Third Full Bench considered appeals filed by the State challenging a Land Acquisition Reference Award that enhanced compensation for farmers. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the award reflected true market value based on available sale instances.
All three First Appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs.
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)
fa534-96-group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 534 OF 1996
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, JalgaonAPPELLANT
VERSUS
Hiraman Chindha,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Farmer,
R/o Akhalwade, Tal. Pachora.RESPONDENT
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 535 OF 1996
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, JalgaonAPPELLANT
VERSUS
Nathu Lotan Gadhari,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Farmer,
R/o Mohalai, Tal. Pachora.RESPONDENT
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 536 OF 1996
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, JalgaonAPPELLANT
VERSUS
Girdhar Pundalik Patil,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Farmer,
R/o Mohalai, Tal. Soygaon,
District JalgaonRESPONDENT
(2)
fa534-96-group
.....
Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.G.P. for the appellant/State
in all the appeals.
Mr. B.R. Warma, advocate for the respondent in
all the appeals.
.....
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 28th FEBRUARY, 2012
ORAL JUDGEMENT :
1.Heard.
2.Aggrieved by the direction to pay more
compensation in the Land Acquisition Reference, the
present three appeals are preferred by the State.
3.The lands in question were acquired by the
State for the purpose of constructing a percolation
tank at village Mohalai, Taluka Pachora, District
Jalgaon. The notification under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, dated 09-12-1985 was published
in the Government Gazette dated 02-01-1986. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per hectare.
As against this, the learned Reference Court has
granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 56,900/- per
hectare. Aggrieved by the said Award, the present
(3)
fa534-96-group
appeals are preferred.
4.Mr. B.J. Sonawane, learned A.G.P., appearing
for the appellant/State, submits that the learned
Reference Court has relied over the sale instances at
Exh-17 and Exh-18 though the lands sold under the
said sale instances were of different villages and
which were irrigated lands. Therefore, though the
comparable sale instances were not filed by the
respondents/land owners, the learned Reference Court
wrongly enhanced the compensation.
5.On the other hand, Mr. B.R. Warma, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that
the evidence on record would show that the sale
instances are of the area of the same villages. The
evidence on record would show that the lands sold
under those sale instances were not irrigated lands
and in that view of the matter, he submits that the
compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court
need not be interfered with.
6.In view of above material, following point
arises for my determination.
(4)
fa534-96-group
Whether the compensation awarded by the
learned Reference Court, is as per the true
market value ?
My finding to the above point is in the affirmative
and, therefore, the appeals are dismissed without any
order as to costs, for the reasons given below :-
REASONS:
7.Exhibit-17 - certified copy of the sale-deed
shows that it is for 9 R of land sold for
consideration of Rs. 8000/-. The land was sold in
the year 1982 and the same was of village Nagardeola.
Exhibit-18 is a certified copy of the sale-deed,
which pertains to the land at village Akhatwade. It
admeasures 27 R and was sold for an amount of
Rs. 12,500/- on 11-06-1981. The claimants in their
cross-examination have admitted that Gut No. 4, which
is represented by sale-deed at Exh-18, was an
irrigated land. However, Exhibit-18 shows that the
land was purchased merely with a right to take 1/4th
share in a well situated in another Gut. The
(5)
fa534-96-group
claimants have deposed that the land acquired is at a
distance of about 2 to 3 fields from the land sold
under the sale-deeds (Exh-17 and Exh-18). They
further deposed that village Nagardeoli and village Akhatwade are adjoining to the shiv (boundary) of their village. During the cross-examination, they admitted that village Nagardeola is comparatively a big village wherein irrigation facility from the river is available. The claimants have also admitted that the road for S.T. bus is available at village Nagardeola which facility is not there as regards their village.
8.The Special Land Acquisition Officer Mr.
Narayan Bapu Padvi was examined in Land Acquisition
Reference No. 17/91, out of which First Appeal No.
535/1996 has arisen. In cross-examination, he deposed
that if the Award is passed for more than Rs.
2,50,000/- i.e. upto Rs. 15,00,000/-, the permission
of the Collector is required. He merely deposed that
he has gone through the sale instances of village
Nipani but no reliance was placed on any of said sale
instances.
(6)
fa534-96-group
9.The learned reference court has drawn the
average price under these two sale instances and
granted the same. No increase towards the price
escalation was awarded though the sale instances were
4 and 5 years respectively prior to notification
under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the
circumstances, no interference is warranted in the
impugned award.
10.Mr. Sonawane, learned A.G.P., relied on the
ratio in "Gafar and others v. Moradabad Development
Authority and another", reported in 2007 ALL SCR
2267, wherein it was case of rate of sales in respect
of smaller plots. In the present case, an average of
two sale instances was accepted as detailed supra.
11.In the result, all the three First Appeals
are dismissed, without any order as to costs.
[M.T. JOSHI, J.]
npj/fa534-96-group
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Learned Reference Court corresponds to the true market value of the land?
Whether the average price derived from specific sale instances constitutes a legal basis for enhancing compensation despite lack of escalation adjustment?
Whether the appeal filed by the State regarding compensation underpayment should be allowed given the market conditions?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gafar and others v. Moradabad Development Authority and anotherReferred¶10
2007 ALL SCR 2267 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hiraman Chindha
Nathu Lotan Gadhari
Girdhar Pundalik Patil
The State of Maharashtra
M.T. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court