collector,
Nanded
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
M.I.W., Nanded.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Vishnupuri Prakalp,
Division No.1, Nanded
Tq. & Dist. Nanded ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Shri S.N. Patil, Advocate for appellant
Shri A.M. Phule, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 & 2
Mrs. S.D. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3
.......
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.2038 OF 2021
Sitaram s/o Venkatrao Jadhav,
Age 73 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o Bhaswadi, Tq. Mukhed,
District Nanded ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through District Collector,
Nanded
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
M.I.W., Nanded.
3. The Executive Engineer,
M.I.W. Division, Nanded
Tq. & Dist. Nanded ... RESPONDENTS
.......
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2022 00:15:51 :::
First Appeal No.2036/2021 with
F.A. No.2037 & 2038/2021
:: 3 ::
Shri S.N. Patil, Advocate for appellant
Shri S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 & 2
Mrs. S.D. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3
.......
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
Date of reserving judgment : 5th October, 2021
Date of pronouncing judgment : 2nd May, 2022
JUDGMENT:
This group of three appeals preferred under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is decided by this
common judgment since common questions of facts and law
arise therein.
2. The appellants in all the three appeals are the
original land owners. Their lands, particularly described in
their respective Land Acquisition Reference/s (L.A.Rs.) were
acquired for construction of water storage of "Lendi Major
Project". Having not been satisfied with the amount of
compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.),
the appellants herein preferred respective L.A.Rs. The
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kandhar, vide his
judgment and order dated 27/2/2018, passed in respective
L.A.Rs., granted 30% enhancement in the amount of
First Appeal No.2036/2021 with
F.A. No.2037 & 2038/2021
:: 4 ::
compensation offered by the L.A.O. feeling to have not been
granted adequate enhancement in the amount of
compensation, the present appeals have been preferred.
3. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that, some of the lands acquired were irrigated. Their
7/12 extracts indicate existence of well in the acquired lands.
A sale instance dated 21/1/1998 was relied on before the
Reference Court. 81 R land was sold for Rs.1,20,000/- under
the sale instance. Since the lands acquired were irrigated
one, the appellants were entitled for grant of compensation at
a rate of Rs.4 Lakhs per acre. Three more sale instance have
been placed on record of this Court. The learned counsel
would further submit that, the land valuer/ expert had paid
visit to the lands. He has valued the land and submitted his
valuation report/s. The Reference Court ought to have relied
on the valuer's report for grant of compensate in terms
therewith. The learned counsel, therefore, urged for allowing
the appeals with grant of compensation @ Rs.4 Lakhs per
acre.
4. The learned A.G.P. and learned counsel for the
acquiring body would, on the other hand, submit that, the
amount of compensation offered by the L.A.O. was as per the
First Appeal No.2036/2021 with
F.A. No.2037 & 2038/2021
:: 5 ::
then prevalent market value of the lands acquired. The
Reference Court should not have enhanced the same.
According to learned counsel, the sale instance relied on was
from the other village. The same, therefore, could not be
termed to be a comparable sale instance. The lands acquired
were unirrigated. Both the learned counsels, therefore, urged
for dismissal of the appeals.
5. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused
the evidence relied on. Admittedly, the lands belonging to the
appellants were acquired for "Lendi Major project. Notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition act was published way
back on 17/9/1997. The award has been passed on
30/3/2003. The details of the lands acquired with the amount
of compensation offered by the L.A.O. and enhanced by the
Reference Court are given below :-
Sr. First Appeal No. Land Gut/ Compensatio Compensation
No. Survey/Gut No. n offered by enhanced by
the LAO Reference Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
1 2036/2021 S.No.136, 2,31,741/- 69,022/-
1 H 54 R &
Gut No.64
76 R
2 2037/2021 Gut No.191/1 4,82,307/- 76,524/-
37 R
Gut No.21
First Appeal No.2036/2021 with
F.A. No.2037 & 2038/2021
:: 6 ::
2R
Gut No.187/4
1 H 50 R
Gut No.187/1
1 H 84 R
3 2038/2021 Gut No.60, 5,44,731/- 86,392/-
2 H 93 R
6. Before the Reference Court, the respective land
owners/ appellants gave their oral evidence. It appears that,
the learned A.G.P. remained absent to cross-examine them.
As such, their oral evidence went unchallenged. For the sake
of convenience, the evidence in L.A.R. No.250/2007 is
referred to. A sale instance (Exh.24) was relied on. It was a
sale deed dated 21/1/1998 in respect of sale of 81 R land for
Rs.1,20,000/-. The land has been described therein as
unirrigated. According to learned counsel for the appellants,
compensation for irrigated land ought to have at least been
double i.e. Rs.2,40,000/- for 2 acres of land.
Before this Court, 3 more sale instances namely
two sale deeds dated 19/4/1997 in respect of 11 R land
bearing Survey No.82, situated at village Bhaswadi; sale deed
dated dated 6/10/1997 in respect of 1 H 22 R land bearing
Survey No.25/2, situated at village Bhatapur and sale deed
dated 21/5/1998, in respect of 28 R land bearing Survey
First Appeal No.2036/2021 with
F.A. No.2037 & 2038/2021
:: 7 ::
No.28, situated at village Itgyal were relied on. This Court is
not inclined to refer to these sale instances mainly on the
ground that those were not produced before the Reference
Court. No permission of this Court was obtained for leading
additional evidence in appeal. Under first two sale instances,
only 11 R land was sold for Rs.22,500/-. These sale deeds
cannot be termed to be comparable sale instances. Same is
the case about the fourth sale instance. As regards the report
submitted by the valuer is concerned, the same is stated to be
rejected by mere look at it. True, the expert was examined as
a witness before the Reference Court. He claimed to be an
approved valuer. The record indicates that, he gave his report
in January 2005 in respect of the valuation made by him way
back in August 1998. As such, the valuer gave his report 7
years after he paid visit to the lands for assessment of the
valuation. It is not known as to why the valuer did not give
his report soon after he valued the land. The valuation
report, therefore, loses its efficacy and is deemed to have no
evidentiary value at all.
7. The lands acquired were situated at Bhaswadi,
Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded, whereas the sale exemplar
(Ex.24) pertained to the land situated at village Mukramabad.
First Appeal No.2036/2021 with
F.A. No.2037 & 2038/2021
:: 8 ::
It is not the case of any of the appellants that no sale
exemplar from village Bhaswadi was available for being relied
on. Moreover, the said exemplar (Exh.24) is dated
21/1/1998. Admittedly, notification under Section 4 of the Act
was published in September 1997. As such, the sale
exemplar is post publication of notification under Section 4 of
the Act. The Reference Court has, therefore, rightly discarded
the said exemplar. This Court also ignores the same.
8. This Court, however, finds that, the amount of
compensation offered by the LAO was not adequate one.
Only 30% enhancement therein granted by this Court is also
found to be inadequate. This Court is, therefore, inclined to
enhance the amount of compensation from 30% to 70%.
9. In view of the above, the appeals are partly
allowed. Hence the order :-
ORDER
(i) The appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The amount of compensation granted by the Reference
Court is enhanced from 30% to 70%.
(iii) Rest of the terms of the impugned award to stand
First Appeal No.2036/2021 with
F.A. No.2037 & 2038/2021
:: 9 ::
unaltered, provided the interest shall be awarded from the
date of the award.
(iv) There is delay in preferring the present appeals. The
appellants, therefore, shall not be entitled for component of
interest or any other monetary benefit for the period from the
date of impugned awards to the date of registration of these
appeals.
( R. G. AVACHAT )
JUDGE
fmp/-
