Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramchandra Krishna Patil

Bombay HC7 Apr 2005FA/440/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals filed by the State against orders enhancing land acquisition compensation. The Court held the Reference Court erred in relying on subsequent sale deeds and assuming irrigated status without evidence of beneficiary usage, setting aside the enhanced awards.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders enhancing compensation are set aside; claimants entitled to compensation as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Krishna Patil — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.440 OF 1999.

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra
 through Collector Sangli : Appellants.
 versus

¶6

 Shri Ramchandra Krishna Patil : Respondent.

¶7

 ALONG WITH

¶8

 FIRST APPEAL NO.691 OF 1997

¶9

 The State of Maharashtra

¶10

 through Collector Sangli : Appellants.
 versus

¶11

 Shri Bapu Santu Gavade
 since deceased through his
 legal heirs.

¶12

 1a. Shri Shivaji Bapu Gavade
 & ors. : Respondents.

¶13

 ALONG WITH

¶14

 FIRST APPEAL NO.398 OF 2005

¶15

¶16

 The State of Maharashtra

¶17

 through Collector Sangli : Appellants.

¶18

 versus
 Nivrutti Shivram Patil : Respondent.

¶19

 Mr.B.R.Patil, Acting Government Pleader for the
 State/Appellants.

¶20

 Mr.R.V.More for the respondents.

¶21

 ALONG WITH

¶22

 FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.2072 OF 1995

¶23

 The State of Maharashtra

¶24

 through Collector Sangli : Appellants.
 versus

¶25

 Balwant Baburao Patil : Respondent.

¶26

 ALONG WITH

¶27

 FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.2036 OF 1995

¶28

 The State of Maharashtra

¶29

 through Collector Sangli : Appellants.

¶30

 versus

¶31

 Bapu Tatya Patil deceased
 1A Narayan Bapu Patil & ors. : Respondents.

¶32

¶33

 ALONG WITH

¶34

 FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 2058 OF 1995

¶35

 The State of Maharashtra
 through Collector Sangli : Appellants.

¶36

 versus
 Shamrao Hari Nikam : Respondent.

¶37

 ALONG WITH

¶38

 FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.32096 OF 1998

¶39

 The State of Maharashtra

¶40

 through Collector Sangli : Appellants.

¶41

 versus

¶42

 Shri Patangrao Tatoba Patil : Respondent.

¶43

 Mr.S.N.Gawade, AGP for the State.

¶44

 Mr.R.V.More for the respondents.

¶45

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.
 DATED : 7th April 2005.

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

¶48

 1. All these appeals grouped together as
 they arise out of separate orders of the
 Reference Court in a Group of References, but the
 notification under Section 4 of the Land
 Acquisition Act was common; award was common
 and, therefore, the Reference Court passed
 separate orders, but the basis of the orders is
 same. Notification under Section 4 in respect of
 these lands was 18th July 1985. The Special Land
 Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 19500/- per
 hector in Appeal Nos.440/99 and 691/97; Rs.33000
 per hector in Appeal No.398 of 2005; Rs.29250/-
 in Appeal Stamp Nos.2072/95, 2058/95 and 32096/98
 and, Rs.21000/- in Appeal Stamp No.2036/95. The
 land owners were not satisfied with the
 compensation so awarded, therefore, they filed
 References. All of which were decided by the
 Reference Court i.e. Second Joint Civil Judge,
 Sr.Division Sangli on 18th March 1994. According
 to the claimants their lands were worth
 Rs.1,50,000/- per hector and, therefore, the
 compensation was required to be enhanced. The
 Reference Court enhanced the compensation to
 Rs.75,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- per hector in
 respective References and hence these appeals by
 the State.

¶49

¶50

 2. The learned AGP pointed out at the out

¶51

 set that firstly the acquired lands were of

¶52

 Jirayat lands and crops like Jawar and groundnut
 were being taken. He also pointed out that in

¶53

 paras 6 and 7 of the Judgment, the Reference

¶54

 Court took into consideration different sale

¶55

 deeds, but most of the sale deeds, so considered,

¶56

 are subsequent to the date of notification under

¶57

 Section 4. Even the sale deed between Mahadeo

¶58

 Co-operative Water Supply Society and Shankar

¶59

 Abaji Kulkarni was of 1986 i.e. of next year to

¶60

 the said notification. Other sale deeds were of

¶61

 9th October 1990; 9th January 1990; 29th May
 1990 and, two sale instances were of 1986. The

¶62

 Court noted that it will have to decide as to

¶63

 what was the market price of acquired lands on

¶64

 18th July 1985. But further noted that this will
 have to be done with the help of above said sale

¶65

 instance. This approach of the Reference court

¶66

 is totally and completely wrong. All the sale
 deeds are of subsequent to the date of
 notification under Section 4 and could not have

¶67

 been relied upon and they could not have been
 made basis for enhancement of compensation.

