Bombay High Court
Ambadas Dagdu Muley And Ors vs State Of Maha on 9 May, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:14118
1 fa 3858.08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3858 OF 2008
Gahininath s/o Bandoba Kadam
Dead L.Rs.
1-A Sanjay S/o Gahininath Kadam,
Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadvana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.
1-B Mahadev S/o Gahininath Kadam,
Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadvana, Tq. and Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3865 OF 2008
Baban S/o Baburao Muley,
Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3852 OF 2008
Bhaguji S/o Rangnath Kadam Kate
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
1A Bandhwana Kawerabai Sukhdev,
Age : 67 Years, Occu. : Household,
2 fa 3858.08
R/o Wadhavana-Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
1B Mule Daivashala Shahaji,
Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Wadhavana-Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
1C Suresh S/o Bhaguji Kadam
Age : 63 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadhavana-Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
1D Bharat S/o Bhaguji Kadam
Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadhavana-Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3868 OF 2008
Mohan s/o Baburao Muley,
Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1555 OF 2004
1. Namdev S/o Ganpati Kate,
(Dead L.Rs)
3 fa 3858.08
1-A. Sahebrao S/o Namdev Kate,
Age 50 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Wadwana, Tq. and District Beed.
1-B. Rambhau S/o Namdev Kate,
Age 48 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Wadwana, Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3827 OF 2008
Babu S/o Laxman Jogdand,
Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3861 OF 2008
Rambhau S/o Namdeo Kate,
Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3829 OF 2008
Uttam S/o Dadarao Mule,
4 fa 3858.08
Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3855 OF 2008
Ankush Dadarao Muley,
Died, through legal heirs
1A) Sindhubai w/o Ankush Muley,
Age: 60 years, Occu: - Household,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq & Dist: Beed.
1B) Rahul S/o Ankush Muley,
Age: 35 years, Occu: - Agriculture,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq & Dist: Beed.
IC) Ranjeet S/o Ankush Muley,
Age: 32 years, Occu: - Agriculture,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq & Dist: Beed.
1D) Balaji S/o Ankush Muley,
Age: 30 years, Occu: - Agriculture,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq & Dist: Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3826 OF 2008
5 fa 3858.08
1. Bhaskar S/o Barik Muley,
Died, through legal heir,
Kamraj S/o Bhaskar Muley,
Age: 57 years, Occu: - Agriculture,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq. and District Beed.
2. Baban S/o Baburao Muley,
Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadhwana,
Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2008
Pandurang Dadarao Muley,
Died, through legal heirs,
1A) Putalabai w/o Pandurang Muley,
Age: 70 years, Occu: - Household,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq & Dist: Beed.
1B) Shobha w/o Appa Chavan,
Age: 47 years, Occu: - Household,
R/o near K. K. Ghule Vidyalaya,
Malwadi, Manjari Budruk Pune.
1C) Balu S/o Pandurang Muley,
Age: 45 years, Occu: - Agriculture,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq & Dist: Beed.
1D) Nandabai w/o Gahininath Ghodke,
6 fa 3858.08
Age: 43 years, Occu: - Agriculture,
R/o Rujuri Ghodka,
Tq & Dist: Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3828 OF 2008
1. Bhujang S/o Kondiba Muley,
Died, through legal heirs,
A) Laxman s/o Bhujang Muley,
Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed.
B) Chintaman S/o Bhujang Muley,
Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadhwana,
Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3860 OF 2008
1. Ambadas S/o Dagadu Kate,
Age : 45 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadwana, Tq. and District Beed.
2. Bansi S/o Dagadu Kate,
Age : 48 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadwana, Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellants
7 fa 3858.08
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3859 OF 2008
1. Ganpati S/o Dhondiba Muley,
Died, through legal heirs,
1) Gahininath S/o Ganpati Muley,
Died, through legal heirs
1A) Gandharibai w/o Gahininath Muley,
Age: 60 years, Occu: - Household,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq & Dist: Beed.
1B) Ravindra S/o Gahininath Muley,
Age: 32 years, Occu: - Agriculture
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq & Dist: Beed.
1C) Balasaheb S/o Gahininath Muley,
Age: 30 years, Occu: - Agriculture,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq & Dist: Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3866 OF 2008
Baban S/o Dada Kate,
Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellant
8 fa 3858.08
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2008
Shantirao Dadarao Mule,
Died through his L.R's
1. Ramesh s/o Shantirao Muley,
Age-49 years, Occu. Agri. & Service,
2. Rajendra s/o Shantirao Muley,
Age-51 years, Occu. Agri. & Service,
3. Prayagbai Shantirao Muley,
Age-80 years, Occu: Household,
4. Nandabai Bhaskar Khose,
Age-60 years, Occ: Household,
All R/o Wadwana, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Osmanabad. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3863 OF 2008
Kusum w/o Digambar Hajare,
Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
9 fa 3858.08
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2008
Dasu s/o Dadarao Mule,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Wadvana, Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Osmanabad .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3856 OF 2008
Bhaskar S/o Barikrao Muley,
Died through legal heirs,
Kamraj S/o Bhaskar Muley,
Age: 57 years, Occu: - Agriculture,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq. and District Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2008
1. Angad S/o Eknathrao Khose,
Age-35 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Wadhavana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.
2. Lochanabai w/o Eknath Khose,
Since deceased, Through : L.Rs.
