Bombay High Court
The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation ... vs Hariba Devrao Mane And Ors on 7 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:10242
1 FA713.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 713 OF 2019
1. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division,
Dist. Osmanabad,
Through;
Mohan s/o Baliram Kade,
Age : 47 years, Occ: Service as
Sub-Divisional Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...Appellant
[Orig. Resp. No. 2]
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through; The Collector at Osmanabad,
For Special Land Acquisition Officer [PT & MI] No. 1,
Osmanabad. ...Appellant
[Orig.Resp. No.1]
Versus
1. Hariba Devrao Mane,
Deceased through His LRs.
1A] Narayan s/o Hariba Mane,
(Respondent no. 2 herein)
1B] Vinayak s/o Hariba Mane,
(Respondent no. 3 herein)
2. Narayan Hariba Mane,
Age : Adult, Occ : Agriculture,
3. Vinayak Hariba Mane,
Age : Adult, Occu: Agriculture,
4. Ram s/o Hariba Mane,
Died through his LRs.,
4-A] Kalavati w/o Ram Mane,
Age : 65 years, Occu: Agriculture
4-B] Bhagwat s/o Ram Mane,
Age : 46 years, Occu: Agriculture,
2 FA713.2019.odt
4-C] Hanumant s/o Ram Mane,
Age : 40 years, Occu: Agriculture
4-D] Laxman s/o Ram Mane,
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agriculture,
4-E] Krushna s/o Ram Mane,
Age : 31 years, Occu: Agriculture,
All R/o. Khamaswadi,
Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad. ...Respondents
.......
Mr. Shyam C. Arora - Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. Amol T. Jagtap - Advocate for Respondents
.......
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
RESERVED ON : 25.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.04.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. This Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 [hereinafter referred to as "the LA Act"], is filed by the Acquiring
Body and the State against the Judgment and Award dated 20.02.2013,
passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad
[hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court'], in Land Acquisition
Reference No. 23 of 2006. The operative order of the said Judgment
reads as under : -
"ORDER
1. The references are partly allowed.
2. The respondents shall pay the claimants in all the LAR
enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 73,750/- per
acre for their acquired seasonally land along with all
statutory benefits. The amount of compensation which
is already withdrawn by the claimants under protest be
deducted by the enhanced amount of compensation.
3 FA713.2019.odt
3. The respondents shall also pay to all the claimants
Solatium at the rate of 30% on the above additional
market price.
4. The respondents shall also pay to the claimant interest at
the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date
of notification under section 4 of the Act i.e. From
11.9.1994 and at the rate of 15% per annum for the
subsequent years till realization of the entire amount.
5. The respondents shall pay additional amount at the rate
of 12% per annum on the additional compensation from
the date of notification i.e. 11.9.1994 till the date of
award i.e. 15.10.1997.
6. The respondents do deposit a the amounts within 6
month from today.
7. Deficit court fees, if any, be recovered.
8. Award be drawn up accordingly."
2. The facts, giving rise to the present Appeal, are as under : -
[A] The Land Acquisition Proceedings were initiated by the
Government through its Irrigation Department for the
Construction of a Medium Project at Khamaswadi, District
Osmanabad.
[B] The Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued
on 11.09.1994, and the Notification under Section 6 of the
LA Act was issued on 21.03.1996.
[C] The lands bearing Gat Nos. 27, 28 and 29 situated at village
Khamaswadi came to be acquired for the said Project, and
the Award under Section 11 of the LA Act came to be passed
on 15.10.1997, awarding compensation @ Rs.205/- per Are
for the acquired lands. The Claimants received the notice
under Section 12 of the LA Act on 05.01.1998, and they
received the amount on 09.01.1998, under protest.
4 FA713.2019.odt
[D] The Claimants preferred the Reference for enhancement of
compensation under Section 18 of the LA Act and claimed a
rate of Rs.2,500/- per Are. They also claimed compensation
towards the Wells, Trees, Tals, Pipeline, Cattle Shed, and
damages on account of levelling the other remaining land
and, claimed total compensation of Rs.33,80,584/- with
statutory benefits. The Reference was referred to the
learned Reference Court.
[E] The Acquiring Body/State filed its Written Statement at
Exh. 9, denying the claim for enhanced compensation. It
was stated that the acquired land was dry, of low fertility,
and denied the availability of various facilities on the
acquired land. The claims of income from various crops
from the acquired land and the development of land, were
denied. Though an opportunity was given to the claimants
before declaring the Award, no specific claim was made by
them. The compensation was granted after considering the
sale instances for the period of last three years before
publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the LA
Act. The claims towards the structure and the trees on the
acquired land were imaginary, and prayed for dismissal of
the Reference.
3. The learned Reference Court framed the issues at Exh.10,
which reads as under : -
[i] Whether the compensation granted by LAO was inadequate?
[ii] Whether the Reference was within the limitation?
