Remanded

Bhimrao Jayaji Gaikwad Died Lrs Kalabai Bhimrao Gaikwad and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2012FA/114/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted the appellants another opportunity to produce evidence regarding the market value of land acquired for minor irrigation. The court observed that sale instances showing higher prices were wrongly discarded by the SLAO and the Reference Court. The impugned judgment and award were quashed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award quashed; matter remitted to Reference Court with opportunity to adduce additional evidence.

Bhimrao Jayaji Gaikwad Died Lrs Kalabai Bhimrao Gaikwad and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

F.A.No.114/12 with connected F.As.

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO.114 OF 2012 WITH

¶7

F.A.NO.116 OF 2012
F.A.NO.117 OF 2012
F.A.NO.118 OF 2012
F.A.NO.184 OF 2012

¶8

Bhimrao Jayaji Gaikwad died through L.Rs. Kalabai Wd/o
Bhimrao Gaikwad and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
another.

¶9

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶10

Mr.S.V.Adwant, advocate for the appellants.
Mr.P.P.More, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.

¶11

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶12

 Date : 16.08.2012.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The claimants had filed Reference U/s 18 of the Land

¶16

Acquisition Act, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the SLAO.

¶17

The lands of the claimants situated at village Ghatnandra, Tq.Sillod, Dist.Aurangabad, were acquired for the purpose of Minor Irrigation Tank. The SLAO awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.340 per Are. The claimants sought compensation at the

¶18

¶19

F.A.No.114/12 with connected F.As.

¶20

rate of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand) per acre. The Reference Court rejected the Reference on the count that applicants/claimants could not prove that SLAO has awarded less compensation amount. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals.

¶21

Mr.Adwant, learned counsel relying on the award itself submits that the lands of the claimants were under Group II. The sale instances before the SLAO showed that prior to the notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the lands were sold at the rate of Rs.700/- per Are. No reason is given for discarding the said sale instance. According to the learned counsel, even before the Reference Court the sale instance Exh.25 was produced which shows that prior to the notification, the land was sold at the rate of Rs.687/- (Rupees six hundred eighty seven) per Are. The said sale instance is in respect of similarly situated land. The Reference Court committed an error in discarding the said sale instance. According to the learned counsel to prove the nature of soil, even an expert from the Agricultural Department was examined but even the same was discarded. In alternate, the learned counsel submits that he would produce all the sale instances which have been relied by the SLAO while passing the award before the Reference Court. The same would be relevant for consideration, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Ambya Kalya Mhatre dead through L.Rs. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra"

¶22

¶23

F.A.No.114/12 with connected F.As.

¶24

reported in 2012 (1) Mh.L.J.9 .

¶25

Mr.More, learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the Respondent/State submits that the Reference Court has elaborately discussed the sale instances and the evidence adduced by the claimants and has rightly come to the conclusion.

¶26

According to the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by the SLAO, after considering all the facets of the matter.

¶27

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the award passed by the SLAO, judgment delivered by the Reference Court. Perusal of the award passed by the SLAO, it appears that sale instances in respect of the lands covered under Group II were available with the SLAO and some of the sale instances are of Rs.687/- (Rupees six hundred eighty seven) and Rs. 700/- (Rupees seven hundred) per Are. The same have been discarded only on the ground that they were on higher side. There does not appear to be any plausible reason to come to the said conclusion. Of-course, before this Court the sale deeds are not a matter of record. Unless the sale deeds are considered, the nature of land under sale can not be ascertained.

¶28

As the learned counsel for the appellants has sought an opportunity to place such evidence on record, it would be appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the claimants to

¶29

¶30

produce the said evidence. The evidence can be adduced and considered by the Reference Court. In view of the above, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the claimants to adduce evidence in respect of market value of the land on the date of notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶31

In the result, the impugned judgment and award are quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted to the Reference Court. The parties shall have an opportunity to adduce additional evidence, oral as well as documentary.

¶32

The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 10.9.2012. The Reference Court shall issue notice to the Respondent No.2 i.e. acquiring body. The Reference Court shall expeditiously decide the Reference, preferably within six (6) months from the date of appearance.

¶33

Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Reference Court immediately.

¶34

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶35

Dt.16.08.2012. asp/office/Fa114.12

¶36

¶37

F.A.No.114/12 with connected F.As.

Bhimrao Jayaji Gaikwad Died Lrs Kalabai Bhimrao Gaikwad and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimrao Jayaji Gaikwad Died Lrs Kalabai Bhimrao Gaikwad and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Masaji Ghansawadh and Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Maroti Tukaram Bhavar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ashwini Anil More and Ors. Vs Shankar Kundlik Bhange and Anr.

Vijaykumar Narhari Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sarubai Malhari Chormale Vs Ganpati Bapu Saigane

Dhudku Ganpat Mahajan Vs Prabhakar Madhavrao Deshpande