2-a) Shesherao s/o Eknathrao Khose,
Since deceased, through L.R's
10 fa 3858.08
2-a-i) Venubai Rajabhau Shinde,
Age: 58 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Vaidyakini, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed.
2-a-ii)Ashabai Gautam Zodge,
Age: 51 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Kanadi Ghat, Post Chausala,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2-a-iii)Meena w/o Vasant Nalawade,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Nandehwar, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad.
2-a-iv)Vaishali w/o Vasant Ubale,
Age: 47 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Charata, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2-b) Baburao s/o Eknathrao Khose,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Wadhawana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.
2-c) Bhaskar s/o Eknathrao Khose,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o Wadhawana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.
3. Gautam Shrirang Zodge,
Died through His L.R's
3-a) Smt. Ashabai Gautam Zodge,
Age-51 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kanadi Ghat, Post Chausala,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
3-b) Pravin s/o Gautam Zodge,
Age-31 years, Occ: Agri,
R/o. Kanadi Ghat, Post Chausala,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
3-c) Sau. Seema Ramhari Shingre,
11 fa 3858.08
Age-29 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Kanadi Ghat, Post Chausala,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
4. Babasaheb Alias Balu S/o Rambhau Matkar,
Age 30 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Wadhavana, Ta. And Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3968 OF 2008
Mahadeo s/o Vasudev Muley,
Age : Major, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through, The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3864 OF 2008
Kamraj S/o Bhaskarrao Muley,
Age : 36 yrs, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadhwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through, The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3853 OF 2008
Ashruba S/o Rangnath Kadam,
12 fa 3858.08
Age : ___ yrs, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through, Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3832 OF 2008
Saheba S/o Namdeo Kate
Age : Major, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through, The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3833 OF 2008
1) Ganpati s/o Barikrao Hajare,
Since deceased through L.Rs.
1A Dattu S/o Ganpati Hagare
Age : 65 years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o at Wadhavana, post Pimpaltan ghat,
Tq. and Dist. Beed.
1B Gulab S/o Ganpati Hagare
Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o at Wadhavana, post Pimpaltan ghat,
Tq. and Dist. Beed.
1C Chaguna w/o Dada Pawar,
Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Pandhrewadi, Tq. Paranda,
Dist. Osmanabad.
13 fa 3858.08
1D Lalita W/o Babasaheb Wayse,
Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Dhakalgaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
2) Sahebrao s/o Barikrao Hajare,
Age : Major, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o Wadhwana, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
3) Waman S/o Barikrao Hajare,
Since deceased through L.Rs.
3A Kaushalya w/o Waman Hagare,
Age : 75 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o at Wadhavana, post Pimpaltan ghat,
Tq. and Dist. Beed.
3B Lochanabai W/o Popat Kokane,
Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o at Wadhavana, post Pimpaltan ghat,
Tq. and Dist. Beed.
3C Sunita W/o Audumbar Atule,
Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o At Near Ganesh Naik Prashala,
76, Ratnamanjiri nagar, Jule Solapur,
Tq. & Dist. Solapur.
3D Salubai w/o Vasudev Bhure,
Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o At Ruighavan,
Tq. & Dist. Solapur.
3E Anita W/o Chandrakant Nakure,
Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o At Jawalgaon, Tq. Ambejogai,
District Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
14 fa 3858.08
Through, The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3857 OF 2008
1) Gahininath s/o Bandoba Kadam
(Dead L.R's)
1-A) Sanjay Gahininath Kadam,
Age : 36 years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.
1-B) Mahadev s/o Gahininath Kadam,
Age : 47 years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through, Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3867 OF 2008
1) Khandu s/o Gopinath Kate
Died, through legal heirs
1A) Tatyaram S/o Khandu Kate
Age : 58 years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o At Wadhavana, post Pimpalgaon ghat,
Tq. and Dist. Beed.
1B) Kesharbai w/o Jagannath Bhosale,
Age : 61 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Satefhal, Tq. Jamkhed,
District Ahmednagar.
1C) Manisha w/o Hanumant Shinde,
Age : 52 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Nipani, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad.
15 fa 3858.08
2) Malhari S/o Dada Kate,
Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadwana, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through, Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3854 OF 2008
1) Vithal s/o Sadashiv Kate
Died, through Lrs.
2A) Baban S/o Sadashiv Kate
3B) Kerba S/o Sadashiv Kate,
4C) Haridas Sadashiv Kate,
Age : Both are Majjor, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadvana, Tq. and Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through, The Collector, Beed. .. Respondent
Shri Ankush N. Nagargoje, Advocate h/f Shri D. M. Mane and
Shri S. K. Naikwade, Advocates for the Appellants in respective
matters.
Shri Ramraje A. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellants in
respective matters.
Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the Respondent.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 06.05.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 09.05.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
16 fa 3858.08
. This is a group of first appeals of the agriculturists who are
claiming enhancement of compensation. They are aggrieved by
common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court on
15.04.2004, partly enhancing the rate of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of the
parties, I propose to refer to papers of First Appeal No. 3865 of
2008 and First Appeal No. 3852 of 2008. Parties have led
common evidence in L. A. R. No. 28 of 1996 and L. A. R. No. 224
of 1996. First Appeal No. 3865 of 2006 is arising out of L. A. R.
