Appeal against land acquisition compensation. Court allowed appeal, modifying reference court award from Rs.10,000 to Rs.20,000 per hectare, relying on a prior comparable judgment and awarding solatium and interest.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.20,000 per hectare; solatium of 12% under Section 23(1A); interest retained.
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 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 OF 1996
Malharrao s/o Kerbarao
Cherampalle, age 46 Yrs.
occup. agril. r/o Tupdal,
(BK) Taluka .Mukhed,Dist.
Nanded.
Appellant/
ori.claimant
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector,Nanded.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Respondents/ Officer, P.T. and M.I.W. ori.Resps. Nanded.
Shri M.M.Patil (Beedkar) Advocate for appellant.
Shri S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1.
Coram : P.R.Borkar, J.
Date : May 03, 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
01.This is an appeal preferred by the original
claimant being dissatisfied by compensation awarded by
the learned Additional District Judge, Biloli, in
L.A.R. No.35 of 1993 decided on 19.7.1995 for the land
of claimant acquired by the State Government.
Reference Court awarded Rs.11,000/= per hectare in
stead of Rs.50,000/= per hectare.
2
02.Some of the facts giving rise to this appeal
may be stated as under;;
It is the case of the present appellant-
claimant that his lands survey No.53/A admeasuring 1
hectare 98 R., survey No.53/B admeasuring 90 R. and
Survey No.53/C admeasuring 94 R. of village Tupdal,
Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded were acquired by the
State Government for Jamkhed Medium Project.
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act was issued on 25.12.1985 and the award was passed
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 19.12.1988,
granting compensation at Rs.8423/= per hectare. Being
aggrieved thereby, the claimant filed reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference
Court enhanced compensation and awarded rate of Rs.
11,000/= per hectare. Being dissatisfied with the
same, this appeal is filed by the claimant.
03.Heard Shri M.M.Patil (Beedkar) Advocate for
the appellant and Shri S.N. Kendre, learned A.G.P. for
the respondents.
04.Advocate Shri M.M.Patil for the appellant
relied upon judgment of this court in First Appeal No.
3
64 of 1996 decided on April 22, 2010 (Allabaksha s/o
Maulana vs. The State of Maharashtra). In that case,
this court awarded compensation at Rs.20,000/= per
hectare in stead of Rs.10,000/= per hectare. The sale
instance in that case dated 24.2.1984 from village
Hasnal produced at Exh.29 was considered. Land
admeasuring 81 R. was sold for Rs.16,500/= per
hectare.
05.Both sides have taken me through impugned
judgment and other record. It may be noted that
acquisition of lands in both i.e. present appeal and
first appeal No.64 of 1996 were from same village
Tupdal, Taluka Mukhed and they were acquired for the
same project i.e. Jamkhed Medium Project. The Land
Acquisition Officer has classified the lands in
different groups on the basis of their revenue
assessment. It is not disputed that the lands
acquired were dry lands. Above referred sale instance
dated 24.2.1984, which was relied upon in First Appeal
No.64 of 1996, was also relied upon in the present
case before the reference court. It is clear from the
record produced before this court that the lands
situated at village Hasnal, Tupdal, Gondi and Pali
were acquired for the same project and sale instance
4
from village Hasnal, therefore, can be accepted as
comparable sale instance. The sale deed at Exh.29
shows that it was in respect of dry land, therefore,
can be accepted to be comparable with the land
acquired in the present case. In fact, revenue
assessment of the land involved in the sale instance
referred to was Rs.1/= for 81 R. So, the lands
acquired in the present case, which were included in
group "C" were having better revenue assessment
ranging between Rs.2.51 to Rs.3.75. So, considering
the land revenue assessments, it can be said that the
lands in the present case were better quality lands
than the land involved in the sale instance relied
upon.
06.In my opinion, considering that the land
involved in the sale instance referred to in First
Appeal No.64 of 1996 and also the land acquired in
this case, they are comparable. We can, therefore,
safely accept the judgment and award passed by this
court in First Appeal No.64 of 1990 decided on April
22, 2010 and award the same market rate to the
claimant in the present case.
5
partly. The judgment and award passed by reference
court on 19.7.1995 in L.A.R. No.35 of 1993 is
modified and it is directed that the appellant-
claimant shall be entitled to compensation at the rate
of Rs.20,000/= per hectare in stead of Rs.10,000/= per
hectare awarded by the reference court. The appellant
shall also be entitled to solatium, additional
component of 12 per cent as per Section 23(1A) of the
Land Acquisition Act and interest as awarded by
reference court on enhanced compensation.
08.First Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and
disposed of.
pnd/fa502.96(P.R.BORKAR, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to the same compensation rate per hectare awarded in a previous appeal involving comparable land acquired for the same project?
Whether the enhancement of compensation from Rs.10,000/= to Rs.20,000/= per hectare is warranted based on comparable sale instances?
Whether the appellant is entitled to solatium and interest as per the Land Acquisition Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Allabaksha s/o Maulana vs. The State of MaharashtraFollowed¶19
First Appeal No. 64 of 1996 decided on April 22, 2010 (Allabaksha s/o Maulana vs. The State of Maharashtra)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Malharrao s/o Kerbarao
The State of Maharashtra
P.R.Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court