Bombay High Court
Baban Devba Muthal And 2 Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 12 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9015
1/6 Judg.fa.432.2015.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 432 OF 2015
1. Baban Devba Muthal
Aged about : 50 Years, Occu : Agriculturist;
2. Mahadev Devba Muthal
Aged about : 50 Years, Occu : Agriculturist;
3. Digambar Devba Muthal
Aged about : 42 Years, Occu : Agriculturist;
All R/o Tornala, Tahsil and District Washim. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Washim.
2. Executive Engineer
Minor Irrigation, Washim. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. Vijaykumar Paliwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. H. D. Futane, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. M. A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : SEPTEMBER 04, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 12, 2025.
JUDGMENT
. By the present Appeal, Appellants are seeking modification of the
Judgement and Award dated 4/5/2012 passed by the learned Adhoc District
2/6 Judg.fa.432.2015.odt
Judge-3, Washim in Land Acquisition Case No. 6/2010, thereby seeking
additional compensation of Rs.1,42,800/- along with interest and other
statutory benefits thereon.
2. In brief, case of the present Appellants can be summarised as
under :
The Appellants are owner of the agricultural land bearing Block
No. 34 admeasuring 3 H. 57 R. of village Tormala, Tahsil Malegaon, District
Washim. The Respondent No.1 had issued the Notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 18/9/1997 for construction of Dam. After
following the due procedure, Award was passed by the Special land Acquisition
Officer, Washim on 7/10/2000. By that Award, compensation was granted to
the land owners like the Appellants of Rs.18,000/- to Rs.37,000/- per hectare.
3. The Appellants have preferred the reference against the said
Award on the ground that, the land which is acquired, is having facility of Tar
Road, S.T.Buses, electricity and School at nearby place. He further stated that
the land is fertile land and he used to take Kharip as well as Rabbi crops and
the yield of cotton at 10 to 12 quintals per acre and earn yearly profit of
Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre.
3/6 Judg.fa.432.2015.odt
4. The main contention of the present Appellants before the learned
Reference Court was that the other land of the same Block was acquired by the
Acquiring Body and in that case granted compensation at the rate of
Rs.85,000/- per hectare. Therefore, relied upon the Judgment dated
15/5/2009 in Land Acquisition Case No. 89/2003 (Kisan Daulat Gayakwad
V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors) passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division,
Washim and on the basis of the Award passed in the said case, Appellants
claimed that they should also be granted the Award of same amount i.e. Rs.
85,000/- per hectare.
5. The learned Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment, by
recording finding that the compensation awarded to the land of same village
cannot be applied to the case of the Appellants in view of the factor of location
and low quality of land and further in absence of sufficient evidence about the
fertility and having other facilities, as stated by the Appellants before the
Reference Court. As such, the learned Reference Court awarded the
compensation to the Appellants of Rs.45,000/- per hectare for the acquired
land of 3 H. 57 R. From Block No. 34.
6. The present Appellants being aggrieved by the order of Reference
Court dated 4/5/2012, preferred the present Appeal. Here in the present
4/6 Judg.fa.432.2015.odt
Appeal, same grievance was raised by the Appellants stating that the Award in
respect of the land of same Block Number was passed at the rate of
Rs.85,000/- per hectare, but in his case the learned Reference Court has
awarded Rs.45,000/- per hectare only. Hence, indulgence of this Court is
solicited to enhance the compensation amount.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.2/Acquiring Body and learned AGP have strongly opposed the Appeal. It is
their contention that though the Appellants have pleaded in their reference
proceeding the facts, which would entitled them for higher compensation, but
they failed to prove their contentions by leading concrete evidence in reference
proceedings. It is further pointed out that in Land Acquisition Case No.
89/2003 the land was irrigated land, and therefore, in that case the Reference
Court has granted the compensation at higher rate. Hence, considering the
facts of the present case, same cannot be made applicable to the Appellants'
case.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for both sides at length and perused
the record. It is admitted fact that before the Reference Court, present
Appellants did not produce sufficient evidence to establish the fact that their
land was fertile land and all facilities, as stated by them i.e. Tar Road, S. T.
5/6 Judg.fa.432.2015.odt
Buses, electricity and schools are available at nearby place. They also failed to
prove that they used to take Kharip as well as Rabbi crops and the yield of
cotton at 10 to 12 quintals per acre and earn yearly profit of Rs.12,000/- to
Rs.15,000/- per acre. Record no where shows that these facts are proved by
the Appellants. Only statement is made in reference proceeding, but in support
of same, nothing is placed on record.
9. The record shows that the land, which the Appellants was
possessing is dry land. This fact is clear from the 7/12 extracts which are
placed on record at Exhibit-13, 14, 15 and 16. The revenue record clearly
shows that the land owned by the Appellants was not an irrigated land. So also
in 7/12 extracts there is no mention of having any Well in the agricultural field
of the Appellants nor any material except 7/12 extract is placed on record by
the Appellants to establish the fact that his land was an irrigated land.
10. The whole reliance of the Appellants to claim enhancement in the
compensation is on the basis of Judgment passed in Land Acquisition Case No.
89/2003. The certified copy of this Judgment is available on record. Perusal of
the said Judgment clearly demonstrates the fact that land owner in the said
case namely, Kisan Daulat Gayakwad has proved beyond doubt that his land
was an irrigated land, and therefore, the Court has granted him compensation
6/6 Judg.fa.432.2015.odt
at the rate of Rs.85,000/- per hectare. Hence, I am of the view that the
Judgment relied upon by the Appellants is not helpful to them to seek
enhancement of compensation.
11. It is seen from the Award dated 7/10/2000 that the Land
Acquisition Officer has awarded total compensation of Rs.80,971/- to the land
of Appellants admeasuring 3 H. 57 R. The learned Reference Court,
considering the other factors, has granted enhancement upto Rs.45,000/- per
hectare. Hence, according to me, the Award passed by the learned Reference
Court in the facts and circumstances of the matter is proper, and therefore, no
interference of this Court is warranted in the matter. In the result, Appeal is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/09/2025 20:36:42
