Bombay High Court
Vishwanth Rama Waghule And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 31 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:20129
{1} FA 1481 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1481 OF 2018
1. Vishwanth S/o. Rama Waghule
Age: 78 years, Occu.: Agri.
R/o. : Deogaon Rangari, Tq.Kannad,
District : Aurangabad.
2. Bhanudas s/o. Vishwanath Waghule
Age: 37 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. : Deogaon Rangari, Tal.Kannad,
District : Aurangabad. ....Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No.1,
Aurangabad. .....Respondents
.....
Advocate for Appellants : Ms.M.R. Jamdhade
AGP for Respondent no.1 : Mrs.D.S.Jape
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.Ranjit B. Gaikwad
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 21 JULY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 31 JULY, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order dated
09-01-2018 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Aurangabad in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) No.130 of 2010.
{2} FA 1481 of 2018
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. Present appellants, who are owners of land at Gut nos.230,
232/1, 232/2 and 233 situated at Chambharwadi, Tq.Kannad,
District Aurangabad, which came to be acquired by respondent no.2
Acquiring Body for Deogaon Rangari Minor Irrigation Project, are
dissatisfied by the judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court in aforesaid LAR. In the said LAR, case was set up that said
land was fully irrigated having wells with sweet lime trees. That, the
appellants were harvesting crops like Cotton, Tur, Mug, Sugarcane,
Jowar etc. in the said land and were earning approximately
Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre per annum and therefore, they
set up a claim of Rs.7,00,000/- per hectare.
The Acquiring Body, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation
Division, Aurangabad and State both resisted the above LAR.
Evidence adduced by the appellants -claimants was appreciated
by the learned Civil Judge, Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Aurangabad, and reached to a finding that the appellants - claimants
are entitled for compensation @ Rs.3,375/- per Are and accordingly,
passed judgment and award dated 09-01-2018. The learned
Reference Court has granted aforesaid compensation with interest
under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as the "Act")
{3} FA 1481 of 2018
from the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the
Reference Court, the appellants - claimants have preferred instant
appeal for enhancement of compensation.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellants :
3. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that appellants
are owners of above land. That, the land is irrigated one. That,
there are two wells located in Gut Nos.232/1 and 232/2 each. That,
there is pipeline laid for watering the fields. That, there is evidence
to that extent. She would point out that even learned Reference
Court admitted about existence of well and pipeline in the fields.
Thus, according to her, land was irrigated one. However, learned
Reference Court failed to appreciate and consider such evidence and
erred in holding that the land is not irrigated one and rather it is
seasonally irrigated. Therefore, she seeks enhancement of
compensation to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- per Hectare for land,
wells, house structure, trees existing over acquired land.
{4} FA 1481 of 2018
On behalf of Respondents :
4. Learned counsel for respondent Acquiring Body and learned
APP have resisted the appeal on the ground that learned Reference
Court has correctly appreciated evidence. That, though there was
consideration of existence of wells, there was no evidence that land
was irrigated. That, the area in which the said land was situated,
does not have much rainfall and therefore, only seasonal rain was
source of irrigation and therefore, according to him, no fault can be
found in manner of appreciation of evidence by the learned
Reference Court. He further submitted that even he has objection to
the grant of interest from the date of Notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act and the interest may be granted from the
date of award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO).
5. Heard. Perused the papers.
6. Appellant - claimant Vishwanth Rama Waghule has lead
evidence by way of filing an affidavit at exh.14. The sum and
substance of his evidence is as under :
In paragraph no.5 of the affidavit, it is stated that in his land
Gut Nos.232/1 and 232/2, there were two constructed wells. That,
{5} FA 1481 of 2018
for fetching water from the said wells, there were two 5 H.P. electric
motors. That, electricity connection was taken from MSEB. That, in
support of his claim, he placed on record the original copies of
electric motor bills of the respective wells.
In paragraph no.6, it is stated that he had cultivated the
sugarcane in the acquired land. That, he had supplied the sugarcane
to the nearest Sugar Factory in the vicinity. That, he placed on record
some sugarcane supply receipt.