No. 28 of 1996. The arguments are led by learned advocates Mr.
Ankush Nagargoje and Mr. Ramraje Deshmukh for the
appellants.
3. The respondent/acquiring body had undertaken acquisition
for Urdhva Manjara Medium Project or Dokewadi project or Ieet
project. The lands from village Loni (Ghat), Ieet, Lanjeshwar,
Wadwana and Jategaon were acquired. Notifications U/Sec. 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act (for the sake of convenience and brevity
hereinafter referred as to the 'L.A. Act') were issued on different
dates. These appeals pertain to acquisition of lands from village
Wadwana, Tq. and Dist. Beed.
4. Following are the undisputed facts :
(i) Notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act was issued for the
lands in question at Wadwana on 28.06.1990.
17 fa 3858.08
(ii) By private negotiations possession of the lands was taken
on 01.10.1989.
(iii) Notification U/Sec. 9 of the L. A. Act was issued on
03.10.1991.
(iv) Award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
(for short 'S.L.A.O.') on 05.08.1993.
(v) Appellants received compensation/payment under protest
on 01.11.1993.
(vi) Appellants led oral evidence of eight witnesses before the
Reference Court. Respondents did not lead any oral evidence.
(vii) Appellants produced various sale instances. They also
produced various judgments of the Reference Court, which were
akin to the facts in question as well as judgments of the High
Court to determine the rate of compensation.
(viii) The S.L.A.O. determined the rate of Rs. 150/- per R to 210
per R for Jirayat land. It was enhanced by the Reference Court
to Rs. 628 per R. Appellants have claimed rate of Rs. 1500/- per
R.
(ix) Reference Court relied on three sale instances namely
Exhibits 26, 27 and 36 and has drawn average to arrive at rate of
Rs. 628 per R.
(x) Appellants are claiming compensation for eight (08) wells
18 fa 3858.08
and mango trees. The valuation report for well at Exhibits 41 to
46 and for trees at Exhibits 39 are relied on by them, which were
discarded by Reference Court.
05. The substratum of submissions of Mr. Ankush N.
Nagargoje, learned counsel for appellants is as follows :
I Rate fixed by the Reference court and the consequential
compensation awarded by it are extremely inadequate,
unreasonable and against voluminous evidence on record.
II Appellants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate
of Rs. 1,500/- per R as the lands were irrigated due to permanent
source of water from wells and the river. Appellants' voluminous
evidence of comparative sale instances, rates given by the
Reference Court for the similarly situated lads and law laid down
by the High Court are overlooked erroneously and highhandedly.
III Reference Court has committed error of jurisdiction in
discarding valuation report of wells and mango trees. In that
regard oral evidence of P.W. No. 7 - Ramhari Bayaji Ghodke and
P.W. No. 4 - Bhimrao Gopal Bhujbal was not properly
appreciated.
IV The method adopted by the Reference Court of averaging
the rates from Exhibits 21, 27 and 36 is arbitrary and perverse.
V Reference Court has committed gross illegality in
discarding sale instance at Exhibit 27, which was from Wadwana
village only and which was proved by oral evidence of P.W. No. 2
19 fa 3858.08
- Kamraj Mule. There was no reason to look for any other sale
instance.
VI Alternatively, sale instance in L.A.R. No. 294 of 1997 of
land at Lanjeshwar belonging to Ambalal Deshmukh should
have been considered as basis for fixing the rate.
VII It should have been held that the lands under acquisition
being irrigated lands should fetched rate double than Rs. 1,050/-
per R.
VIII Acquired lands were irrigated, fertile and Bagayat lands.
Joint measurement report, oral evidence and award of S.L.A. are
not appreciated properly.
IX On the ground of parity appellants are entitled to receive
more compensation and for that purpose judgments passed by
the Reference Court in respect of acquisition of lands from village
Ieet, Lanjeshwar are pressed into service.
X On the ground of parity appellants relied on the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 290 of
2007 and Single Bench in First Appeal No. 88 of 2008 as well as
in First Appeal No. 36 of 2008 with connected matters.
06. Learned counsel Mr. Ramraje Deshmukh for the appellants
adds that the guess work in valuation report is permissible and
Exhibit 39, 41 to 46 should not have been discarded. Appellants
are entitled to addition of 15% per annum in comparable sale
20 fa 3858.08
instances.
07. Reliance is placed on following judgments of the Supreme
Court and this Court :
I Ali Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of J. & K
reported in (2017) 4 SCC 717.
II Premwati and another Vs. Union of India and others
reported in 2013 (6) All M. R. 459 (S.C.)
III Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon reported in AIR 2012 SC
481.
IV Mehrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot and others Vs. State of
Punjab and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432.
V Raghunath Baba Pathare and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2009 (6) Bom.C.R. 473.
VI Narayan Yashwanta Kapse Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2020 DGLS (Bom.) 832.
VII The State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Bhau Dambre
(died) through L.Rs. in F. A. No. 1581 of 2004.
VIII Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation and another Vs. Lalasaheb Dadasaheb
Deshmukh (Died) through L.Rs. and another in F. A. No.
1743 of 2017.
IX Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Laxman
Seetaram Neulkar and another 2020 DGLS (Bom.) 555.
X Kasturbai Manikrao Karpe Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others reported in 2020 DGLS (Bom. 661.
