Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra. v. Raghunath Kashiram Choudhary.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2010FA/489/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed three appeals filed by the State challenging the award of compensation in land acquisition references. The reference was upheld for finding no error in relying on a comparable sale instance and the classification of land, and held that certified copies of sale deeds are admissible evidence.

What did the court decide?

All three first appeals were dismissed; the compensation awarded by the Reference Court stands confirmed.

The State of Maharashtra. Vs Raghunath Kashiram Choudhary. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.489 OF 1996

¶4

The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Jalgaon.

¶5

Appellant/orig.
Respondent.

¶6

versus

¶7

01. Raghunath Kashinath Chaudhari age nil,r/o Mehun, Tq.Edlabad District Jalgaon.

¶8

02. Pralhad Kashiram Chaudhari, age nil,r/o Mehun,Tq. Edlabad, Respondents/ District Jalgaon. ori.claimants

¶9

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.490 OF 1996

¶10

The State of MaharashtraAppellant/orig.
(through) Special Land Respondent.
Acquisition Officer, Dist.
Jalna.

¶11

versus

¶12

01.Ravindra Dhanu Patil,
age nil, r/of Mehun,Respondent/ori.
Tq.Edlabad, Dist.Jalgaon.claimant.

¶13

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.491 OF 1996

¶14

The State of Maharashtra,through
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Appellant/
Jalgaon. ori.Resp.

¶15

¶16

versus

¶17

1. Supadu Bhavji Patil

¶18

2. Shivram Bhavji Patil

¶19

3. Jivram Bhavji Patil

¶20

4.Rambhabai Bhavji PatilRespondents/
original
All r/of Mehun, Talukaclaimants.
Edlabad, Dist.Jalgaon.

¶21

Shri B.V. Wagh, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the appellant.
Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for Respondent (absent).

¶22

Coram : P.R. Borkar, J.
Date : July 16, 2010

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

01.These three first appeals are filed by

¶25

State against common judgment in three Land
Acquisition References bearing Nos.213,214 and 215

¶26

of 1991 decided by learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, by common judgment delivered on
24.7.1995.

¶27

02.It is not disputed that the lands of
Respondents-claimants situated at village Mehun

¶28

¶29

Tq. Edlabad, District Jalgaon, were acquired for
the purpose of Hatnoor project. Notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was
issued on 18.12.1985. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation of
Rs.20,000/= and Rs.18,000/= per hectare for

¶30

jirayat lands and double of the same for bagayat
lands. Learned judge of reference court, as per
para.8ofhisjudgment,acceptedthe

¶31

classification of land into jirayat and bagayat as
done by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and
also stated that the Special Land Acquisition
Officer had rightly considered the price of
bagayat land to be double than that of jirayat
land.

¶32

03.It is submitted by learned A.G.P. Shri

¶33

Wagh that though the reference court in paragraph
8 of it judgment has observed that one sale
instance of group 5 and three sale instances of
group 5 were available with the Special Land
Acquisition Officer and he had referred to the
same in his award, still the reference court has

¶34

¶35

referred to and relied upon one sale instance from
another village i.e. village Changdeo which was
about 2-3 kilometers away as per the claimants and
about 3-4 kilometers from the lands acquired as
per the appellant's witness. It is also observed
by the learned Reference Court that 3-4 kilometer
is is a small distance and, therefore, the said

¶36

sale instance is a comparable instance.

¶37

04.Shri Wagh, learned A.G.P. has drawn my

¶38

attention to the depositions of the witnesses and
submitted that only the claimant is examined in

¶39

each case and neither the seller nor the purchaser
of the land is examined. It is admitted that the
village Changdeo is also on the bank of river Tapi
and the Hatnoor project is also on the said river.
So, it is stated that the land under sale instance
must also be irrigated land. Absolutely, there is
nothing in the copy of the sale deed to show that

¶40

it was bagayat land. No distance of this land
from river Tapi is brought on record. The sale
instance does not describe the land as bagayat or
jirayat. Learned A.G.P. argued that it is presumed

¶41

¶42

to be jirayat land without there being any
evidence, such as 7 x 12 extract indicating the
land to be irrigated land.

¶43

05.In all three matters only one sale

¶44

instance is relied upon. No doubt, the said sale
instance is dated 7.5.1979. By the said sale
instance 29 R. land from Gat No.586 was sold for
Rs.21,000/=. Reference Court has considered Rs.

¶45

1.00 lakh per hectare as market value of the

¶46

land. When the sale deed does not show that the

¶47

land is irrigated or when it has not indicated any
source of water and when all the claimants have in
their deposition stated that it was jirayat land,
it does not appear that the Reference Court has

¶48

committed any error in treating the sale instance
as of jirayat land. It is not suggested that the
claimants were not aware of the lands of the
adjoining village. so, no error can be found
with the trial court in relying upon the sale
instance.

¶49

¶50

06.It is argued that mere production of copy
of sale deed is not enough. However, I may refer
to section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act which
speaks about acceptance of certified copy as
evidence. It speaks that in any proceedings under
the Act, a certified copy of a document registered
under the Registration Act 1908, including a copy
given under Section 57 of that Act, may be
accepted as a evidence of the transaction recorded
in such document.

¶51

07.It, therefore, cannot be said that the

¶52

reference court has committed any error in relying
upon the sale instance produced. No evidence in
rebuttal is placed on record indicating that the
sale instance is not of comparable category or
that there were other instances which are of
lesser value or that the land of which the sale
deed is produced has some special additional
advantage. It appears that since Hatnoor project
itself is on river Tapi, we can presume that the
lands in the vicinity of the said river, are of
same quality. Conclusion reached by the learned

¶53

¶54

Reference Court, therefore, cannot be said to be
wrong.

¶55

08.In the facts and circumstances, all the
three first appeals stand dismissed.

¶56

pnd/fa489.96 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)

¶57

The State of Maharashtra. v. Raghunath Kashiram Choudhary.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra. v. Raghunath Kashiram Choudhary.

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

Balgir Gangagir Giri and Anr. Vs Bhimrao Sandu Pawar

Shyamkumar Gorakh Karanje Vs the State of Mah. and Anr.

The M.S.E.B. through the Executive Engineer Vs Mehboob Umarkhan and Anr.

Babarao @ Dadarao Yogaji Dhore Vs Godavari Marathwada Irrigtion Development Corpn. through Its Exe.Engrr. Minor Irri.Divn Parbhani or

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Thr. Legal Manager Vs Satyabhama Arjun Bansude

Munjaji Shamrao Jadhav Vs Govind Kishanrao Mehatre and Ors.