Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Beed v. Devidas Limba Bhange and Others

Bombay HC18 Apr 2017CA/15866/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed multiple first appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against compensation awards made by a Land Acquisition Reference Court. The court upheld the enhanced compensation rates, citing reasonable reasoning and noting significant delay in filing appeals.

What did the court decide?

All first appeals and pending stay applications were dismissed at the admission stage.

The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Beed Vs… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

fast32319.13

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32319 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15766 OF 2013

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S KISHAN APPARAO AGE

¶6

WITH

¶7

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32480 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15768 OF 2013

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S MADHUKAR NARHARI SIRSAT

¶9

WITH

¶10

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32546 OF 2013 WITH NO. 15770 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S PANDURANG NARAYAN SIRSAT

¶11

WITH

¶12

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32495 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO.15772 OF 2013

¶13

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S CHAGAN LIMBAJI ITAPE

¶14

WITH

¶15

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32561 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15774 OF 2013

¶16

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S SUBHASH SOPAN GAIKWAD U/G OF HIS FATHER SOPAN GAYNOBA GAIKWAD AND ANOTHER

¶17

WITH

¶18

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32559 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO.15776 OF 2013

¶19

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S BHAGWAT GNYANOBA ITAPE U/G TARAMATI DNYANOBA ITAPE AND OTHERS

¶20

WITH

¶21

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32587 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15778 OF 2013

¶22

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S MAHADEO SHANKAR SIRSAT AND OTHERS

¶23

WITH

¶24

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32489 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15780 OF 2013

¶25

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S VILAS BHASKARRAO SIRSAT, MINOR, U/G RUKHMINIBAI AND ANR.

¶26

WITH

¶27

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32483 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15782 OF 2013

¶28

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S MAHADEO BHAGWAN SIRSAT

¶29

WITH

¶30

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32468 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15784 OF 2013

¶31

fast32319.13

¶32

-2-

¶33

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S RAMRAO KISHAN CHALAK AND ANR.

¶34

WITH

¶35

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32441 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15786 OF 2013

¶36

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S DATTU RAMA SONWANE

¶37

WITH

¶38

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32416 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15788 OF 2013

¶39

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S KISHAN MADHAVRAO UNDRE

¶40

WITH

¶41

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32444 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15790 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S NIWARTI KUNDALIK SONWANE

¶42

WITH

¶43

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32580 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15792 OF 2013

¶44

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S DNYANOBA MADHAVRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS

¶45

WITH

¶46

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32465 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15794 OF 2013

¶47

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S LAXMAN ASHRUBA DORLE

¶48

WITH

¶49

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32584 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15796 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAH. V/S PANDURANG BABASAHEB CHAVAN AND ORS.

¶50

WITH

¶51

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32471 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15798 OF 2013

¶52

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S ARUN PANDHARINATH SIRSAT

¶53

WITH

¶54

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32567 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15800 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S NAMDEO BALBHIM DESHMUKH AND OTHERS

¶55

WITH

¶56

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32592 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15802 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAH V/S RAVINDRA BARIKRAO SONWANE AND OTHERS

¶57

WITH

¶58

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32573 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15804 OF 2013

¶59

fast32319.13

¶60

-3-

¶61

THE STATE OF MAH V/S MAHADEV SADASHIV DESHMUKH AND OTHERS

¶62

WITH

¶63

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32555 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15806 OF 2013

¶64

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S VENKATESH GULABRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS

¶65

WITH

¶66

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32570 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15808 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S KRISHNABAI AMBADAS KORDHE

¶67

WITH

¶68

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32477 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15810 OF 2013

¶69

THE STATE OF MAH.V/S JAGANNATH RAMBHAU SIRSAT AND ANR.

¶70

WITH

¶71

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32525 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15812 OF 2013

¶72

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S VITTHAL KHIRAJI KORDE

¶73

WITH

¶74

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32519 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15814 OF 2013

¶75

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S CHANDRABHAGABAI JANARDHAN DESHMUKH AND ANR.

¶76

WITH

¶77

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32498 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15816 OF 2013

¶78

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S THAKUBAI DAGDU AGE

¶79

WITH

¶80

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32504 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15818 OF 2013

¶81

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S MAHADEV KISHAN SIRSAT

¶82

WITH

¶83

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32447 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15820 OF 2013

¶84

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S BUWASAHEB VITTHAL MORE AND ANR.