21 fa 3858.08
XI Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division Yavatmal Vs.
Kishor Awadhutrao Umratkar and others reported in 2021
DGLS (Bom) 339.
XII The State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Ambadas
Wamanrao Deshmukh in F. A. No. 1633 of 2014.
XIII State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Baliram Girdhar Patil
reported in 2006(6) Mh. L. J. 82.
XIV Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer and others AIR 1988 SC 1652.
XV Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2962.
XVI State of Maharashtra Vs. Sahadu Aba Shete and others
reported in 2009(1) All MR 186.
XVII Mahadev Vs. Assistant Commissioner/Land Acquisition
Officer reported in (2002) 9 SCC 487.
08. Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, learned Assistant
Government Pleader has canvassed following submissions :
(a) In the award of S.L.A.O. threadbare scrutiny was made
regarding classification of the land. The subject lands are Class
II, III and IV lands. In all 29 sale instances were considered to
arrive at the rate. All aspects were considered in the award.
(b) Reference Court has also dealt with all the sale instances
and adopted averaging method to come to the conclusion of Rs.
628/- per R., which is reasonable and legal.
(c) Appellants are not entitled to any higher rate by relying on
22 fa 3858.08
various judgments of Reference Court or High Court because of
distinguishable facts and circumstances.
(d) Appellants did not raise any objection in response to notice
U/Sec. 12(2) of the L. A. Act. Their claim for higher rate is
imaginary and axiomatic.
(e) Reference Court rightly considered evidence of P.W. No. 1
in paragraph Nos. 22 to 24 of the impugned judgment. Similarly
evidence of P.W. No. 2 Kamraj was also rightly appreciated.
(f) The valuation reports of the wells and the trees are rightly
discarded by the Reference Court. Those reports were prepared
subsequently.
(g) There was no material to show that subject lands were
irrigated. Merely existence of wells in few lands is not sufficient.
There is no admissible evidence before the Reference Court.
09. Learned A. G. P. has relied on following judgments of the
Supreme Court and this Court:
i) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Poona and another reported in (1988( 3 SCC 751.
ii) Union of India Vs. Premlata and others reported in (2022)
7 SCC 745.
iii) Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of India reported in
AIR 2005 SC 3467.
iv) Venkatrao Ramchandrrarao Patil Vs. State of
23 fa 3858.08
Maharashtra AIR Online 2022 Bom 1325.
v) Judgment dated 11.07.2017 in First Appeal No. 791 of 2010
in the matter of Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation Vs. Vinayak and others.
vi) Basant Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others
reported in (1996) 11 SCC 542.
vii) Hookiyar Singh and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Moradabad and another reported in (1996) 3 SCC
766.
viii) State of UP and another Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in
(1996) 7 SCC 347.
10. Having heard rival submissions of the parties, following
points arise for termination.
I Whether appellants prove that subject lands are irrigated
lands, yielding Bagayati crops ?
II Whether the rate of Rs. 628/- per R fixed by the Reference
Court is reasonable, legal and proper ?
III Whether appellants are entitled to enhancement in the
rate of land ?
IV Whether valuation of the wells and the trees reasonable
and adequate ?
V Whether any interference is called for in the impugned
judgment and award ?
11. Appellants examined seven witnesses in L. A. R. No. 28 of
1996 and one witness in L.A.R. No. 24 of 1996. They placed on
24 fa 3858.08
record valuation reports of wells at Exhibit 41 to 46 and
valuation report of trees at Exhibit 39. Photo copies of 7/12
extracts were also placed on record. Besides that judgments
passed by the Reference Courts in the matters of acquisition of
lands for the same project and the judgments of High Court were
also placed on record. By way of additional evidence for the first
time in the High Court a report of joint measurement is placed
on record. Notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act was issued on
28.06.1990 for the purpose of acquisition of subject lands from
village Wadwana, Award at Exhibit 09 was passed on
05.08.1993.
12. In the award at Exhibit 09, lands of Wadwana are
classified as Class II, III and IV. Considering the sale instances
S.L.A.O. fixed the rate for Jirayat land from Rs. 150/- per R to
175/- per R. In all nine wells were found in the subject lands.
Out of that one was found to be backfilled. Trees were found in
the land, valuation was done for them, which is reflected in the
award. Appellants have pressed into service reports of private
valuers. P.W. No. 07 issued reports from Exhibit 41 to 46 for
wells, whereas P.W. No. 4 issued report at Exhibit 39 for trees.
Appellants are restricting their claims to 28 mango trees only.
The above referred reports are subsequent to award passed by
the S. L. A. O. In this backdrop I propose to adjudicate the
points framed above.
13. Point No. I :
It is vehemently contended by the appellants that subject
25 fa 3858.08
lands are situated on the bank of river Majra and there were
eight wells, hence those were irrigated lands yielding bagayati
crops. My attention is adverted to clause No. 5 of the award,
evidence of P.W. No. 1- Baban, P.W. No. 2 - Kamraj, P.W. No. 4 -
Ambadas, village map which is at Exhibit 17 and the valuation
report. It is stated in the award at Exhibit 09 in para 5 that the
subject lands are situated on bank of river Manjra and they are
fertile having black soil. It also refers to total nine wells situated
in the lands. Village map also shows existence of river Manjra in
the vicinity of said lands. Despite that reference court treated
the subject lands to be Jirayat lands.
