Bombay High Court
Sitabai Ramrao Bhagwat And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 May, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:13131
FA-1046-2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 2017
1. Sitabai Ramrao Bhagwat,
Age: 55 years, Occu: Agril,
2. Gangubai Ramrao Bhagwat,
Age: 50 years, Occu: Agril,
Both R/o : Erandgaon, Tq. Shevgaon,
District : Ahmednagar. ... Appellants
[Orig. Claimants]
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Government Pleader,
High Court of Bombay Bench,
at Aurangabad
2. The Executive Engineer,
Lower [Nimal] Dudhana Project,
Sailu, Division, Tq. Selu,
District : Parbhani. ... Respondents
[Orig. Respondents]
Appearance :
Mr. N. B. Narwade, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent No.1 - State
Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 - Acquiring Body
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
Reserved On : 17th April, 2025
Pronounced On : 5th May, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an Appeal fled under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as the 'L. A. Act'] for
enhancement in the compensation awarded by the learned 4 th Joint,
FA-1046-2017.odt
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, vide Judgment and Award
dated 18th November, 2014, in the Land Acquisition Reference [L.A.R]
No.38/2011.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as under :-
[I] The Appellants claimed to be the Owners of Land Gat
No.23/1C/1, ad-measuring 0.23 Are, situated at Village Yerandgaon,
Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar, for the purposes of Jaikwadi
Project Afected Area - Additional Acquisition. The Notifcation under
Section 4 of the L. A. Act was published on 9 th February, 2008 in the
official gacette and the Notifcation under Section 6 of the L. A. Act
was published on 3rd April, 2008 in the official gacette. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer [hereinafter referred to as the 'SLAO'] passed
the Award under Section 11 of the L. A. Act on 30 th September, 2008.
The Appellants' said lands came to be acquired for the said Project.
[II] Being not satisfed with the amount awarded by the SLAO,
the Appellants fled the Reference Application under Section 18 of the
L. A. Act, praying for the market rate of Rs.9000/- to 10,000/- per Are
for their said acquired lands with statutory benefts. The Appellants
accepted the evidence led in L.A.R No.14/2011. The State also relied
on the same evidence, which were led in the said L.A.R. The learned
Reference Court, decided the Reference Application along with the
other Reference Applications by the impugned Common Judgment and
Award.
FA-1046-2017.odt
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellants
that, common well was available in Gat No.23, which was also shown in
the Award passed by the SLAO and despite that, the learned Reference
Court did not appreciate the same and granted compensation of
Rs.4,506/- considering the Appellants' land as 'Jirayat land'. It is
submitted that, the land of Appellants be considered as 'Irrigated land'
and the rate awarded by the learned Reference Court for the Irrigated
land be granted and the Appeal be allowed. This is the only ground
canvassed and pressed at the time of fnal hearing. The said ground is
raised in the Appeal Memo at Serial No.V, which reads as under :-
"[V] The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the contention of appellants that, in Gut No.23
there is common well and the same is also shown in the
Award under Sec. 11 however, the said fact has not been
considered by the learned reference court and held that,
the land of the appellants is of Jirayat land and granted on
compensation of amount of Rs.4,506/- per R which is also
inadequate."
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring
Body that, the learned Reference Court considered the highest sale
instance brought on record by the Claimants and also granted 10% hike
in the market rate and determined the rates for 'Jirayat land' as
Rs.4,506/- per Are, for 'Seasonally Irrigated land' as Rs.6,759/- per Are
and for 'Fully Irrigated land' as Rs.9,012/- per Are. No evidence was led
by the Appellants before the learned Reference Court and they relied
on the rate given in the sale instance placed on record by the other
Claimants. The Gat numbers were divided in sub-Gat numbers. The
FA-1046-2017.odt
Appellants failed to prove that, their lands were Irrigated lands. No
7/12 extract was brought on record in support of the Appellants claim
that, their lands were Irrigated lands. No interference is called for in
the impugned Judgment and Award and the Appeal be dismissed.
5. It is needless to state that, the principles, which are to be
considered while deciding in the References for compensation under
the L.A. Act, are laid down in the Judgment of Chimanlal
Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Ofcer, Poona and
Others ; 1988 [3] SCC 751. From the impugned Judgment, it is clear
and on which, there is no dispute that, L.A.R Nos.11/2011 to 66/2011
were decided by the Common Judgment and Award, as the evidence in
L.A.R. No.14/2011 and L.A.R No.66/2011 were adopted by the other
Claimants and, therefore, all the Reference Applications came to be
decided by the impugned Common Judgment and Award.
6. The Reference Application of the present Appellants is
No.38/2011 in respect of land Gat No.23/1C/1. There is no dispute and
it is clear from the Papers on record that, the Appellants submitted a
Purshis at Exhibit - 6 stating that, they accept the evidence led in L.A.R
No.14/2011 and the same be considered in the Appellants' Reference
and they do not want to lead any further evidence.
7. The observations in Paragraph No.17 from the impugned
Judgment shows that, in L.A.R No.14/2011, the Sale Deeds below
FA-1046-2017.odt
Exhibits - 22 and 23, which were of the year - 2006, which were in
respect of 'Jirayat land' with rate of Rs.3,315/- per Are and Rs.3,300/-
per Are., respectively and in connected L.A.R No.66/2011, the Sale
Deed of March - 2006 was brought on record in respect of one [1]
Hectare Jirayat land and the Sale consideration was Rs.3,50,000/-. The
learned Reference Court was conscious that, the sale instance having
highest rates was to be considered and also that, the hike in market
rate per year from 10 to 15% is required to be considered and taking
into consideration the highest sale deed of Jirayat land and
determined the rate of Jirayat land by considering the increase for 23
months and determined the rate of Rs.4,506/- per guntha for Jirayat
land.
8. The impugned Judgment shows that, in Paragraph No.20,
necessary details of the acquired lands, which were the subject matter
of all the LARs, are mentioned. It is true that, at Serial No.4 in the
Chart, which was in respect of L.A.R No.14/2011, the Gat Numbers
mentioned are as 23/1B, 172/2 and 23/1D and against Gat Numbers
23/1B and 23/1D, common well is shown and the crops in the said lands
are shown to be Jawari, Bajri, Cotton and Corn and, therefore, the said
lands are considered as semi irrigated land [irrigated for eight [8]
months of the year]. The details of the Appellants' land are shown at
Serial No.28 in the said Chart. Against the Appellants' Gat No.23/1C/1,
it is mentioned that, 7/12 extract was not fled, it is considered as
FA-1046-2017.odt
Jirayat in the Award and crop not seen / crop cannot be seen, and
considered the Appellants' land as 'Jirayat land'. It is, therefore, clear
that, there is no mention of source of water in the Appellants' land.
The common well is shown only against the aforesaid two Gat
Numbers, which are referred at Serial No.4 of the said Chart. There is
nothing to show that, the observations in the impugned Judgment and
Award in respect of the Appellants' land were perverse. The impugned
Judgment shows that, all the necessary aspects are considered by the
learned Reference Court while deciding the Reference Applications
and the market rate of the Appellants' land was considered and
determined on the basis of evidence available on record, which was
adopted by the Appellants. No case exists for interference in the
impugned Judgment and Award and the Appeal fails. Hence, the
following order :
ORDER
[I] The Appeal is dismissed.
[II] The Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned
Reference Court.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
Sameer/April-2025
Signed by: Md. Sameer Q.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
