Bombay High Court
Guribai W/O Ganga Rathod vs State Of Mah. Thr. Collector, Yavatmal ... on 22 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:1135
209A.fa.799.2008 judge.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.799 OF 2008
Guribai W/o. Gangu Rathod,
Aged about 66 Yrs., Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o. Joginkawada, Tq. Kelapur,
District- Yavatmal (Deceased) .... APPELLANT
through LR's
Fulsing S/o. Gangu Rathod,
Aged about 61 Yrs., Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o. Joginkawada, Tq. Kelapur,
District- Yavatmal
// 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr A. R. Chavhan, Advocate for the appellant
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
209A.fa.799.2008 judge.odt
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Heard finally with the consent of learned
Advocates for the parties.
2 In this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and
order dated 23.04.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Pandharkawda, Kelapur (for short 'the
reference Court'), whereby the reference filed by the appellant/
claimant was partly allowed. The compensation was enhanced
from Rs.18,000/- per hector to Rs.55,000/- per hector, along
with other consequential benefits.
3 Background facts:
The land of the appellant/claimant bearing Gat
No. 82, area 0.38 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
209A.fa.799.2008 judge.odt
acquisition officer determined the compensation @ of
Rs.18,000/- per hector. In the reference filed it was enhanced,
as stated above. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that her
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 appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by
the judgment and order dated 23.04.2007 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawda, Kelapur,
has filed this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the
appellant/claimant died and her legal representative was
brought on record.
4 I have heard learned Advocate Mr A. R. Chavhan
for the appellant/claimant, learned AGP Mr Ganesh Umale for
respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr T. U. Tathod for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
209A.fa.799.2008 judge.odt
5 Learned Advocate for the appellant/claimant
submitted that the learned reference Court, for the purpose of
determining the market price, has taken the judgment at Exh.
21 rendered in Land Acquisition Case No. 18 of 1996 into
consideration. Learned Advocate pointed out that vide
Judgment at Exh. 21 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.55,000/- per hector by considering
irrelevant factors. Learned Advocate submitted that the land
which was subject matter of reference at Exh. 21 was similarly
situated in all respects. Learned Advocate pointed out that the
land of the appellant/claimant and the land which is the
subject matter of the judgment at Exh. 21 were adjacent to
209A.fa.799.2008 judge.odt
each other. Learned Advocate submitted that the
compensation per hector paid in respect of land which is
subject matter of Exh. 21 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. 21 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
Rs.80,000/- arrived at on the basis of the judgment at Exh. 21.
7 I have gone through the record and proceedings. It
209A.fa.799.2008 judge.odt
is undisputed that the land which is the subject matter of
judgment at Exh. 21 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. 21, the learned
reference Court has observed that the land which was the
subject matter of Exh. 21 had NA potential. I have perused
the evidence of the appellant/claimant. 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.
8 The appellant/claimant, in her evidence, has
deposed about the quality and fertility of the land. The 7/12
extract placed on record indicates the crop pattern. It is
209A.fa.799.2008 judge.odt
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. 21.
9 The land was compulsorily acquired. The land
owner has been permanently deprived of her land. In order to
compensate her, 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 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
209A.fa.799.2008 judge.odt
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
appellant/claimant. Therefore, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) First Appeal is accordingly allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order dated 23.04.2007 passed
by the reference Court stands modified.
(iii) The respondents are directed to pay to the
appellant compensation @ of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs. Eighty
Thousand only) per hector with other consequential benefits,
209A.fa.799.2008 judge.odt
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 appellant is required to pay the deficit Court
fee on the enhanced amount of compensation. If the deficit
Court fee is not paid by the appellant then the same shall be
recovered/deducted from the enhanced compensation amount.
(vi) Decree be drawn up accordingly.
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: 30/01/2024 14:50:27