¶85

WITH

¶86

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32428 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15822 OF 2013

¶87

THE STATE OF MAH. V/S ASARAM VINAYAK DESHMUKH AND OTHERS

¶88

WITH

¶89

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32558 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15824 OF 2013

¶90

THE STATE OF MAH. V/S BAJIRAO KESHAVRAO SONWANE AND ANR.

fast32319.13

-4-

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32549 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15826 OF 2013

¶95

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S MAHADEV SONAJI BHANGE AND ORS.

¶96

WITH

¶97

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32516 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15828 OF 2013

¶98

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S ANANDRAO VITTHALRAO KHOTAVALE, THROUGH L.RS. CHANDERRAO ANANDRAO KHOTAWALE AND ANR.

¶99

WITH

¶100

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32435 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15830 OF 2013

¶101

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S FAKIRA SHIVRAM SHAHANE

¶102

WITH

¶103

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32531 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15832 OF 2013

¶104

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S UTTARESHWAR HARIBHAU DESHMUKH DIED THROUGH L.RS. SHOBHA UTTARESHWAR DESHMUKH AND ANR.

¶105

WITH

¶106

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32492 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15834 OF 2013

¶107

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S NAMDEO SHAHAJI SIRSAT AND ORS.

¶108

WITH

¶109

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32577 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15836 OF 2013

¶110

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S DADARAO PANDURANG KOTHAWALE AND OTHERS

¶111

WITH

¶112

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32564 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15838 OF 2013

¶113

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S CHANDRAKANT BHAGWAT KOTHAWALE AND OTHERS

¶114

WITH

¶115

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32552 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15840 OF 2013

¶116

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S VISHWANATH LIMBAJI SIRSAT AND

¶117

ORS.

¶118

WITH

¶119

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32456 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15842 OF 2013

¶120

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S RAM BHAGWAN SONWANE DIED TH. L.RS. CHHAYA AND OTHERS

WITH

fast32319.13

-5-

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32453 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15844 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S UDHAV PANDHARINATH DESHMUKH

¶125

WITH

¶126

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32474 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15846 OF 2013

¶127

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S RAMCHANDRA NARAYANRAO SIRSAT AND ANR.

¶128

WITH

¶129

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32537 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15848 OF 2013

¶130

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S BHAIRU NARAYAN SHINDE

¶131

WITH

¶132

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32510 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15850 OF 2013

¶133

THE STATE OF MAH V/S PANDURANG VITTHAL SIRSAT AND ANR.

¶134

WITH

¶135

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32595 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15851 OF 2013

¶136

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S ACHUT GOVIND SIRSAT

¶137

WITH

¶138

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32409 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15854 OF 2013

¶139

THE STATE OF MAH. V/S ATMARAM NVIRUTTI BHANGE AND OTHERS

¶140

WITH

¶141

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32459 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15856 OF 2013

¶142

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S RAOSAHEB SHANKARRAO DESHMUKH AND ORS.

¶143

WITH

¶144

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32522 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15858 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S MANOHAR BHAURAAO DESHMUKH

¶145

WITH

¶146

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32507 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15860 OF 2013

¶147

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S NARAYAN BHIMA SIRSAT AND ANR.

¶148

WITH

¶149

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32528 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15862 OF 2013

¶150

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S PANDHARINATH ASRUBA DESHMUKH AND ORS.

¶151

WITH

¶152

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32486 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15864 OF 2013

¶153

fast32319.13

¶154

-6-

¶155

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S MANOHAR MARUTI SIRSAT AND ORS.

¶156

WITH

¶157

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32513 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15866 OF 2013

¶158

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S DEVIDAS LIMBA BHANGE AND OTHERS

¶159

WITH

¶160

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32501 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15868 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S LIMBAJI CHANDRABHAN KEDAR

¶161

WITH

¶162

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32540 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15870 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S SAHEBRAO RAMA MORE AND ANR.

¶163

WITH

¶164

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32462 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15872 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAH. V/S SHANKAR TUKARAM SIRSAT AND OTHERS

¶165

WITH

¶166

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32534 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15874 OF 2013

¶167

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S PRABHU SOMA SONWANE

¶168

WITH

¶169

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32543 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15876 OF 2013

¶170

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S DADAN KUNDALIK SONWANE

¶171

WITH

¶172

FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32450 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 15878 OF 2013

¶173

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S DEVIDAS TATYA DESHMUKH, DIED THROUGH L.RS. BALAJI

¶174

AGP for Applicants : Mr. B.V. Virdhe

¶175

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. DATED : 18^th APRIL, 2017

¶176

PER COURT :-

¶177

Heard learned A.G.P. for the appellants.

¶178

All these appeals are directed against the common judgment and

¶179

fast32319.13 -7-

¶180

award passed by the 1^st Adhoc District Judge, Ambejogai dated 23.9.2004 in L.A.R. Nos. 238 of 1992 to 294 of 1992.