In paragraph no.7, it is stated that as he used to cultivate crop
like sugarcane, his land was totally irrigated land.
In support of above evidence, appellants produced on record
7/12 extracts of land at Gut No.232/1 and 232/2 and copies of
electricity bills of the electric motors connected to the wells.
7. Award passed by the SLAO has been taken exception to by
filing LAR. In the said LAR, it is a specific case of the appellants that
land acquired by the Acquiring Body, was irrigated land having two
wells and therefore, compensation in that consonance ought to have
been granted, which is alleged to be not done.
Apart from evidence of appellant Vishwanath, appellants have
placed on record 7/12 extracts of aforesaid Gut numbers. Close
{6} FA 1481 of 2018
scrutiny of the same, it appears that, apart from taking crops like
cotton, Bajra, Jowar, Maize, Wheat, Sunflower, there were sweet lime
trees in Gut No.232/1. It has also come in evidence that appellants
have laid pipeline of length of 1000 feet in the field. In the 7/12
extracts of Gut Nos.232/1 and 232/2, to which attention of this
Court is invited, there is reference about existence of two wells.
Therefore, considering the aspect of existence of wells coupled with
existence of evidence about pipeline being laid and taking into
account the fact that the appellants were harvesting sweet lime apart
from regular crops, the claim of appellants that land is irrigated
seems to be justified.
The observations of the learned Reference Court in paragraph
no.10 show that existence of pipeline and well is also admitted.
However, learned Reference Court has held that there is no evidence
that the well has sufficient water and on this count coupled with
aspect that, in that area, usually there are no heavy rains, land is
considered as seasonally irrigated one. In fact evidence on record is
contrary to above inference drawn by the Reference Court as there is
evidence to show that there is source of water not in the form of one
well but in the form of two wells having pipeline laid for supply of
water to the fields.
{7} FA 1481 of 2018
8. It appears that the learned Reference Court has considered the
land as seasonally irrigated land and has awarded compensation @
Rs.3,375/- per Are. However, in view of above discussed evidence,
the compensation is required to be enhanced to atleast Rs.5,000/-
per Are, which seems to be just and proper.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Acquiring Body
submits that, the interest should be computed from the date of
passing of award by the SLAO and not from the date of Notification
of Section 4(1) of the Act.
In support of such submission, he placed reliance on decision
of Full Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in case of State of
Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016(4) ALL MR 513.
10. Perused the aforesaid ruling. The computation of interest as
awarded by the learned Reference Court is as per the settled position
of law i.e. as summarized in the above ruling.
SUMMATION
11. To sum up, the appellants, in this appeal, have demonstrated
and substantiated that the land acquired by the respondent acquiring
body was in fact irrigated one. There is evidence in the form of 7/12
{8} FA 1481 of 2018
extracts and even learned Reference Court has agreed about
existence of a well. However, learned trial Court has lost sight of
another well, which was also situated along with adjoining land in
Gut No.232/2. That apart, even learned Reference Court has taken
into account evidence about existence of pipeline of 1000 feet.
Therefore, there is trustworthy evidence suggesting land to be
irrigated one and therefore, the inferences drawn by learned
Reference Court that, land is seasonally irrigated and there is scarcity
of rain in the area, are without any foundation. For above reasons,
interference at the hands of this Appellate Court is necessary and
resultantly appeal deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly, I pass
following order :
ORDER
(I) Appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The judgment and award passed by the learned
Reference Court on 09-01-2018 is modified only to the
extent of compensation. The appellants - claimants are
entitled to get enhanced compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per
Are for acquired land.
(III) All consequential benefits under the Land Acquisition
Act, be given on the aforesaid enhanced compensation, as
per the judgment and award of the Reference Court.
{9} FA 1481 of 2018
(IV) The appellants - claimants are entitled for the
interest on the enhanced amount excluding delayed period,
if any.
(V) The appellants - claimants are directed to pay court
fee on the enhanced compensation amount, if any, as per
Rules.
(VI) Award be drawn up accordingly after payment of
deficit court fee, if any.
(VII) First Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