¶68

¶69

 3. Counsel for the claimants strenuously,
 repeatedly and vehemently urged that all these
 lands are irrigated lands and, he relied upon
 that part of para 6 of the judgment wherein the
 Reference court has considered the existence of
 Mahadeo Co-operative Water Supply Society since
 1974. There were total 382 members of the said
 society and they have mortgaged 300 acres land
 and obtained loan for jackwell, pipe line, pump
 house, electric motor, distribution of line and
 main line etc. and, that the said society
 constructed lift irrigation scheme at village
 Khed from Krishna river, which was about 1.5 k.m.
 away from the jackwell of the society. All this
 may be true, but the question is, whether any of
 the claimants have stated that their land is
 irrigated from river Krishna. The answer in this
 regard has to be in the negative. For Example,
 claimant Ramchandra Patil in his evidence has
 admitted in Examination-in-chief that his land is
 Jirayat land and he has been taking Jawar crops
 and groundnut crops. Not a word is uttered by
 the said Ramchandra about any kind of irrigation
 or facility of irrigation or he is being the
 member of the said society mortgaging the land
 and contributing for irrigation facility,

¶70

¶71

 instruments appartus referred to above.
 Therefore, it may be that the society is there
 for the purpose of irrigation facility to its
 members. If the claimants have not availed of
 that facility and they are cultivating their
 lands as Jirayat lands, not a drop of water from
 river being brought to their agricultural land
 then, Reference Court went on completely wrong
 footing in enhancing the compensation from
 Rs.9500/- to Rs.75,000/- or from Rs.21,000/- or
 Rs.33,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per hector. What is
 observed by the Reference is that there was every
 likelihood and possibility to bring the acquired
 lands under irrigation by becoming member of the
 said Society. The notification under Section 4
 is of 1985, the society came into existence in
 1974, but for 11 years these claimants neither
 became the members nor they took any benefit of
 irrigation facility from the said society.
 Therefore, the hope expressed by the Reference
 Court that there was possibility to bring the
 acquired lands under irrigation was without any
 basis and the compensation at any rate could not
 be fixed on some assumption.

¶72

 4. This is, therefore, a case where there

¶73

¶74

 are no sale deeds prior to the date of
 notification under Section 4. All the sale deeds
 are subsequent to the date of notification under
 Section 4. They could not have been considered.
 There is no evidence that the lands were
 irrigated at any time and, therefore, the orders
 of the Reference Court dated 18th March 1994 in
 respective matters enhancing the compensation are
 perverse. They are liable to be set aside.
 Hence the order :-

¶75

 :ORDER:

¶76

 All the appeals are allowed.

¶77

 Impugned orders in the respective appeals
 are set aside. The claimants in all the
 appeals will be entitled to the
 compensation as awarded by the Special
 Land Acquisition Officer in the
 respective awards and nothing more with
 legal benefits in proportionate to the
 ratio of compensation awarded as above.

¶78

 Since the appeals are heard and decided
 on merits, the civil applications in the

¶79

¶80

 respective appeals do not survive. They
 are disposed of and the delay, if any, is

¶81

 condoned in all matters.

¶82

 [D.G.DESHPANDE]

¶83

 07/04/2005 JUDGE.

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramchandra Krishna Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramchandra Krishna Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Parbhani Pamji Dept and Anr. Vs Haribai Anandrao Gaikwad and Ors.

Dattatray Baburao Anerao and Anr. Vs Rajaram Babu Pawar and Anr.

Ramchandra Pandu Ganeshker Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Krishna Patil

Chandrakant Narayan Sawant Vs Irfan Ismail Darji and Ors.

Mohd.Yusuf Shaikh Dawood Dakhave D/H Shafia Mohd.Yusuf Dhakhave and Ors. Vs Mohd.Ali Mohd.Hussain Ramrajkar D/H Badrunnissa Mohd.Ali Ramrajkar D/H Mohd.Iqbal Mohd.Ali Ramrajka