Partly allowed

Baliram Deorao Jadhav L.Rs. Shivram Baliram Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2012FA/3558/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal regarding land acquisition, the Court examined the adequacy of compensation for bagayat land. While rejecting a sale instance occurring after notification, the Court considered a prior small-sale instance. Adjusting the value due to the small size, the Court fixed market value at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre and partly allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is modified to award compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre; rest of the award with solatium and interest is sustained.

Baliram Deorao Jadhav L.Rs. Shivram Baliram Jadhav and Anr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 fa 3558.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 3558 OF 2011

¶4

Baliram Deorao Jadhav (Died) through his L.R.’s

¶5

Shivram S/o Baliram Jadhav, Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Agril.,

¶6

Dhondiram S/o Baliram Jadhav, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., Both R/o Morwad, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. .. Appellants Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Latur.

¶8

The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project, Latur.

¶9

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (MIW), Latur. .. Respondents

¶10

Shri E. P. Sawant, Advocate for Appellants. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for Respondents/State.

¶11

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2012.

¶12

2 fa 3558.11

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶14

. The matter has been heard finally as the record and proceedings also received by the Court.

¶15

The land of the claimants admeasuring 4H 27R situated at village Morwad bearing gut No. 253 is acquired. The notification U/Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued on 03.11.1999. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 700/- per R. Being dissatisfied by the said amount of compensation awarded, the claimants filed a reference before the District Court U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court Partly allowed the said reference and awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The claimants have assailed the said award passed by the Reference Court on the ground that the claimants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre.

¶16

Shri Sawant, the learned counsel for appellants strenuously contends that the appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. Even sale instance vide Exhibit 25 and 26 are placed on record. Exhibit 25

¶17

3 fa 3558.11

¶18

is of the same village and is prior to the notification U/Sec. 4. The said sale instances are discarded solely on the ground that it is of small area. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Valu Yesu Suryavanshi (Nhavi) reported 2008(4) Mh. L. J. 626 to contend that the award of compensation on the basis of sale instance relating to small piece of land is permissible. The learned counsel further contends that even the sale instance at Exhibit 26 is in respect of land situated in an adjacent village and the land is adjacent to the land of the claimants acquired. The learned counsel submits that even the oral evidence has not been considered in this regard. The land acquired is bagayat land. Even the 7/12 extract shows the existence of well and the crops of sugar cane, orange, mosambi being taken.

¶19

Shri More, the learned A. G. P. submits that the land acquired and the lands under sale instances are not similarly situated. No evidence has been brought on record even to suggest this fact. According to the learned A. G. P. the sale instance at Exhibit 25 dated 29.10.1998 is of only 5R land which cannot be considered while evaluating the market price of the

¶20

4 fa 3558.11

¶21

acquired land and same has been rightly discarded. The sale instance at Exhibit 26 is after publication of notification U/Sec. 4 and of a different village, the same has been rightly discarded. The court after taking overall view of the matter has awarded just compensation.

¶22

With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the record and the award. No doubt Exhibit 26 is a sale instance after the publication of notification U/Sec. 4, as such same cannot be considered.

¶23

As far as sale instance Exhibit 25 is concerned, the same is of the land situated in the same village and prior to the notification U/Sec. 4, the same can be considered. However, the said sale instance is of small piece of land i. e. 5 R. The said sale instance cannot be taken at its face value. However, the said sale instance can be an important factor to award compensation.

¶24

It is on record that the land acquired is a bagayat land wherein a well is situated. Even crops of sugar cane, orange and mosambi are taken by the claimant. As such there would be no impediment to consider the said land as bagayat land and award

¶25

5 fa 3558.11

¶26

compensation as that of bagayat land. Considering the sale instance Exhibit 25 to be of small land, naturally it would be sold at higher price, as such I would consider the value of the acquired land half of the value for which 5R land was sold.

¶27

In view of the above, I have no hesitation to hold that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre.

¶28

In the result the impugned award is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. Save and except the aforesaid modification the rest of the award with regard to solatium and interest is sustained and upheld. The first appeal is accordingly partly allowed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶31

bsb/June 12

Baliram Deorao Jadhav L.Rs. Shivram Baliram Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Deorao Jadhav L.Rs. Shivram Baliram Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Wadju Tolaji Mane and Others. Vs Masa Arjuna Jagade.

Ganpati Gyanoba Shrimangal. Vs Bhanudas Shantaram Rukme.

Mandodaribai Narayan Shinde and Another. Vs Devrao Nana Gholap.

Kesu Sakharam Vetal and Another. Vs Mhasu Sakharam Vetal.

Nanubai Keshav Shingore. Vs Kisan Dagdu Naik and Others.

Ibrahimbhai Kasambhai Jeewani. Vs Dhyansing Vasawasing Soki and Others.