During first appeals filed by land owners against the LAR award, the High Court allowed them further enhancement in compensation for land acquired for the Raigavan project, fixing the reasonable market price at Rs. 15,000 per acre.
Appeals allowed; compensation fixed at Rs. 15,000 per acre with statutory benefits.
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 F.A.27.00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2000
Venkat S/o Yeshwant Wayal, Age- 49 years, occu. Agricultural R/o Wadi Wagholi, Ta. Latur. ...Appellant versus The State of Maharashtra. Through The Collector, Latur ...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2000
FIRST APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2000
Khudbu S/o Syed, Age- 59 years, occu. Agriculture R/o Wadi Wagholi, Ta. Latur. ...Appellant versus The State of Maharashtra. Through The Collector, Latur ...Respondents
2 F.A.27.00
Mr. S.S. Manale, Advocate for Appellants Mr. S.P. Daund, A.G.P. for respondent -State.
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
herein below:
| Names of claimants |
LAR No. | First Appeal No. |
Gut No. |
Land Acquire d H. R. |
village | Amount granted by LAO per Hectare |
Amount claimed as Market price |
Amount granted by Reference court. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Venkat Harischandra Vayal |
603/90 | 27/00 | 36 | 01=28 | Wadi Wagholi |
8556/- | 20,000/- | 11000/- |
| Bappa Vithal Bhise & another |
604/90 | 28/00 | 21 | 02=99 | -do- | 11368/- | 15,000/- | 10500/- |
| Khudbu S/o Syed |
609/90 | 29/00 | 42 | 01=53 | -do- | 11368/- | 15,000/- | 11000/- |
3 F.A.27.00
4 F.A.27.00
distance of 5 k.m. from village Wadi Wagholi, had been granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 26,000/- per acre. Though the appellants have not claimed said amount, their case be considered for such compensation. Learned counsel appearing for appellants places reliance on the case of K. Periasami Vs. SubTehsildar (Land Acquisition) reported in 1994(4) SCC 180 and contends that persons whose land was acquired may not be able to know the market price of the land, may not claim the same for various or otherwise reasons, in such a case, though claimants may not have demanded they would be entitled to the market value as determined and/or may be prevailing. It is further being contended that possession of the lands had taken by private negotiations, yet rental compensation had not been paid to the claimants. It is the contention of the learned counsel that sale instances of village Murud have been declined considering the distance between the village Murud and Wadi Wagholi. As a matter of fact, aerial distance between village Murud and Wadi Wagholi is about 2 k.m. and distance between village Naigaon and Wadi Wagholi is 3 k.m.
5 F.A.27.00
excessive and exorbitant. The lands are not fertile. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, village Wadi Wagholi is a small place and it is not a developed village having civic amenities. According to him, at the time of acquisition, value of the land was not more than Rs. 5000/- per Acre. No evidence has been put forth by the claimants to prove the claim that the acquired lands fetched rate Rs. 15,000/- per acre. The land acquisition officer had visited the spot and after proper inquiry has arrived at market price. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, as a matter of fact, the reference court having enhanced the compensation and there is no cogent evidence in support of the claim being made in the first appeal, the same are liable to be dismissed.
Whether the claimants are entitled to further enhancement in compensation granted to them by Reference Court ?
. My finding to the said point is in the affirmative, and the appeals, are therefore, allowed for the reasons given.
6 F.A.27.00
purpose, learned counsel for appellants points out that aerial distance between village Murud and Wadi Wagholi is just about 2 k.m., which learned Assistant Government Pleader, is not in a position to dispute.
7 F.A.27.00
8 F.A.27.00
to consider said decision holding that the same is not a perfect guideline for deciding the present matter, for the reason that distance was not on record in respect of village Naigaon and Wadi Wagholi. While in the present case submissions on behalf of the appellants about Naigaon being situated at a distance not more than 3 k.m., from village Wadi Wagholi is not contested with much force. Thus, though it has been appropriately considered by the Reference Court that land acquisition compensation granted by the land acquisition officer is inadequate, yet, the Reference Court has only marginally hiked the rate from Rs. 5000/- to 11000/- per acre.
9 F.A.27.00
have claimed Rs. 15,000/- per acre, it would be expedient that considering facilities like electricity, education and transportation available at village Wadi Wagholi the amount being demanded is quite reasonable and just. Request of learned counsel to higher compensation than demanded in this particular case taking into account various factors involved, would not to be considered looking at that the peoples being required to take longer route to reach place like Wadi Wagholi, which is other side of the high way. As such, I think it would be just, proper and convenient to accept the rate claimed by the claimants for being granted to them for acquisition of their lands. I, therefore, hold that reasonable market price on the date of notification shall be considered to be Rs. 15,000/- per acre, and the claimants shall be entitled to the same along with statutory benefits flowing therefrom.
Sd/-
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )
MTK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimants are entitled to further enhancement in compensation granted by the Reference Court?
Whether the rate of Rs. 15,000 per acre claimed by the appellants is reasonable market price considering proximity to other acquired lands?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Periasami Vs SubTehsildar (Land Acquisition)Explained¶24
K. Periasami Vs SubTehsildar (Land Acquisition) reported in 1994(4) SCC 180 · Who else cites this
Civil Court decision in Land Acquisition Reference No. 330 of 1991Referred¶37
Reference Court has considered the decision in Land Acquisition Reference No. 330 of 1991
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Venkat S/o Yeshwant Wayal
Bappa S/o Vithalrao Bhise & another
Khudbu S/o Syed
The State of Maharashtra
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