14. I have gone through evidence of P.W. No. 1 - Baban and
P.W. No. 2 - Kamraj. They both have deposed that their
acquired lands were irrigated lands. Appellants did not place on
record corroborative and admissible evidence to support their
theory. No 7/12 extracts, any receipts of agricultural produce,
electricity bills are coming forth to show that lands were
irrigated and yielding Bagayati crops. It was possible for them to
place on record the reliable evidence. Merely stating in the
deposition that lands were irrigated is not sufficient. There is no
convincing evidence in that regard.
15. It has come on record that resource of water through wells
was not available for every subject land. There were only eight
wells. This group of appeals involves 30 different lands.
Therefore, same yardstick can not be applied to every subject
land. There is no evidence on record that all the subject lands
26 fa 3858.08
were yielding bagayati crops and permanent source of water was
available. P.W. 2 - Kamraj has deposed that his land from self
same village was Jirayati one and it is treated to sale instance at
Exhibit 27.
16. Reference Court has appreciated oral evidence. I do not
find any illegality or the perversity in the findings recorded by
the Reference Court in para Nos. 26 and 27 of the impugned
judgment and award. Appellants have failed to make out a case
that subject lands are irrigated and yielding bagayati crops.
17. Point Nos. II and III :-
Reference Court has considered following three sale
instances :
a) Sale deed dated 15.05.1989 for 14 gunthas of land
situated at Lonighat which is proved by PW-5 and
marked as Exhibit-21 having rate of Rs.1285 per R.
b) Sale deed dated 23.05.1989 for 01 acre situated at
Wadwana at the rate of Rs.1000/- per R. It is
marked as Exhibit-27 and proved by PW-2/Kamraj.
c) Index- II of sale of 8R of land situated at village Ieet
for the rate of Rs.1500/- per R. It is at Exhibit-3 and
proved by PW-4 /Ambadas.
18. Considering location of land, size of land and source of
water, the probable rates are calculated on the basis of every sale
27 fa 3858.08
instance. The probable rate as per sale deed Exhibit-21 was
Rs.385.50 per R, probable rate as per sale deed Exhibit-27 was
Rs.1050/- per R and as per Exhibit-36 it was Rs.450/-per R. These
rates were treated to be representative market prices of the land.
By averaging those rates, final rate of Rs.628/- per R is derived
which would be the rate at the time of notification under Section
4 i.e on 28.06.1990.
19. The method adopted by the Reference Court is wholly
uncalled for. The sale instance at Exhibit-21 and Exhibit-36 were
from village Lonighat and Ieet respectively. Sale deed at Exhibit-
21 was for 14 gunthas whereas sale instance at Exhibit-36 was of
8R. The sale instance at Exhibit-27 for 01 Acre stands at better
footing and the most comparable. It is pertaining to land at
Wadwana itself and transaction is prior to Section 4 of the
notification. A sizable land of 01 acre was sold at the rate of
Rs.1000/- per R as compared to small pieces of land of other sale
instances. Reference Court has observed that it's a genuine
transaction and proved before the Court by PW-2/Kamraj who
himself is claimant in one of the references. It is the best piece of
evidence available for the Reference Court to fix the rate.
20. I am of the considered view that the method of averaging
undertaken by the Reference Court is arbitrary and prejudicial
to the claim of the appellants. I am fortified by the ratio laid
down by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Hans
Raj reported in (1994) 5 SCC 734. Following is the relevant extract.
28 fa 3858.08
"Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions,
we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of the
High Court committed a grave error in working out average price paid
under the sale transactions to determine the market value of the
acquired land on that basis. As the method of averaging the prices
fetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times,
for fixing the market value of the acquired land, if followed, could
bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the
price to be fetched by sale of acquired land. One should not have,
ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled that genuine and
bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in
its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of
acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired
lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing
vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the
true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the
normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market
value."
21. Appellants have also pressed into service the rates
determined by the Courts in different reference proceedings in
respect of acquisition of the land for the self-same project. I have
gone through the following judgments of the reference court
which are pressed into service on the grounds of parity.
a) Common judgment and award dated 23.06.1998 in L.A.R
No.314 of 1994 with connected matters. In that acquired lands
were situated at village Ieet and rate of Rs.1250/- per R was
awarded.
b) Common judgment and award dated 23.06.1998 in L.A.R
No.303 of 1994 and others. Lands were situated at Ieet and rate
of Rs.1250/- per R was awarded.
c) Common judgment and award dated 23.06.1998 in L.A.R
29 fa 3858.08
No.301 of 1994 situated at village Ieet awarding rate of
Rs.1250/- per R.
d) Judgment and award dated 28.08.2002 in L.A.R No. 994 of
1997 for land situated at village Lanjeshwar awarding rate of
Rs.1500/- per R.
e) Common judgment and award dated 04.02.2005 in L.A.R
No.36 of 1998 with connected matters situated at village
Lonighat awarding rate of Rs.1000/- per R.
f) Common judgment and award dated 07.03.2013 in L.A.R
No.196 of 1997 situated at village Lanjeshwar awarding rate of
Rs.1500/- per R.
g) Common judgment and award dated 17.06.2002 in L.A.R
No.301 of 1994 situated at village Lanjeshwar awarding rate of
Rs.1250/- per R.
h) Common judgment and award dated 17.04.2007 in L.A.R
No.179 of 1997 situated at village Lanjeshwar awarding rate of
Rs.1500/- per R.
