Allowed

Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through CEO v. Narayan Sonu Sarode and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2015FA/347/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals preferred by the State acquiring body against awards enhancing compensation for land acquisition. The court held that reliance on a sale instance of a non-comparable village was misplaced and struck down the awards.

What did the court decide?

Impugned awards passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division were set aside; Land Acquisition Reference Petitions were dismissed; amount deposited by appellants was ordered to be refunded.

Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through CEO Vs Narayan Sonu Sarode… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 59-fa358 and ors.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.358 OF 2000

¶4

ZillaParishad,Jalgaon,
through its Chief Executive ..Appellant
officer

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

1Rupa Ravji Sarode, age 50
years, occ. Farmer, r/o.
Panchdeoli, Taluka Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon

¶7

2The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, U.T.P.-2, Jalgaon, ..Respondents
Dist.Jalgaon

¶8

WITH

¶9

FIRST APPEAL NO.347 OF 2000

¶10

ZillaParishad,Jalgaon,
through its Chief Executive ..Appellant
officer

¶11

V E R S U S

¶12

1 Narayan Sonu Sarode, Age 60 years, occ. Farmer, r/o. Pimpalgaon (Bk.), Taluka Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon

¶13

`2`	`59-fa358 and ors.odt`
`2 The Special Land Acquisition` `Officer, U.T.P.-2, Jalgaon,` `Dist.Jalgaon`	`..Respondents`
`WITH` `FIRST APPEAL NO.348 OF`	`2000`
`Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,` `through its Chief Executive` `officer`	`..Appellant`
`V E R S U S`
`1` `Daulat` `Tukaram` `Patil,` `deceaed by his heirs,`
`1-A) Anusayabai` `w/o.` `Daulat` `Junore, age 60 years`
`2` `Ukhardu Nathu Patil, Age 35` `years, occ.Farmer, r/o.` `Pimpalgaon` `Bk.` `Taluka` `Bhusawal, District Jalgaon`
`3` `The Special Land Acquisition` `Officer, U.T.P.-2, Jalgaon,` `Dist.Jalgaon`	`..Respondents`
In all appeals :-
`Mr.Vijay Sharma, advocate for ap`	`pellant`
`Mr.S.C.Swami, advocate h/f.`	`V.D.Gunale,`
`advocate for respondent no.1`

¶14

3 59-fa358 and ors.odt

¶15

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE : JANUARY 27, 2015

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

Heard both sides.

¶18

2]Aggrieved by the respective awards passed in
each of the Reference Petitions, separately, but
on the same evidence, to pay enhanced compensation
at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hector, present
appeals are preferred by the acquiring body.

¶19

3]The lands in the present appeals of village
Panchdeoli were acquired by the State for
construction of percolation tank. The

¶20

notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act was issued on 26th December, 1995.

¶21

The Land Acquisition Officer had offered
compensation at Rs.16,600/- per Hector for Jirayat
land and Rs.400/- per Hector for Potkharaba land.

¶22

4 59-fa358 and ors.odt

¶23

4]The sale instance of village Talveli relied by
the claimants would show that it was dated 29th
May, 1985 and 38 Are land was sold for a
consideration of Rs.20,000/-. Either sale deed or
photocopy of the same was placed in each of the
claim petitions.

¶24

5]During cross-examination, each claimants has
admitted that though the sale instances of their
village were available, the sale instance of
village Talveli was relied. There was no evidence
before the reference court that the land sold
under the said sale instance was comparable with
the acquired lands. Further, there was no evidence
that the lands acquired were irrigated lands.
Learned Member, however, relied said sale instance
and came to the conclusion that the lands were
irrigated lands, therefore, enhancement was
granted at Rs.50,000/- per Hector.

¶25

5 59-fa358 and ors.odt

¶26

6]Mr.Sharma submits that this material would

¶27

show that learned Judge has misdirected himself in
enhancing the compensation.

¶28

7]On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants submits that the reasoning
given by learned Judge are proper.

¶29

8]On the basis of this, following point arises
for my determination :-

¶30

Whether the awards of the learned
Civil Judge Senior Division refer correct
market value of the lands at the time of
acquisition ?

¶31

.My answer to the above point is in negative

¶32

and the appeal is therefore, allowed for the

¶33

reasons to follow :-

¶34

6 59-fa358 and ors.odt

¶35

R E A S O N S

¶36

9]The claimants have admitted that the sale

¶37

instance of village Talveli was placed on record
for the purpose of getting enhanced compensation,
though the sale instances of village Pachdeoli were
available during the relevant period. No evidence
was placed on record to show that both the villages
were in the vicinity of each other and that the
lands were comparable. Besides this, the admissions
of the claimants would show that the lands acquired
were dry crop lands and in Land Acquisition
Reference No.111 of 1991 out of which, First Appeal
No.358 of 2000 has arisen, the claimant has

¶38

admitted that though certain share in the well was
there, it was not for the claimant, but was for his
uncle.

¶39

10]In this view of the matter, in my view,
reliance placed by learned Judge on the sale
instance of village Talveli was not proper.

¶40

7 59-fa358 and ors.odt

¶41

11]Hence, the following order :-

¶42

a]The appeals are allowed without any order as
to costs.

¶43

b]The awards passed by the learned Jt. Civil
Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon, impugned in each of
the appeals, are hereby set aide. The respective
Land Acquisition Reference Petitions are hereby
dismissed.

¶44

c]The amount deposited, if any, in this Court by
the appellants, be refunded to the appellants after
a period of sixty days from the date of this order.
The appeals are disposed of as such.

¶45

[M.T. JOSHI, J.]

¶46

kbp

Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through CEO v. Narayan Sonu Sarode and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through CEO v. Narayan Sonu Sarode and Anr.

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

Saharwardi Khan S/O Badshaha Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sahebrao Hari Shelke and Anothr Vs Rahul Hiralal Sure and Others

Baburao Punja Dhavale Vs United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others

New India Assurance Co.Ltd a'Bad Vs Pama Vithal Magar and Ors.

Devidas Anna Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manik Narayan Jogi and Ors. Vs P. Karunanidhi Perriaha and Ors.