¶181

Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:-

¶182

a. The lands belonging to the claimants situated at villages Kalegaon-Ghat, Massajog and Arangaon, Tq. Kaij, district Beed, came to be acquired by the respondent State for the construction of BorgaonHanumant Pimpri Road, vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 24.12.1987. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Beed by award dated 5.2.1990 awarded the compensation ranging from Rs.100 per R to Rs.140/- per R, as detailed in para 4 of the impugned judgment and award.

¶183

b. Being dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Beed the respondents/original claimants sought enhancement of compensation on various grounds by filing Land Acquisition Reference petitions as stated above. It has been contended in the said reference petitions that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the quality and fertility of the acquired lands and thus awarded the compensation at lower side. It has also been contended that the acquired lands had facility of irrigation of well water and of superior quality. The respondents claimants were taking crops in two seasons and also taking cash crops in the acquired lands by well water

¶184

fast32319.13

¶185

-8-

¶186

and by laying PVC pipeline and also water channel. According to the claimants, at the relevant time, the market price of the acquired lands in question was Rs.30,000/- per acre. According to them, the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not visit the acquired lands and fixed the compensation on the basis of land revenue assessment. The claimants therefore prayed for enhancement of compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1250/- per R i.e. at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre in six references and in rest of the references benefits available under the Act.

¶187

c. The appellant State has strongly resisted the reference petitions by filing written statement. It has been contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same has been awarded after holding due inquiry. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has also considered the sale instances and made groups of the lands and determined the market value.

¶188

d. The claimants have tendered their evidence in L.A.R. No. 291 of 1992 and also produced copies of 7x12 extracts of their respective lands. Certified copy of the award, Statement “E” and certified copies of sale instances vide Exh. 20 and 32. In addition to that, the claimants have also produced on record the certified copy of judgment in LAR No. 106 of 1990 vide Exh.30 and certified copy of deposition in L.A.R. No.106 of 1990 vide Exh.31. The appellant State has not adduced any

fast32319.13

-9-

evidence.

e) The learned 1^st Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ambejogai, by its impugned judgment and award dated 23.9.2004 awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.360/- per R in L.A.R. No. 270 of 1992, 288 of 1992, 289 of 1992, 290 of 1992, 291 of 1992 and 292 of 1992 and Rs.300/- per R in rest of the references. Hence, these first appeals.

¶193

Learned A.G.P. for the appellant State submits that though the Reference Court has discarded sale instances at Exh. 20 and 32 respectively, on the ground as detailed in para 26 to 28 of the judgment and further in para 29 of the judgment has observed about as to how the judgment delivered in L.A.R. No. 106 of 1990 vide Exh.30 cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstance of the reference petitions, awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate ranging between Rs.300/- per R to Rs.360/- per R, without any basis.

¶194

On careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, I find that the Reference Court in para 30 of the judgment has rightly observed that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation erroneously by making groups of the lands on the basis of the land revenue assessment and as such, the compensation awarded on its basis cannot reflect about adequate and

¶195

fast32319.13

¶196

-10-

¶197

proper compensation. The learned Judge of the Reference Court though given reference to the judgment passed in L.A.R. No. 106 of 1990 vide Exh.30, independently assessed the potentiality and fertility of the acquired lands. Though the respondents claimants have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1250/- per R corresponds to Rs.50,000/per acre, the reference Court has awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate ranging between Rs.300/- per R to Rs.360/- per R, corresponds to Rs.12,000/- per acre to Rs.14,400/- per acre respectively. The reference Court has awarded the enhanced compensation at a very meager rate. The impugned judgment is well reasoned judgment. I do not find any fault in the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. Furthermore, the State has also preferred the appeals after an inordinate delay of more than 8 years.

¶198

In view of above, I do not find any substance in the aforesaid first appeals and all the first appeals are accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶199

In view of dismissal of first appeals, pending civil applications seeking stay are also disposed of.

¶200

rlj/

The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Beed v. Devidas Limba Bhange and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Beed v. Devidas Limba Bhange 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

Prakash Eknath Yeole (Yewale) (Deceased) Thr Lrs Shailaja and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Area Manager, Jalgaon and Ors.

Bashirbhai Chanbhai Pathan and Other. Vs Kashinath Mhatardeo and Other.

Rajasaheb Digamberao Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharshtra Vs Mahadev Kishan Sirsat

The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed Vs Dadarao Pandurang Kothawale and Others

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur Vs Nagorao Sakharam Musale and Anr.