Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Bansi Rathod And 4 Others vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Collector, ... on 22 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:1107
209B.fa.978.2008 judge.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.978 OF 2008
1. Sanjay S/o. Bansi Rathod,
Aged about 25 Yrs., Occu.: Agriculturist,
2. Suman W/o. Namdeo Rathod,
Aged about 33 Yrs.,
3. Saraswati W/o. Premsingh Jadhao,
Aged about 31 Yrs.,
4. Dhurpada W/o. Wasudeo Ade,
Aged about 29 Yrs.,
5. Nirmala W/o. Raju Jadhao,
Aged about 27 Yrs.,
All Nos. 1 to 5 by Occupation
Agriculturist and residents of
Joginkawada, Tq. Kelapur,
District- Yavatmal (Deceased)
through LR's .... APPELLANTS
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
represented by the Collector,
Yavatmal
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Road Project, Zilla Parishad,
Yavatmal
3. The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division, Zilla Parishad, ... RESPONDENTS
Yavatmal.
209B.fa.978.2008 judge.odt
2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Mr A. R. Chavhan, Advocate for the appellants
Mr Ganesh Umale, AGP for respondent No.1/State
Mr T. U. Tathod, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : 22/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Learned Advocate Mr T. U. Tathod waives service of
notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2 In this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and
order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Pandharkawda, Kelapur (for short 'the
reference Court'), whereby the reference filed by the appellants
was partly allowed. The compensation was enhanced from
Rs.14,500/- per hector to Rs.50,000/- per hector, along with
other consequential benefits.
209B.fa.978.2008 judge.odt
3 Background facts:
The land of the appellants bearing Gat No. 79,
area 4.18 hectors, was acquired for the purpose of the
Joginkawada Percolation Tank. Notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act of 1894) was published on 24.04.1997. The land
acquisition officer determined the compensation @ of
Rs.14,500/- per hector. In the reference filed it was enhanced,
as stated above. It is the case of the appellants that their land
was of good quality and fertile land. The compensation
awarded was not just, proper and reasonable. It is stated that
the land acquisition officer did not take into consideration the
relevant factors. The appellants, being aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the learned
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawda, Kelapur, have
filed this appeal.
4 I have heard learned Advocate Mr A. R. Chavhan
209B.fa.978.2008 judge.odt
for the appellants, learned AGP Mr Ganesh Umale for
respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr T. U. Tathod for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
5 Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that
the learned reference Court, for the purpose of determining
the market price, has taken the judgment at Exh. 30 rendered
in Land Acquisition Case No. 18 of 1996 into consideration.
Learned Advocate pointed out that vide Judgment at Exh. 30
the compensation was awarded @ of Rs.50,000/- per hector.
It is pointed out that considering the time gap, the reference
Court by considering 10 % rise per year in the market value,
recorded finding that the market price would be Rs.80,000/-
per hector. Learned Advocate submitted that this
compensation arrived at Rs.80,000/- per hector was reduced to
Rs.50,000/- per hector by considering irrelevant factors.
Learned Advocate submitted that the land which was subject
matter of reference at Exh. 30 was similarly situated in all
209B.fa.978.2008 judge.odt
respects. Learned Advocate pointed out that the land of the
appellants and the land which is the subject matter of the
judgment at Exh.30 were adjacent to each other. Learned
Advocate submitted that the compensation per hector paid in
respect of land which is subject matter of Exh. 30 ought to
have been made the basis, with appropriate yearly increase i.e.
10%, for the purpose of determining the market price of the
land in this case.
6 Learned Advocate for the main contesting
respondents i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the
learned reference Court has taken into consideration that the
land was dry crop land. Learned Advocate pointed out that the
reference Court has categorically observed that the land which
was the subject matter of the judgment at Exh.30 was near to
village Gaothan. Learned Advocate further pointed out that for
want of the concrete evidence as to the quality and fertility of
the land appropriate deduction was made from the amount of
209B.fa.978.2008 judge.odt
Rs.80,000/- arrived at on the basis of the judgment at Exh. 30.
7 I have gone through the record and proceedings. It
is undisputed that the land which is the subject matter of
judgment at Exh. 30 was situated at village Jira, whereas the
subject land of this appeal was situated at village Joginkawda. It
is undisputed that the lands were adjoining to each other. It
was observed by the learned reference Court that there was
hardly a distance of 2-3 fields between the two lands. While
making the deduction from the market price of Rs.80,000/-,
arrived at on the basis of judgment Exh.30, learned reference
Court has observed that the land which was the subject matter
of Exh. 30 had NA potential. I have perused the evidence of
the appellants. Though the lands were situated at two different
villages, it appears that the lands were adjacent to each other.
There was hardly a distance of 2-3 fields between the two
lands.
209B.fa.978.2008 judge.odt
deposed about the quality and fertility of the land. The 7/12
extract placed on record indicates the crop pattern. It is
suggestive of the fact that the land was fertile and good quality
land. In my view, in this case, on the basis of the distance of 2-
3 fields between the two lands, the learned reference Court
was not right in making a deduction from the market price of
Rs.80,000/- of the land, arrived at on the basis of the judgment
at Exh.30.
9 The land was compulsorily acquired. The land
owners have been permanently deprived of their land. In
order to compensate them, the amount has been paid. The
price of the land was determined, as on the date of Section 4
notification, keeping in mind the various factors. In my view,
while deciding such matters, the available evidence is required
to be appreciated carefully. While determining the market
price of the land, some guess work would be required to be
209B.fa.978.2008 judge.odt
made. Guess work which is detrimental to the interests of the
farmers, in such a case, has to be avoided. Any guess work
which is detrimental to the interest of the farmers cannot be
sustained. In such a situation, the Court is required to record
concrete findings on the basis of the cogent material. In this
case, in my view, considering the distance between the two
lands, the learned reference Court was not justified in making
deduction from the market price of the land, which is arrived
at Rs.80,000/- per hector. In this appeal, in my view, the
material on record is sufficient to grant the compensation @ of
Rs.80,000/- per hector in respect of the land of the appellants.
Therefore, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) First Appeal is accordingly allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order dated 24.04.2007 passed
by the reference Court stands modified.
209B.fa.978.2008 judge.odt
(iii) The respondents are directed to pay to the
appellants compensation @ of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs. Eighty
Thousand only) per hector with other consequential benefits,
as awarded by the learned reference Court.
(iv) The respondents are directed to deposit the
amount of compensation within six months with the Registry
of this Court. If any amount, pursuant to the judgment of the
reference Court, is deposited, then the balance amount be
deposited with the Registry of this Court.
(v) The appellants are required to pay the deficit
Court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation. If the
deficit Court fee is not paid by the appellants then the same
shall be recovered/deducted from the enhanced compensation
amount.
(vi) Decree be drawn up accordingly.
209B.fa.978.2008 judge.odt
10 The first appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Namrata
Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/01/2024 18:32:13