22. I would have accepted the rate in the above sale instances
for determining the prices. The lands in the above references are
situated at place other than Wadvana. The sale instance at
Exhibit-27 for the land at Wadvana is more akin to the subject
lands as compared to the lands in above references. The
reference court has rightly discarded sale instances of above
30 fa 3858.08
references. I do not find any illegality in it.
23. Judgment and award dated 04.02.2025 in L.A.R No.36 of
1998 with connected matters was confirmed by Division Bench of
Bombay High Court. The rate of Rs.1000/- per R was approved.
Similarly, judgment and award dated 07.02.2005 passed in group
of lands in L.A.R No.51 of 1998 was also confirmed by High
Court. In above proceedings, lands from other villages were
acquired. When best sale instance is available, there is no need
to refer to acquisition from village Lanjeshwar or any other
place. For the same reason, judgment of the Learned Single
Judge in group of First Appeal No.36 of 1998 and others can be of
any avail to the appellants.
24. Following judgments are cited by appellants :
(i) Ali Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of J
& K ; (2017) 4 SCC 717.
I have gone through relevant paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of
the judgment which indicate that sale instances of the lands
acquired for the same purpose and same time can be treated to
be comparable instances. Following the said principles I hold
that sale instance at Exh.27 in the present appeals is reliable.
(ii) Premwati and another Vs. Union of India and
others ; 2013 (6) All M.R. 459 (SC).
I have considered paragraph Nos.12 to 15 of the judgment.
It is also on the point that the sale instance of the land of the
31 fa 3858.08
adjacent village is relevant. In the case at hand, I propose to rely
on sale instance of selfsame village i.e. Vadhavana by relying on
Exh.27.
(iii) Raghunath Baba Pathare and others Vs. State
of Maharashtra ; 2009 (6) Bom.C.R.473.
This is cited to buttress that if well is located in the
acquired land it would be treated as irrigated land. I do not find
that any binding principles of law is laid down in it. The
observations are in the context of those facts which cannot be
made applicable to the present case.
(iv) Chindha Fakira Patil (D) Through L.Rs. Vs.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon ; 2012 (2)
Mh.L.J. 530.
This judgment is cited by the appellants to make out a
point that method of averaging the prices for fixing the market
value of the acquired land has been disapproved by the Supreme
Court. I have gone through paragraph Nos.11 of the judgment
which inter alia refers to various judgments of the Supreme
Court. In that matter, High Court had reversed the findings of
the Reference Court. High Court relied upon average sale price of
the transactions. Following is the relevant paragraph ;
"12. In view of the law laid down in the above noted three
judgments, it must be held that the High Court
committed an error by refusing to rely upon Exhibit 28
on the ground that the average sale price of the
transactions relied upon by the respondent was far less
than the price for which land was sold vide Exhibit 28."
32 fa 3858.08
(v) Narayan Yashwanta Kapse Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others ; 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. 391.
This judgment is cited to corroborate the proposition that
expert's evidence cannot be discarded. However, in the cited
judgment, Dr. Patil was expert in horticulture. He had visited
the land and prepared report of fruit bearing trees. A
panchnama was conducted when he visited the lands. In that
case, oral evidence of panch was also adduced. In those context,
learned Single Judge recorded observations in paragraph Nos.10
and 11. Such is not the fact situation in the case at hand. No
panchnama was conducted in the present appeals. Considering
the cross-examination of P.W. Nos. 4 and 11, their valuation
reports are rejected. Hence, this judgment would not enure to
the benefits of the appellants.
(vi) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot and others
Vs. State of Punjab and others ; AIR 2012 Supreme Court
2721.
Appellants relied on paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the
judgment to support proposition that the bonafide transactions
proximate to the point of acquisition of land situated in
neighbourhood is the parameter for selecting the comparable sale
instance and average price derived is not the proper method.
The above referred proposition is applicable to the present case
and has been followed. Besides that, following are the guiding
principles laid down in it.
"15. It is clear that when there are several exemplars
with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that
the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a
33 fa 3858.08
bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted.
When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a
person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar
land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona
fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser
and a willing seller near about the time of the
acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that
where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are
relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction
representing the highest value should be preferred to the
rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a
different course. It is not desirable to take an average of
various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for
fixing fair compensation."
"16. Based on the above principles, the market value as
per Ext.A-61 dated 22.07.1977 was Rs. 1,39,130.43 per
acre (approx. Rs.1.40 lakhs per acre). The said sale deed
was two and a half years prior in time than Section 4(1)
notification dated 22.12.1979. There is no reason to
eschew the above sale transaction. It is also pointed out
that the lands covered under Ext.A-61 are nearer to the
lands of the appellants under acquisition. This Court
has time and again granted 10% to 15% increase per
annum. In Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory of
Chandigarh (1992) 4 SCC 659, this Court applied the
rule of 10% yearly increase for award of higher
compensation. In Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali
Ram Sharma & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 533, this Court
considered a batch of appeals and applied the rule of
annual increase for grant of higher compensation. In
ONGC Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14
SCC 745, this Court held that where the acquired land is
in urban/semi-urban areas, increase can be to the tune
of 10% to 15% per annum and if the acquired land is
situated in rural areas, increase can be between 5% to
7.5% per annum. In Union of India vs. Harpat Singh &
Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 375, this Court applied the rule of
10% increase per annum. Based on the above principle,
we fix the annual increase at 12% per annum and with
that rate of increase, the market value of the appellants'
34 fa 3858.08
land would come to Rs.1,82,000 per acre as on the date of
notification."
