Single judge allowed State appeals challenging the enhanced compensation awarded by Reference Court for lands acquired for percolation tank. Court held appeal fails due to State failure to lead evidence proving lower market value.
State appeals filed against enhanced compensation award dismissed due to failure of State to lead evidence.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2010
| The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur |
Appellant |
|---|---|
| V E R S U S | |
| Ramkishan s/o Vishwambar Ghyal, Aged Major, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Talni, Taluka Ausa, District Latur |
Respondent |
| WITH |
FIRST APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2010
| The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur |
Appellant |
|---|---|
| V E R S U S | |
| Bali s/o Dhondiba Lanjare, Aged Major, Occupation Agriculture, |
Respondent |
| Resident of Talni, Taluka Ausa, | |
| District Latur. |
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1524 OF 2010
| The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur |
Appellant |
|---|---|
| V E R S U S | |
| Indrajit s/o Narsing Lanjare, Aged Major, Occupation Agriculture, |
Respondent |
| Resident of Talni, Taluka Ausa, | |
| District Latur. |
2
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1523 OF 2010
The State of Maharashtra, Appellant Through Collector, Latur V E R S U S Kisan s/o Limba Bhujbal, Aged Respondent Major, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Talni, Taluka Ausa, District Latur.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2010
| The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur |
Appellant |
|---|---|
| V E R S U S | |
| 1. Udaybhan s/o Malhari Ghayal, Aged Major, Occupation Agriculture, |
Respondents |
| 2. Vasant s/o Malhari Ghayal, Aged Major, Occupation Agriculture, |
|
| 3. Venkat s/o Narhari Ghayal, |
|
| Aged Major, Occupation Agriculture, All resident of Talni, Taluka Ausa, District Latur |
Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for the appellant / State Respondents though served, absent
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15th July, 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
3
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
It is common ground that the lands of all the respondents / claimants were acquired in the year 1987 for the purpose of percolation tank at village Talni, Taluka Ausa, District Latur. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.130/to Rs.150/- per Are / Guntha. The respondents / claimants challenged the Award by way of references before the Civil Court. They claimed that the prevailing market value of the lands in question was more than Rs.40,000/- per acre, and so, they demanded enhanced compensation. The appellant / State of Maharashtra opposed the references. However, the learned Judge of the reference Court having regard to the evidence led by the respondents / claimants, held that they were entitled to compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. He also held that all the lands in question were Jirayat / dry lands.
At the outset, it must be mentioned that the appellant / State of Maharashtra did not lead any evidence when the case was tried before the reference Court. On the other hand, the respondents / claimants examined witness to prove the sale instance of adjoining village and established that the prevailing market value of the lands of village Mangrul, the adjoining village, was more than Rs.20,000/- per acre in 1982. On the other hand, they showed that the Notification for acquisition of these lands was issued on 3rd November, 1988. Having regard to the escalation in market price of the lands, the learned Judge of the reference Court held that the market value of the lands in question would not be less than Rs.33,000/- per acre in 1988. The learned Judge of the reference Court also took into consideration the evidence of the claimants when they asserted that they were utilizing
4
their lands for taking two crops in a year. Despite of this, the learned Judge of the reference Court mainly placed reliance on the Judgment of Land Acquisition References (group), in which the Civil Court had granted compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. The learned Judge of the reference Court observed that the lands in that case were acquired for the same purpose and at the same time. Having regard to this and despite the evidence that has come on record indicate that the market value of the lands in question was not less than Rs. 33,000/- per acre. The learned Judge of the reference Court moderated it and awarded compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. As said above, it was necessary for the appellant / State of Maharashtra to adduce evidence and to prove that the market value of the lands in question at the relevant time was less than Rs.20,000/- per acre. Having failed to do so, the appellants cannot assail the impugned Judgment. The appeals should therefore fail. The appeals stand dismissed.
(A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)
srm/fa/178/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the State could prove that the prevailing market value of the lands was less than Rs.20,000 per acre.
Whether the appellants failed to lead evidence to establish lower market value of acquired lands.
Whether the award of compensation by the reference court should stand upheld against State challenge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur
Ramkishan s/o Vishwambar Ghyal
Bali s/o Dhondiba Lanjare
Indrajit s/o Narsing Lanjare
Kisan s/o Limba Bhujbal
Udaybhan s/o Malhari Ghayal and others
A.V. NIRGUDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
