Partly allowed

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Divn Osmanabad through Mah Krishna Valley Development Corpo v. the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2017FA/2496/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed appeals by the acquiring body in multiple land acquisition reference matters. The court held that claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.72,000 per acre to ensure uniformity with awards in similar cases for the same project, modifying the reference court awards accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Reference Court awards modified to grant Rs.72,000 per acre compensation; appeals by acquiring body dismissed; cross objections partly allowed; deficit court fees payable by claimants.

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Divn Osmanabad… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.779/2011

¶5

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶6

Appellant/orig R./2

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶9

Dnyandeo Ganpati Munde (died) Through his L.Rs.

¶10

2/1. Smt. Sailaja w/o Dnyanoba @ Dnyandeo Munde, age 33 yrs, Occ. Agri, R/o Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad At present R/o Warniya, Tq. Patoda, Dist Beed.

¶11

2/2. Rohan S/o Dnyanoba Munde, age 10 yrs, minor u/g Real mother Sailaja Dnyanoba Munde, R/o as above.

¶12

2/3 Maheshwari d/o Dnynoba Munde, age 8 yrs, minor u/g her real mother Sailaja Dnyanoba Munde, R/o as above.

¶13

2/4. Kartiken s/o Dnyanoba Munde, age 5 yrs, Minor u/g of his real mother Sailaja Dnyanoba Munde R/o as above.

¶14

Respondents...

¶15

aaa/-

¶16

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶17

Mr G.B.Rajale Advocate for appellants. Mr. B V Virdhe AGP for Respondent State. V.V.Ingle Advocate for Respondents.

¶18

WITH

¶19

X-OBJECTON ST NO.25914/2014 IN FA 779/2011

¶20

Dnyandeo Ganpati Munde (died) Through his L.Rs.

¶21

Smt. Sailaja w/o Dnyanoba @ Dnyandeo Munde, age 33 yrs, Occ. Agri, R/o Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad At present R/o Warniya, Tq. Patoda, Dist Beed.

¶22

Rohan S/o Dnyandev Munde, age 30 yrs, occ agri.

¶23

3 Maheshwari d/o Dnyandev Munde, age 28 yrs, Occ. Agri.

¶24

Kartiken s/o Dnyandev Munde, age 25 yrs, occ. Agri. All R/o Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. Appellants.

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Maharashtra Krishna Valley, Development, Corporation. Ori appell in FA.

¶27

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Osmanabad Dist Osmanabad. ..Respondents. …

¶28

Mr V V Ingle Advocate for applicants.

¶29

aaa/-

¶30

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶31

¶32

Mr. Gulab Rajale Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr B V Virdhe Advocate for Respondent no.2.

¶33

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2494/2011

¶34

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Maharashtra Krishna Valley, Development, Corportion. Appellant.

¶35

VERSUS

¶36

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Osmanabad Dist Osmanabad.

¶37

Indubai w/o Rameshwar Bhagat age 50 yrs, Occ. Agri, Dist Osmanabad. Respondents.

¶38

Mr Rajale Gulab Advocate for appellants. Mr B V Virdhe AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr V V Ingle Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶39

with

¶40

X OBJECTION NO.30120/2011 IN FA 2494/2011

¶41

Indubai w/o Rameshwar Bhagat age 50 yrs, Occ. Agri, Dist Osmanabad. . APPELLANT.

¶42

VERSUS

¶43

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶44

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad,

¶45

aaa/-

¶46

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶47

¶48

Maharashtra Krishna Valley, Development, Corportion. ...Respondents...

¶49

Mr V V Ingle Advocate for applicants. Mr. Gulab Rajale Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr B V Virdhe Advocate for Respondent no.1

¶50

WITH

¶51

FIRST APPEAL NO.2495/2011

¶52

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Maharashtra Krishna Valley, Development, Corporation. Appellant.

¶53

VERSUS

¶54

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Osmanabad Dist Osmanabad.

¶55

Dilip Devidas Dange, age 32 yrs, Occ. Agri, R/o Deolali, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶56

Ashok Devidas Dange, age 25 yrs, Occ. Agri, R/o as above. Respondents.

¶57

Mr Rajale Gulab Advocate for appellants. Mr B V Virdhe AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr V V Ingle Advocate for Respondents.

¶58

with

¶59

X-OBJECTION NO.30072/2011 IN FA 2495/2011

¶60

Dilip Devidas Dange, age 32 yrs, Occ. Agri, R/o Deolali, Tq. Paranda,

¶61

aaa/-

¶62

5 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt Dist. Osmanabad.

¶63

Ashok Devidas Dange, age 38 yrs, Occ. Agri, R/o Deolali, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. R/o as above. . ..APPELLANT.

¶64

VERSUS

¶65

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶66

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Maharashtra Krishna Valley, Development, Coraporation. . ..Respondents...

¶67

… Mr V V Ingle Advocate for applicants. Mr. Gulab Rajale Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr B V Virdhe Advocate for Respondent no.1

¶68

… WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2496/2011

¶69

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Maharashtra Krishna Valley, Development, Corporation. ...Appellant...

¶70

VERSUS

¶71

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad.

¶72

Kondappa Maruti Bhagat, age 40 yrs, Occ. Agri,

¶73

aaa/-

¶74

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶75

¶76

R/o Deolali, Tq. Paranda, Dist Osmanabad.

¶77

..Respondents.

¶78

Mr Rajale Gulab Advocate for appellants. Mr B V Virdhe AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr V V Ingle Advocate for Respondents.

