Bombay High Court

Baliram S/O. Yamaji Pawar And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 5 January, 2024

Author: G. A. Sanap

Bench: G. A. Sanap

2024:BHC-NAG:652

                                             202 F.A. No.379.98.jud. Ingole Adv. final.odt
                                                                       1/10



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 379 OF 1998

                     APPELLANTS                     : 1. Baliram s/o Yamaji Pawar,
                     ( On R.A.)                          aged about 30 years,
                                                         Occupation : Agriculturist,
                                                         R/o Mokh, Tq. Digras, Dist.
                                                         Yavatmal
                     Amendment carried out as per     2. Mersing Kasannya Pawar (Dead)
                     Courts order dated
                     05.01.2024.                         through legal heirs,
                                                      i. Smt. Najibai wd/o Mersing Pawar,
                                                         Aged about 85 years, Occ.: Labour,
                                                         R/o. Sakhara Tq. Digras,
                                                         District : Yavatmal.
                                                      ii. Suresh s/o Mersing Pawar,
                                                          aged about 55 year, Occ.: Labour,
                                                          R/o. Mangkinhi Tq. Darwha,
                                                          District :Yavatmal
                                                      iii Prem s/o Mersing Pawar,
                                                          aged about 48 years, Occ.: Labour
                                                          R/o Sakhara Tq. Digras,
                                                          District : Yavatmal
                                                                 //VERSUS//

                     RESPONDENT                     : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
                     (On R.A.)                           through Collector, Yavatmal
                                                      2. The Collector, Yavatmal.
                                                      3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                                                         Benefitted Zone, (Arunawati Project,
                                                         Digras) District : Yavatmal
                             202 F.A. No.379.98.jud. Ingole Adv. final.odt
                                                      2/10



      Amendment carried out as      4. The Executive Engineer,
      per Courts order dated
      17.04.2023.                      Arunavati Project Digras,
                                       Tq. Digras, District - Yavatmal
**********************************************************
         Shri S.V. Ingole, Advocate for appellants.
         Shri K.R. Lule, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
         Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for respondent No.4.
**********************************************************

CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : 5th JANUARY, 2024


ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates

for the parties.

2. In this appeal, the challenge is to the judgement and

decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division

Pusad, dated 14.10.1997, whereby the reference filed by

claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation was

partly allowed and the compensation was enhanced from Rs.

9,600 (Rs. Nine Thousand Six Hundred Only) per hectare to

Rs. 15,000 (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) per hectare in respect 202 F.A. No.379.98.jud. Ingole Adv. final.odt

of acquired land, i.e., Survey No. 36/2 of village Mokh, Tq.

Digras, District Yavatmal.

3. Background facts:

The agricultural land bearing Survey No. 36/2

measuring 3-H.95-R was acquired for the resettlement of

project-affected persons. The notification under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on February 13,

1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short,

"S.L.A.O.") passed the award on December 3, 1987, and

awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,600 per hectare.

Being dissatisfied with this compensation, a reference was

filed. The reference court enhanced compensation, as stated

above. Being aggrieved by this partial enhancement, the

present appeal has been filed.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that

this appeal has been covered by the decision rendered by the 202 F.A. No.379.98.jud. Ingole Adv. final.odt

Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 348/2003

(Deosing s/o Gobra Rathod (dead) through his legal heirs vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) decided on October 17,

2018. Learned Advocate submitted that the land that was the

subject matter of First Appeal No. 348/2003 and the land of

the appellants were similarly situated in all respects, and

therefore, the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.

6,50,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) per hectare

in First Appeal No. 348/2003 needs to be awarded in the case

of the land of the appellants.

5. Learned Advocate pointed out that the decision in

First Appeal No. 348/2003 is based on the judgement of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5146/2011 and

5147/2011 dated April 11, 2018. Learned Advocate

submitted that, relying on the decision rendered in First

Appeal No. 379/1995, First Appeal No. 173/1998 filed by

Mer Sing was dismissed. Learned Advocate submitted that the 202 F.A. No.379.98.jud. Ingole Adv. final.odt

appellant, Baliram s/o Gobra Rathod (Banjari), in First Appeal

No. 120/1996, had challenged the judgement and order dated

August 22, 2007 rendered by the Division Bench in the

Supreme Court. It is pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court set aside the judgement and enhanced the

compensation as above. Learned Advocate submitted that the

appellants are therefore entitled to get compensation awarded

by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.