Applying the above principles, while considering
comparable sale instance which is at 27, this Court has added
7.5% as yearly increase. Accordingly, rate has been fixed at Rs.
1,075/- per ARE.
(vii) The State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman S/o Bhau
Dambre (Died) through L.Rs. in First Appeal No.1581 of
2004.
I have gone through paragraph Nos.27 to 30 of the
judgment. The acquisition of land before learned Single Judge
was pertaining to the same project. Subject land was situated at
village Ieet. The price was fixed at Rs.1000/- per ARE.
Appellant relied upon paragraph No.7. Relying on the same, I
have considered sale instance at Exh.27 as foundation to fix the
rate.
(viii) Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation
Vs. Laxman Seetaram Neulkar and another ; 2020 DGLS
(Bom.) 555.
Reliance is placed on paragraph Nos.16 to 22. To support
the proposition, Court can grant more compensation than
claimed by the claimant. There can be no dispute for this
proposition. In the present case, evidence on record does not
make out a case that appellants are entitled to more
compensation than claimed by them.
35 fa 3858.08
(ix) The State of Maharashtra and others Vs.
Ambads Wamanrao Deshmukh in First Appeal No.1633 of
2014.
The matter had reached High Court emanating from
acquisition of land for same project which was situated at Ieet.
Rate fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.1500/- per ARE was
confirmed by High Court. The same sale instance has also been
quoted in the present matter. But, I have recorded findings that
sale instance at Exh.27 from village Vadhwana where the subject
lands are situated is the most relevant. Exemplar and therefore,
the rate in that case cannot be adopted in the case at hand. 2.
(x) State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Baliram
Girdhar Patil reported in 2006(6) Mh. L. J. 82.
I have considered para Nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment in
the matter of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Baliram Girdhar Patil
(supra). The proposition cannot be disputed. In the case in hand
no submissions are advanced on the ground that assessment of
the lands in question is erroneous, hence this judgment is not
helpful to the appellants.
(xi) State of Maharashtra Vs. Sahadu Aba Shete
and others reported in 2009(1) All MR 186.
Propositions in para Nos. 21 and 22 of the judgment in the
matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sahadu Aba Shete and others (supra)
are undisputed. In the present case I have preferred to rely on
sale instances of self same village. I have also gone through the
judgment in the matter of Mahadev Vs. Assistant Commissioner/Land
36 fa 3858.08
Acquisition Officer (supra). In the body of the reasoning I have
recorded that judgment of other Reference Courts pressed into
service cannot be applied because in those cases the lands of
different villagers were acquired. In the case in hand better sale
instances are available for reliance.
25. Learned AGP relied on the following judgments :
(i) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Poona and another ; (1988) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 751
I have gone through paragraph No.19 of the judgment. It
is pressed into service to show that the land of the appellants are
situated at the interior area and cannot fetch the price claimed
by the appellants. The ratio laid down therein cannot be
disputed but that cannot be made applicable to the case at hand.
In our case, lands are situated in rural area and appropriate
comparable sale instance from the same village is available.
(ii) Union of India Vs. Premlata and others ; (2022)
7 Supreme Court Cases 745.
Reliance is placed on paragraph No.14, 15, 16, 16.1, 16.2.
Facts of the cited judgment are distinguishable and ratio cannot
be made applicable.
(iii) Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of India ;
AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3467.
I have gone through paragraph Nos.26 and 27 which are
37 fa 3858.08
cited by the respondents. In that case, the probative value of
photo copies of sale deeds was under consideration. Considering
the difference in the facts, the ratio cannot be made applicable to
the present case.
(iv) Venkatrao Ramchandrarao Patil Vs. State of
Maharashtra ; Airoline 2022 Bom 1325.
Reliance is placed on paragraph Nos.9 to 11. Facts in the
cited judgment are distinguishable. In the case at hand, the best
sale instance at Exh.27 is available to determine the market
value. Hence, this judgment is not helpful to the respondents.
(v) Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation
Vs. Vinayak and others in First Appeal No.791 of 2010.
I have gone through paragraph Nos.10 to 15 of the
judgment. It is distinguishable on facts from the case at hand. It
cannot enure to the benefit of the respondents.
(vi) State of UP and another Vs. Rajendra Singh
reported in (1996) 7 SCC 347.
The proposition of law in paragraph No. 3 of the judgment
in the matter of State of UP and another Vs. Rajendra Singh (supra) is
trite law and has been followed in the case in hand also.
Therefore, this Court has not accepted enhancement as claimed
by the appellants.
(vii) Hookiyar Singh and others Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and another reported in
(1996) 3 SCC 766.
38 fa 3858.08
I have also gone through the paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the
judgment in the matter of Hookiyar Singh and others Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and another (supra). Applying the
principles laid down therein the rate has been determined in the
present appeals. I have perused paragraph Nos. 5 to 9 of the
judgment in the matter of Basant Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and
others (supra). Applying the arm chair rule, I have fixed the rate
in the present appeals.