[iii] Whether the Claimants were entitled to get the compensation by
enhanced rate? If Yes? at what rate?
[iv] What order and Award?
5 FA713.2019.odt
4. The Claimants examined the original Claimant No. 4 - Ram
Hariba Mane as a witness by filing an Evidence Affidavit at Exh.22. He
was cross-examined on behalf of the Acquiring Body/State. The
documents brought on record are, Exh. 15 - the Award passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Exh. 16 - E-Statement, Exhs. 17 and 18
- the Sale Deeds in respect of the lands situated at Mouje Kerogaon and
Mouje Palaswadi respectively, Exh. 19 - the 7/12 extract, and other
documents issued by the Revenue Department. On appreciating the
evidence on record and hearing both the sides, the learned Reference
Court passed the impugned Judgment and Award.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the evidence available on record.
6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
Appellant/Acquiring Body that the Interest granted by the learned
Reference Court from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the LA
Act was contrary to law. The interest should have been from the date of
Award. The learned Reference Court took into consideration an earlier
Award, and the present acquisition was for a big tract of land comprising
three Gat numbers. The learned Reference Court ought to have seen
whether the lands which were the subject matter of the Sale Deeds were
similar to the lands under acquisition. The learned Reference Court, on
its own, undertook the task to determine and enhance the compensation
6 FA713.2019.odt
in absence of any proof. The impugned Judgment and Award is contrary
to the settled legal position and the same needs to be quashed and set
aside. In support of his contention, he cited the following Judgments :
(i) Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L. Rs V The Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, AIR 2012 SC 481.
(ii) Chandrashekar and Ors. v. Addl. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, AIR 2009 SC 3012.
(iii) State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016(3)
Mh.L.J. 457.
7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimants
that the impugned Judgment and Award goes to show that the relevant
aspects were considered by the learned Reference Court. The sale deeds
and the other required material were brought on record by the
Claimants. The evidence on record shows that the Claimants' land was
seasonally irrigated land. Lesser compensation was awarded to the
Claimants. The Reference Court rightly considered the evidence
available on record, and no interference is called for in the same. The
judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the
Appellant/Acquiring Body are not applicable. He also placed on record
the written notes of arguments, wherein he contended that, the
examination of a witness to prove the Sale Deeds at Exh. 17 and 18 was
not necessary in view of the judgment in Land Revenue Officer Vs.
Narasaia, AIR 2001 SC 1117. Though the sale instances were from
another village, the same can be taken into consideration for
determining compensation in view of the judgment in State of
7 FA713.2019.odt
Maharashtra Vs. Bhimabai, 2008(1) Bom.C.R. 219. When the market
value for the non-irrigated land was Rs.59,000/- per Acre, the
compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court against the
acquired lands of the Claimants, which were seasonally irrigated lands,
was appropriate. In light of the judgment in Mahesh Thirthkar Vs. State
of Maharashtra, 2009 All SCR 1335, the onus shifted on the State to
prove, by adequate evidence, that compensation awarded was just and
proper when the Claimants were able to show that the compensation
awarded was inadequate before the learned Reference Court. There is
no legal ground to entertain the Appeal, as the learned Reference Court
has rightly considered and allowed the Reference. Hence, the Appeal be
dismissed with costs.
8. Before considering the merits of the case at hand, the
judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the Appellant are
considered. Perusal of the said Judgments show that, in the case of
Chindha Fakira (supra), the High Court reversed the findings of the
Reference Court on all counts. Having considered the previous
Judgments and the evidence available on record, the Award passed by
the Reference Court was restored. Though, paragraph 13 has been
marked by the learned Advocate for the Appellant, which reads as under,
how it comes to his aid is not shown.
"13. The High Court was also not right in upsetting the finding
of the Reference Court on the issue of nature of land. In his
8 FA713.2019.odt
deposition, Arjun Sukdeo Patil categorically stated that
there were wells in the lands of the appellants and there
Jujubee, Tambrine, Mango, Pomegranate trees. This was
supported by the entries contained in 7/12 extracts. The
High Court discarded the evidence of the appellants by
observing that they had not cultivated sugarcane and
wheat. When it was not in dispute that there were wells in
the acquired land, the mere fact that the appellants had not
cultivated sugarcane or wheat cannot lead to an inference
that the land was not irrigated and, in our view, there was
no valid reason for the High Court to interfere with the
findings recorded by the Reference Court that parts of the
lands were Bagayat and for such land they were entitled to
compensation @ Rs. 6 lacs per hectare."
9. In Chandrashekar (supra), which was the group of Appeals
under the Land Acquisition Act, it was observed thus :
"For a judgment relating to value of land to be admitted
in evidence either as an instance or as one from which the
market value of the acquired land could be inferred or
deduced, must have been a previous judgment of that
same court and this requirement is fulfilled in the present
case. However, the requirement was that it must have
been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by
adducing evidence aliunde and that due regard being
given to all other attendant facts and circumstances it
could furnish the basis for determining the market value
of the acquired land, is in our opinion the more important
test for admission of such previous decision of the High
Court for determination of the market value of the land
acquired in the present case."
