Appeal dismissed where the High Court upheld the Reference Court's award of compensation for land acquisition, finding no illegality in dividing land into categories for valuation. No order as to costs.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
FIRST APPEAL NO.120 OF 1992 .
The State of Maharashtra : Appellants.
versus
Dagadu Rustom Kashid & ors. : Respondents.
Mr.B.R.Patil, Acting Government Pleader for the
appellants.
None for the respondents.
CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.
DATED : 11th APRIL 2005.
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.Patil, Acting Government Pleader
for the State. The respondents are served.
Nobody is present for them. This appeal is filed
by the State challenging the order of the Joint
Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Solapur dated 28th
January 1991 in a Land Reference.
2
2. 1 Hector and 60 Acres land of the
claimants/respondents was acquired by the State.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer divided this
land into four categories and fixed different
compensation i.e. Rs.5000/- for good jirayat
land; Rs.3000/- for medium jirayat land;
Rs.1500/- for inferior quality jirayat land and
Rs.6000/- for bagayat land. Being aggrieved, the
claimants referred a Reference and claimed
enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court
awarded Rs.5000/- per acre for the acquired land;
Rs.1000 for damages for well and Rs.2000/- as
damages caused to the remaining land because the
claimants could not use the water from the canal.
It is this order that is challenged in the
present appeal by the State.
3. The Reference Court was perfectly
justified in holding that if only 1 hector 60
acres of land from Gat No.12 was acquired, then
the SLAO was not at all justified in dividing one
Gat number into four to five parts like jirayat,
medium jirayat, inferior jirayat, superior
jirayat, permanent bagayat and seasonal bagayat.
Further the Reference Court held that if the
3
claimants had sold the land in market, they would
not have been able to classified in five such
categories. The sale instance proved by the
claimants were about Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per
acre. But the SLAO has given only Rs.2,000/- to
Rs.3,000/- per acre. Therefore, in the
circumstances and looking to the facts that there
was a well, the Reference Court awarded
Rs.5,000/- per acre and further compensation for
well and the damages. There is no illegality in
the said judgment. The reasoning given by the
Reference Court is sound and proper. Therefore,
no interference is called for. The appeal is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
[D.G.DESHPANDE]
11/04/2005 JUDGE.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Reference Court's assessment of compensation for land acquired by the State.
The State of Maharashtra
Dagadu Rustom Kashid
D.G. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court