Bombay High Court
Shivaji Manikrao Malode And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 25 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:1973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1510 OF 2018
1. Shivaji s/o Manikrao Malode
2. Vishnu s/o Manikrao Malode
3. Smt. Chaturabai Manikrao Malode (Deceased)
Through LR's
3-A. Ashok Manikrao Malode
3-B. Laxmibai Vishnu Vankhede
3-C. Shivaji Manikrao Malode
3-D. Vishnu Manikrao Malode
3-E. Hirabai Tejrao Pawar ... APPELLANTS
(Ori. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Krushna Khore Vikas Mahamandal
Collector Office, Aurangabad
2. The Executive Engineer
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector), Aurangabad
3. The Collector,
Collectorate, Aurangabad ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. N. J. Pahune Patil, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. S. V. Hange, AGP for the respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2024
P.C. :-
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and award dated
02/05/2016 passed in LAR No. 74/2013 by Jt. CJSD, Aurangabad.
964.fa1510.18.odt 1 of 5
2. Parties are referred to as claimants and respondents for sake of
convenience.
3. The facts which led to the filing of the appeal can be narrated in
short as under:
(i) Claimants owned land bearing Gut No. 206 at village
Malodechiwadi (Pal), Tq. Phulabri, Dist. Aurangabad admeasuring 4H
31R. Respondents /State had issued notice under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act which was published in the village on 12/05/1998 and the
same was considered as validation date by SLAO. SLAO declared the final
award in Land Acquisition File NO. AR-86/98 awarding compensation at
the rate of Rs.560/- per R. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
award the Land Reference No. 74/2013 came to be filed. Reference Court
by passing impugned judgment and award directed compensation of
Rs.3,150/- per R to the claimants with 30% solatium and interest.
ii) This appeal is filed by claimants with specific contention that
admittedly the land acquired had a well. It is their further case that once
well exists in the land if becomes perennially irrigated land. The
objection is raised to the impugned judgment and award on the ground
that by ignoring the said fact the reference Court has treated the said
land as non irrigated land an has decided the compensation at the rate of
964.fa1510.18.odt 2 of 5
3,150/- per R.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on the award
passed by the SLAO wherein the valuation of land is determined of non
irrigated land and treating this as base value, semi irrigated land is
valued at one and half times and irrigated land double of the said
valuation. Thus, it is his contention that this Court is not required to go
into any other evidence in order to decide the issue of enhancement of
the compensation. It is his further submission that the impugned
judgment and award has not been challenged by the respondents and as
such the findings recorded by the reference Court with regard to the
existence of the well which was acquired and compensation was paid to
that extent cannot be interfered with now. He relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chindha Fakira Patil (Dead) Through
LR's Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, (2011) 10 Supreme
Court Cases 787.
5. Learned AGP sought to oppose the appeal with the contention that
mere existence of the well will not be sufficient to treat the land as
perennially irrigated land and in absence of any other evidence led by
claimants the land cannot be treated so.
964.fa1510.18.odt 3 of 5
6. Admittedly, the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court in LAR No. 74/2013 has not been challenged by the
respondents. As far as claimants are concerned, the same is challenged
only to the extent of the determination of value of the land which
according to the claimants is perennially irrigated land. Hence, except for
the dispute about the valuation of the land rest of the findings recorded
by the Reference Court stand confirmed for want of challenge.
7. There is no dispute about the fact a well existed in Gut No. 206.
The same can be ascertained even from the award passed by SLAO as
well as the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. In
absence of any other evidence to show that a well in question did not
have water for all through out the year, it cannot be held that it is not
the perennially irrigated land. Admittedly, no such evidence is brought on
record by respondents.
8. In the present case, from the award passed by SLAO it is clear that
the mode of valuation of the land adopted by SLAO shows that valuation
is determined only in respect of dry land and the valuation of the
irrigated land is determined by adopting appropriate multiplier. Once the
Court comes to the conclusion that it is perennially irrigated land even as
per the the award passed by the SLAO the valuation of the irrigated land
964.fa1510.18.odt 4 of 5
shall be double to the dry land. The reference Court has held that the
land acquired of the claimants is non irrigated land and hence the
valuation was held at the rate of Rs.3,150/-. The said finding recorded by
the reference Court is not consistent with the material evidence on
record.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chindha Fakira Patil (cited supra)
has granted double of the compensation to the irrigated land as
compared to dry land. As such it is held that the land acquired of the
claimants is perennially irrigated land and by following the mode adopted
for the valuation by the SLAO the claimants are entitled for double of the
amount determined by the Reference Court. Thus, the claimants would
be entitled for compensation on valuation of land @ of Rs.6300/- per R.
10. In the result impugned award stands modified in following terms:-
(i) The claimants would be entitled to receive
compensation @ Rs.6,300/- per R.
(ii) Rest of the award remains unchanged.
(iii) Appeal stands allowed in above terms.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
964.fa1510.18.odt 5 of 5