26. It is vehemently contended by the appellants that the
acquiring body did not adduce any oral evidence. The rate
claimed by the appellants and the reports of valuation should
have been accepted. Merely because respondent did not adduce
oral evidence would not mean that whatever evidence led by the
appellant is a gospel truth and has to be accepted. The
respondent has effectively cross examined witnesses of the
appellants. The findings recorded by the Reference Court for
discarding the valuation reports are confirmed by this Court.
This Court has come to conclusion regarding rate on the basis of
material on record and law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, submissions of the appellants cannot be accepted.
27. Appellants are successful in proving that sale instance at
Exhibit-27 should have been the foundation for fixing the rates.
It was prior to the notification dated 28.06.1990. Therefore,
addition of 7.5% would make the rate more competable. Thus,
the rate at the relevant time comes to Rs. 1,075/-per R. The rate
derived by the Reference Court to the tune of Rs. 628/- per R is
39 fa 3858.08
illegal and liable to be enhanced to Rs. 1,075/- per R.
28. Point No. IV :-
The valuation reports of wells at Exhibit-41 to Exhibit-46
and that of trees at Exhibit-39 were not before S.L.A.O. Those
were produced in the Reference Court. PW-4 and PW-11 were
examined who were the private valuers. Award at Exhibit-9
refers to valuation of 8 wells and 57 trees. Appellants have
restricted their claims to 28 Mango trees. I have gone through
the deposition of above referred witnesses. Appellants did not
raise any objection under Section 12(2) of the Act. No panchnama
was conducted when the valuers visited the lands. The report
and the oral evidence do not disclose that relevant factors were
taken into account for arriving at the valuation. Reference Court
has elaborately dealt with the report at Exhibit Nos.41 to 46 by
appreciating the oral evidence in that regard in paragraph no.18
of the judgment. I do not find that there is any perversity or
error in appreciating the evidence on record. The enhancement
on the basis of such evidence can not be approved.
29. Reference Court has elaborately dealt with claim of the
appellants in respect of mango trees in paragraph Nos.20 and 21
of the impugned judgment. I have gone through Exhibit-39 and
the evidence of PW-4. The valuation report at Exhibit-39 is
doubtful and it can not enure to the benefit of the appellants. The
findings recorded by the Reference Court are plausible and no
interference is called for. Appellants are unable to proved that
they are being paid inadequate compensation for the wells and
40 fa 3858.08
the trees in the subject land.
(i) Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation and another Vs. Lalasaheb Dadasaheb
Deshmukh (Died) Through L.Rs. and another in First
Appeal No.1743 of 2017.
In the reported case, the acquired land from village Ieet
and it was for the same project. Reliance is placed on paragraph
Nos.8 to 10. On the basis of the principles it is contended that
some guess work is permissible and therefore valuation of the
expert should have been accepted. I have already recorded that
the valuation reports are liable to be discarded. The sale instance
at Exh.27 from village Vadhwana is found to be more akin to the
facts involved in the present appeals. This ratio cannot be blindly
made applicable to the present case.
(ii) Kasturabai Manikrao Karpe Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others ; 2020 DGLS (Bom.) 661 and (xi)
Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal
Vs. Kishor Awadhutrao Umratkar and others ; 2021 DGLS
(Bom.) 339.
In both the matters expert's valuation report was relied
upon. However, case at hand shows that valuation reports are
liable to be discarded. Considering the distinguishing facts,
these judgments would not help the appellants.
(iii) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and others AIR 1988 SC 1652.
I have considered para No. 4 of the judgment in the matter
41 fa 3858.08
of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others
(supra). The principles mentioned there in cannot be disputed.
I have also gone through para Nos. 28, 29, 32 and 34 of the
judgment in the matter of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra). After appreciating the valuation reports in
the case at hand and the oral evidence, Reference Court rightly
discarded them. I have my reservations. This judgment is
distinguishable on facts.
30. Point No. V :-
I have already recorded that considering sale instance at
Exhibit-27, rate of Rs.628/- per R needs to be enhanced to Rs.
1,075/- per R. Accordingly appellants are entitled to
enhancement in the compensation. Appellants have failed to
prove that valuation for the wells and the trees are inadequate.
Appellants have not advanced any submissions challenging
impugned judgment and award on any other aspects of the
matter. Hence, these appeals succeed partly.
31. For the reasons assigned above, I pass following order :
ORDER
A. First Appeals are allowed partly.
B. Common Judgment and award dated 15.04.2004 passed by
Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Beed stands modified only to
the extent of rate of the land which stands enhanced from
Rs.628/- per R to Rs. 1,075/- per R in every appeal and
42 fa 3858.08
compensation shall be calculated accordingly in each case.
C. Except the above modification in operative part clause (I)
in each references, rest of the operative part of the judgment and
award under challenge stands confirmed.
D. Appellants are entitled to receive compensation as per the
enhanced rate referred above along with interest and statutory
benefits as awarded by Reference Court and confirmed by the
present judgment.
E. Appellants shall pay deficit court fees on enhanced
amount.
F. Award be drawn accordingly in each of the appeals.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ]
bsb/May 25