10. In the case of Rangari (supra), the Full Bench of this Court
answered the Reference as under : -
(a) If the possession is taken before the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is published and/or
before the award is passed, the land-owner would be
entitled for interest as per Section 34 necessarily from the
date of passing of the award under Section 11 of the said
Act, except in cases where the possession is taken in
accordance with Section 17 of the said Act, and in that
9 FA713.2019.odt
situation only, the provision of Section 34 of the said Act
shall start operating from the date of possession.
(b) We also hold that the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Lalitkumar Himmatlal Shah v. State of
Maharashtra and others, decided by Smt. Vasanti A. Naik
and Shri Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., and reported in 2012(4)
Mh.L.J. 742, lays down a correct position of law and it does
not require reconsideration.
11. As regards the citations quoted by the learned Advocate for
the Claimants, their ratio is reflected in the notes of arguments as noted
above in paragraph no. 7.
12. Coming to the case at hand, there is no dispute on the
aspect of the extent of land and the purpose for which it was acquired.
According to the Claimants, the acquired land was irrigated land, and on
the other hand the Appellants/Acquiring Body contended that, the
acquired land was non-irrigated land. The learned Reference Court, on
considering the E-statement at Exh. 16, observed that it is clearly
mentioned in the said Exh.16 that there was Well on the acquired land.
The said E-Statement is part and parcel of the final Award. Even in the
7/12 extract at Exh.19 in respect of the acquired land bearing Gut No.
27, there is a reference to one Well. Whether the said Well was having
perennial water has not been established by the Claimants, as seen from
the impugned Judgment. Therefore, the learned Reference Court
considered the acquired land as seasonally irrigated land. The learned
Reference Court also considered the Judgment in Chindha Fakira
10 FA713.2019.odt
(supra) on this aspect. In the absence of any document to show that
they were taking crops from the irrigated land, the learned Reference
Court treated the acquired land as seasonally irrigated land. No fault
can be found with the said conclusion arrived at by the learned
Reference Court that the acquired land was seasonally acquired land.
13. Towards the claim for enhanced compensation, the
Claimants brought on record two Sale Deeds of the different villages.
Admittedly, the Appellant/Acquiring Body did not adduce any evidence
and bring on record any sale instance from the same village where the
acquired land was situated. The learned Reference Court has rightly
considered the observations in State of Maharashtra Versus Bhimabai,
2008 (1) Bom.C.R. 219, wherein it is held that, sale instances of
adjacent villages can be taken into consideration while determining the
compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their lands and
particularly when none of the parties lead evidence in regard to the sale
instances relating to the same villages from where the lands were
acquired. However, the learned Reference Court considered the
Judgment in L.A.R. Nos. 257 of 2006 and 256 of 2007. There is no
dispute that the said Land References were in respect of the lands
acquired from the same village and for the same project under the same
Award. As seen from the observations in paragraph no. 11 of the
impugned Judgment, in those matters, the acquired land was
11 FA713.2019.odt
non-irrigated land and the rate for the said land was considered as
Rs.59,000/- per acre. On that basis, by considering an addition of 25%
in the market value of the non-irrigated land, the learned Reference
Court determined the enhanced compensation for the acquired land in
the case at hand @ Rs. 73,750/- per acre. Therefore, the contention of
learned Advocate for the Appellant that without considering the
similarity between the lands which were the subject matter of the said
References and the lands acquired in this case, falls down.
14. There is serious challenge to the impugned Award on the
aspect of period from which the interest has been granted. Paragraph
No. 4 of the operative order, quoted above in paragraph no. 1, shows
that the learned Reference Court granted the interest from the date of
Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. The learned Advocate for the
Appellants rightly submitted that, in light of the Judgment in the case of
Rangari (supra), the interest is to be granted from the date of passing of
the Award under Section 11 of the LA Act. In the case at hand, the
possession of the land was taken on 12.06.1994, the Notification under
Section 4 of the LA Act was issued on 11.09.1994, the Notification under
Section 6 of the LA Act was issued on 21.03.1996 and the final Award
was declared on 15.10.1997. Thus, in light of the ratio in the case of
Rangari (supra), the impugned Award requires modification to the
extent of period from which Interest would be payable.
12 FA713.2019.odt
15. In light of the above discussion, the following order is
passed : -
ORDER
[i] The Appeal is partly allowed.
[ii] The Inerest awarded by the learned Reference Court shall
be payable from the date of final Award, which is
dated 15.10.1997.
[iii] The impugned Judgment and Award stands modified to the
extent of Interest as noted above.
[iv] Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned
Reference Court.
[v] The amount deposited by the Acquiring Body shall be
disbursed to the Claimants after re-calculating amount of
Interest as modified above.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE]
JUDGE
SG Punde
