Dismissed

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Strengthening Division Omerga v. Keshav Bhanudas Kokare and Others

Bombay HC24 Jul 2015FA/2225/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses appeals by the acquiring body against a Reference Court's award enhancing land acquisition compensation. The High Court upheld the admissibility of a prior sale deed despite timing concerns and rejected limitation defenses raised by the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the appeals filed by the acquiring body and disposed of the accompanying civil applications for stay.

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

CA 4346/15 & others in FAST 6451/15 & others

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4346/2015 IN
FAST/6451/2015

¶5

WITH
CA/4347/2015 IN FAST/6451/2015
WITH
CA/4349/2015 IN FAST/6690/2015
WITH
CA/4350/2015 IN FAST/6690/2015
WITH
CA/4370/2015 IN FAST/6538/2015
WITH
CA/4365/2015 IN FAST/6776/2015
WITH
CA/4366/2015 IN FAST/6776/2015
WITH
CA/4367/2015 IN FAST/6773/2015
WITH
CA/4368/2015 IN FAST/6773/2015
WITH
CA/4371/2015 IN FAST/6538/2015
WITH
CA/4377/2015 IN FAST/6431/2015
WITH
CA/4378/2015 IN FAST/6431/2015

¶6

The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Project Strengthening
Division, Omerga.

¶7

...Applicant..
 Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Keshav Bhanudas Kokare & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri Atul R. Kale, Advocate for applicant / appellant.
Shri L.C. Patil, Advocate for respondents – claimants.
Shri G.R. Ingole, AGP for the State.

¶13

CA 4346/15 & others in FAST 6451/15 & others

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

 .....

¶16

CORAM: N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶17

DATE: 24.07.2015

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

1]Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶20

2]In view of the cause cited in the civil applications

¶21

filed for condonation of delay and in the interest of
justice, the delay caused in preferring present first
appeals by the acquiring body is condoned.

¶22

3]With the consent of learned counsel appearing for
the parties, the appeals are taken up for hearing and
final disposal at this stage.
4]The Section 4 notification came to be issued on
4.5.2000 whereby land of the present respondents –

¶23

claimants were acquired for Wanegaon Storage Tank.

¶24

Section 6 notification was published on 2.8.2001. Under

¶25

Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer passed the award awarding
compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per Hectare.
5]The respondents – claimants since were not satisfied

¶26

with the offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer have

¶27

chosen to submit a reference u/s 18 of the Land

¶28

CA 4346/15 & others in FAST 6451/15 & others

¶29

- 3 -

¶30

Acquisition Act claiming enhancement of compensation to

¶31

the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- per Acre. The said
enhancement came to be granted by the judgment delivered
by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad
(Reference Court) on 11.7.2013. As such the present
appeals are filed by the acquiring body.

¶32

6]Learned counsel Shri Atul R. Kale for the appellant
made two fold contentions as under:

¶33

a]Exhibit 18 – a sale instance, which is relied

¶34

upon by the Reference Court and the location of the

¶35

land therein cannot be equated with that of the land

¶36

under acquisition even though the land is from the

¶37

same village. He would further urge that the said

¶38

sale instance for small piece of land and in between

¶39

the relatives i.e. purchaser and the seller were
relatives, was required to be ignored.

¶40

b]Reference filed itself was not in limitation and

¶41

the learned counsel has sought to place reliance on
Sub-section (2) of Section 12 alognwith Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶42

7] Learned counsel for the respondents – claimants
supported the judgment delivered by the Reference Court.

¶43

CA 4346/15 & others in FAST 6451/15 & others

¶44

- 4 -

¶45

As according to him, the evidence i.e. saledeed (Exhibit
18) and the aspect as regards filing of the reference
within limitation was duly appreciated and taken into
consideration by the Reference Court. According to him,
the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

¶46

8] After considering the rival contentions of the
parties, it is noted that the Reference Court framed the
issues at Exhibit 23 and has given finding that the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was
inadequate and has proceeded to enhance the same for

¶47

Jirayat land at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per Acre,

¶48

whereas at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Acre for Pot Kharab land.

¶49

9] As regards the aspect of limitation, the Reference
Court also framed an issue to that effect and answered

¶50

the same as against the present appellant. It is

¶51

required to be noted that the award was published in the
Government gazette on November 19, 2003 and the notice
under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 was received on
8.2.2005. The withdrawal of compensation amount under

¶52

protest was done on March 3, 2005 and as such it is noted
by the Reference Court that the claimants came to know

¶53

CA 4346/15 & others in FAST 6451/15 & others

¶54

- 5 -

¶55

about the award u/s 12 for the first time when the amount
was received by them.

¶56

10] Apart from above, if the submission of learned

¶57

counsel Shri Kale as regards the time barred claim in
view of provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 is to
be accepted, that is to say that the Section does not
contemplate issuance of separate notice after passing of
the award, then in that case, the interpretation of the
said Section will result in the illogical conclusion.

¶58

11] So far as grant of enhancement of compensation is
concerned, the claimants have examined in support of
their claim and have also placed on record the certified
copy of Exhibit 18 – saledeed, which is from the same

¶59

village. The said saledeed is dated November 30, 1999,
whereas Section 4 notification was published in the
Government gazette on 27.4.2000.

¶60

12] The admissibility of the saledeed is by virtue of

¶61

mandate of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act and
the moment the certified copy of the saledeed is placed
on record, the burden shifts on the present appellant to
prove that the saledeed is not relevant for seeking the
enhancement as the land covered under the saledeed cannot

¶62

CA 4346/15 & others in FAST 6451/15 & others

¶63

- 6 -

¶64

have any proximity with the land under acquisition. It

¶65

is admitted position on record that the present appellant
has not tendered any evidence to that effect or rather
has not examined any witness in support of said
contentions.

¶66

13] The Reference Court in view of the mandate of

¶67

Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act has proceeded to

¶68

accept the saledeed (Exhibit 18) which is just five
months prior to the date of issuance of Section 4
notification. In my opinion, the reliance placed by the
Reference Court in granting enhancement on the said sale
instance is very much permissible in law and is in
accordance with law.

¶69

14] In view of above, no case for interference is made
out. The appeals as such fail and stand dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
civil applications for stay do not survive and are
disposed of as such.

¶70

ndk/ c2471518.doc

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Strengthening Division Omerga v. Keshav Bhanudas Kokare and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Strengthening Division Omerga v. Keshav Bhanudas Kokare and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Maharashtra Vs Sukhdeo Nago Patil

State of Maharashtra Vs Laxman Shankar Wani

State of Maharashtra Vs Chintaman Dajee Patil

Murlidhar Daulatram Milani and Anr. Vs Sau.Maya Vinod Bhoeer and Ors.

Laxminarayan Raghunath Karva Died Legal Heirs Chandrakant Laxminarayan Karwa and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Strengthening Division Omerga Vs Keshav Bhanudas Kokare and Others