Appeals by the State against a higher compensation award by the Reference Court in land acquisition proceedings. The High Court found the award supported by evidence and dismissed appeals regarding valuation and compensation for trees.
Appeals dismissed. No additional compensation awarded for trees. Fees in the suit to be borne by all parties.
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
HVN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1038 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
Jayram Ghulam Shirsat and Ors. ... Respondents
ALONGWITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1039 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
Shri. Ratanlal Lalchand Bora ... Respondent
ALONGWITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1040 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
Vithoba S. Ghule and Ors. ... Respondents
ALONGWITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1041 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
S.K. Gangurde ... Respondent
ALONGWTH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1042 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
Arvind P. Gaikwad ... Respondent
ALONGWITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
Popat Sadu Ghadge ... Respondent
ALOGNWITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
G.N. Shirsat ... Respondent
ALONGWITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 1999
2
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
Smt.Satyabhamabai Shirdhar Kakad
and Ors. ... Respondents
ALONGWITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
Khandu Fakira Hire and Ors. ... Respondents
ALONGWITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1047 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
K.K. Ahire ... Respondent
Mr. A.R. Patil, A.G.P. for the Appellant.
Mr.P.N. Joshi for Respondents.
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.&
A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
P.C.
1. The above stated 10 appeals are directed against
the common judgment dated 21.4.1997 pronounced by
the Joint District judge, Nashik. As the common
questions of fact and law arise for consideration,
all these appeals are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. The undisputed facts are that the appropriate
Government issued notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act on 12.2.1989 intending to
acquire the lands from village Vani, Taluka Dindori,
District Nashik for the public purpose namely
3
project of Punegaon Canal. The concerned S.L.A.O.
was duly authorised to exercise the powers of the
Collector under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act after following the prescribed
procedure under the Act. Thereafter Notification
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published on 27th December, 1989. The S.L.A.O.
passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on
30.10.1990. The Collector by dividing the lands
into three different grades awarded the following
compensation payable to the claimants for
acquisition of their respective lands.
Grade I : Rs.6,000/-
Grade II : Rs.7,500/-
Grade III : Rs.8,000/-
Rs.200/- P.H. for Pot Kharaba.
3. The claimants obviously being dissatisfied by
the award of the Collector filed Reference under
Section 18 of the Act which in turn were referred by
the S.L.A.O. to the Reference Court. The Reference
Court vide its award dated 21.4.1997 enhanced the
compensation payable to the claimants and granted
compensation at the rate of Rs.30,300/- per hectare
for ‘jirayat’ land and Rs.45,600/- per hectare for
‘bagayat’ land. Though the claimants in their
petition under Section 18 have claimed compensation
4
at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The State
being aggrieved from the judgment of the Reference
Court, challenged the legality and correctness of
the judgment of the Reference Court in the present
appeals.
4. The main contention raised before us on behalf
of the State Government while impugning the judgment
is that awarding of the compensation is not based on
proper evidence and that no separate compensation
could have been awarded for the trees etc. in
addition to the compensation awarded in the land.
5. We find no substance in either of the
contentions raised on behalf of the State. Firstly
the learned Reference Court has relied upon sale
deed Exh. 24 which was proved by statement of C.W.
No. 2 examined at Exh. 23. In terms of the sale
deed the land admeasuring about 1 hectare was sold
for the sum of Rs.37,500/- on 14.7.1986. The land
subject matter of the sale deed was from the revenue
estate of the same village. The other sale instance
proved by the claimant was Exh. 26 vide which 40R
of land was sold for Rs.15,500/- as on 28.12.1997
thus giving the rate of only Rs.38,750/- per
hectare. The State led no evidence before the
Reference Court and no sale instances were proved on
record which could reflect that the value of the
5
land in question was less than what was indicated in
these two sale instances. The land Reference Court
primarily relied upon Exh. 24 and after giving
increase in the said price of the land, awarded
compensation to the claimants. Exh. 24 relates to
sale of 1 hectare which is ‘jirayat’ land. Thus
after giving increase for the intervening period of
2 years and 9 months, i.e. from 14.7.1986 to
12.12.1989, the value determined would be that of
‘jirayat’ and not of the ‘bagayat’ land as indicated
by the Reference Court. Even if some element of
deduction was to be effected, the same was not
justified in the facts of the present case as the
sale instances relates to reasonably large piece of
land i.e. 1 hectare, still the compensation
determined by the Reference Court would be
compensation payable for the ‘jirayat’ land which
then ought to have been increased by 1.5 times at
least to determine the market value of the ‘bagayat’
land. Furthermore there is no merit in the argument
advanced on behalf of the State that there was no
increasing trend. Exh. 24 and 26 itself shows that
there was increasing trend in the sale price of the
lands. This fact firstly has been duly reflected in
the evidence produced on record and even otherwise,
it is a well known and accepted fact that the prices
of the land has been increasing all over.
6
6. Thus we find no merit in the arguments advanced
by the counsel for the State. The State in fact
could have hardly justify filing of the present
appeals.
7. Coming to the last contention raised on behalf
of the State that the compensation for trees ought
not to have been granted. The learned counsel
relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State
of Haryana Versus Gurcharan Singh and another, AIR
1996 SC 106 wherein it was held that for grown up
trees, separate compensation cannot be awarded
particularly when the land was primarily used for
agricultural purpose and has been acquired. Those
are not the facts applicable to the present case.
In the present case as noted in the judgment of the
Reference Court, there were grape plants and fruit
trees in the fields in question. We find no error
in the approach adopted by the Reference Court in
awarding the compensation considering the quality of
land seeking existence of grape garden over period
of time and sale available as was reflected in the
evidence. It was not the case where the court had
awarded compensation on the basis of the nature of
the land as well as fruit bearing trees. The
compensation awarded was for the bare land which was
agricultural land and existence of fruit bearing
trees is not considered as a factor to value of the
7
land. Thus compensation awarded is on the basis of
bare land as per sale deed Exh. 24. No additional
compensation has been given for expenditure incurred
in establishing horticulture garden of the grapes.
Even expert evidence produced by the claimants along
with their own statements was not rebutted by the
State. We see no reason to interfere in the
impugned judgment. Appeals dismissed. Parties to
bear their own costs. All Civil Applications
dismissed.
CHIEFJUSTICE
A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation based on proper evidence of sale instances.
Whether separate compensation could be awarded for trees and plants in addition to the land.
Whether the Reference Court committed an error in determining market value for 'jirayat' and 'bagayat' lands.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana Versus Gurcharan Singh and anotherDistinguished¶46
State of Haryana Versus Gurcharan Singh and another, AIR 1996 SC 106 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Jayram Ghulam Shirsat
Ratanlal Lalchand Bora
Vithoba S. Ghule
S.K. Gangurde
Arvind P. Gaikwad
Swatanter Kumar
A.P. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court