348/2003 (Deosing s/o Gobra Rathod (Dead) through his

legal heirs vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.).

6. Learned Advocate Mr. M.A. Kadu for respondent No.

4 submitted that the land in First Appeal No. 173/1998, i.e.,

the appeal filed by Mer Sing Pawar, and the land in this appeal

were similarly situated, and therefore, in view of the

judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated August

22, 2007, in First Appeal No. 173/1998, these appellants are

not entitled to get the compensation by relying upon the 202 F.A. No.379.98.jud. Ingole Adv. final.odt

decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal

No.348/2003.

7. Learned Advocate Mr. Kadu submitted that map,

which is part of the award, clearly indicates that the land in

this appeal was situated far away from the land that was a

subject matter in First Appeal No. 348/2003. Learned

Advocate submitted that the lands therefore, could not be said

to be similarly situated. It is submitted that the appellants are

not entitled to receive compensation at the rate awarded in

First Appeal No. 348/2003. It is also pointed out that the

awards in both cases are different.

8. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have

gone through the record and proceedings. It is undisputed

that the land, which was the subject matter of the decision

rendered by the Honble Supreme Court, was Survey No.

126/1-B. The lands are situated in the same village. The 202 F.A. No.379.98.jud. Ingole Adv. final.odt

owner of the land in First Appeal No. 120/1996 was

examined as witness No. 2 by this appellant. In his evidence,

he has stated that the distance between his land, i.e., 126/1-B,

and the land in this appeal is 0.5 k.m. (half k.m.). He has

further stated that both of these lands are similarly situated in

all respects. In respect of the land of Baliram, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the judgement of the

Division Bench and was pleased to award the compensation at

the rate of Rs. 6,50,000 per hectare. The question is whether

the appellants in this appeal can be denied compensation on

the basis of decision in First Appeal No. 348/2003 by placing

reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of

this Court in First Appeal No. 173/1998.

9. In my view, the landholder who has lost his land on

account of acquisition cannot be denied the benefit of the

judgment and order rendered by any court in respect of the

land situated in close proximity. It has come on record that the 202 F.A. No.379.98.jud. Ingole Adv. final.odt

land of the appellants was hardly at a distance of half a

kilometre from the land in First Appeal No. 120/1996. The

Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 348/2003

has taken all these facts into consideration and enhanced the

compensation.

10. In my view, since the judgement rendered by the

Division Bench in First Appeal No.120/1996 was set aside by

the Supreme Court and the fact that appellant in the First

Appeal No.173/1998 had not challenged the decision

rendered by the Division Bench, in this appeal the appellant

could not be denied the benefit of the decision rendered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the decision rendered

by the Coordinate Bench of this Court relying upon the

decision of the Supreme Court.

11. In my view, therefore, the appellants would be

entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,50,000 per 202 F.A. No.379.98.jud. Ingole Adv. final.odt

hectare in respect of the acquired land.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

13. The impugned Judgment and decree passed by the

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad dated 14.10.1997

in L.A.C. No.250/1992 is modified as under:-

i) The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- per

hectare to Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand

Only) per hectare in respect of the land, which is the subject

matter of this appeal, with all other consequential benefits.

14. Respondents are directed to deposit the amount of

compensation in terms of this order within six months from

today in this Court.

15. It is made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled

to get interest on the awarded compensation for the period 202 F.A. No.379.98.jud. Ingole Adv. final.odt

from 09/12/2010 to 17/04/2023, which is the delayed period

for filing an appeal.

16. The appellants/claimants are required to pay the deficit

Courts fee on the enhanced amount of compensation. If the

deficit Courts fee is not paid by the appellants/claimants, then

the same shall be recovered/deducted from the enhanced

compensation amount.