¶79

WITH

¶80

X-OBJECTION STAMP NO. 30074 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2496 OF 2011

¶81

Kondappa S/o Maruti Bhagat, Age. 60 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Deolai, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶82

..Appellant..

¶83

Versus

¶84

The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶85

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabd, Through Maharashtra Krishana Vally Development Corporation.

¶86

..Respondent..

¶87

Mr V V Ingle Advocate for applicants. Mr. Gulab Rajale Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr B V Virdhe Advocate for Respondent no.1

¶88

WITH

¶89

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2497 OF 2011

¶90

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Through Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation.

¶91

..Appellant..

¶92

aaa/-

¶93

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶94

¶95

Versus

¶96

The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶97

Siddeshwar Ambrushi Bhagat, Age. 50 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Deolali, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶98

..Respondent..

¶99

… Mr Rajale Gulab Advocate for appellants. Mr B.V. Virdhe AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr V.V. Ingle Advocate for Respondents.

¶100

WITH

¶101

X-OBJECTION STAMP NO. 30068 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2497 OF 2011

¶102

Siddeshwar S/o Ambrushi Bhagat, Age. 68 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Deolai, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶103

..Appellant..

¶104

Versus

¶105

The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶106

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Through Maharashtra Krishana Vally Development Corporation. ..Respondent..

¶107

Mr V V Ingle Advocate for applicants. Mr. Gulab Rajale Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr B V Virdhe Advocate for Respondent no.1

¶108

aaa/-

¶109

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶110

¶111

WITH

¶112

FIRST APPEAL NO. 234 OF 2012

¶113

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Through Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation.

¶114

...APPELLANT (Orig. Respo. No. 2)

¶115

Versus

¶116

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Osmanabad. 2. Jagannath S/o Dashrath Gund, (Died through L.Rs.)

¶117

2(1) Sahebrao S/o Jagannath Gund, Age. 55 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶118

2(2) Bharat S/o Jagannath Gund, Age. 45 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. As above. 2(3) Smt. Bhagubai W/o jagannath Gund, Age. 80 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. As above. ...RESPONDENTS. (Orig. Respo. No. 1 & Orig. Claimants.)

¶119

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Rajale Gulab Advocate for Respondent/State : Mr. B.V. Virdhe Advocate for Respondent No. 2(1) to 2(3): Mr. V.V. Ingale…

¶120

WITH

¶121

CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO. 18132 OF 2013

¶122

aaa/-

¶123

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶124

¶125

IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 234 OF 2012

¶126

Jagannath S/o Dashrath Gund, (Died through L.Rs.)

¶127

1(1) Sahebrao S/o Jagannath Gund, Age. 60 years, Occu. Agri.

¶128

1(2) Bharat S/o Jagannath Gund, Age. 58 years, Occu. Agri.

¶129

Both R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPLICANTS

¶130

Versus

¶131

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation.

¶132

The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. ...(Orig. Appellant in F.A.) Non-Applicants

¶133

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. V.V. Ingale Advocate for Respondent No. 1: Mr. Rajale Gulab Advocate for Respondent/State : Mr. B.V. Virdhe

¶134

…

¶135

WITH

¶136

FIRST APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2012

¶137

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Through Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation.

...APPELLANT

(Orig. Respo. No. 2)

Versus

aaa/-

10 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶143

1. Haridas S/o Sakharam Dukare, Age. 32 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS. (Orig. Respo. No. 1 & Orig. Claimants.)

¶144

¶145

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Rajale Gulab Advocate for Respondent/State : B.V. Virdhe Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. V.V. Ingale

¶146

WITH

¶147

CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO. 18432 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2012

¶148

Haridas S/o Sakharam Dukare, Age. 52 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPLICANT (Resp. No. 2 in F.A.)

¶149

Versus

¶150

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Maharashtra Krishna Valley, Development Corporation. ( Ori. Appellant in F.A.)

¶151

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. ...(Orig. Resp. in F.A.) Non-Applicants ...

¶152

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.V. Ingale Advocate for Respondent No. 1: Mr. Rajale Gulab Advocate for Respondent/State : Mr. B.V. Virdhe

¶153

…

¶154

aaa/-

¶155

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶156

¶157

WITH

¶158

FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2016

¶159

Shrimant Sakharam Dukare, Age. 49 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPELLANT (Orig. Claimant)

¶160

Versus

¶161

The State of Maharashtra Through District Collector, Collector, Osmanabad.

¶162

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad.

¶163

Raghunath Sakharam Dukare, Age. 65 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶164

Haridas Sakharam Dukare, Age. 52 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS.

¶165

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. V.S. Tanwade Advocate for Respondent/State : B.V. Virdhe Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rajale Gulab

¶166

…

¶167

WITH

¶168

FIRST APPEAL NO.461/2016

¶169

Tukaram S/o Laxman Jadhavar, Age. 56 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda,

¶170

aaa/-

¶171

12 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPELLANT... (Ori. Claimant) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad. 2. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad. …RESPONDENTS (Ori. Resp. No. 1 & 2) … Mr V.S.Tanwade Advocate for appellant. Mr B V Virdhe AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr Gulab Rajale Advocate for respondent No.1. … FIRST APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2016 Shrimant S/o Sakharam Dukare, Age. 55 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPELLANT (Orig. Claimant) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Osmanabad. 2. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad. 3. Govind S/o. Sakharam Dukare, Age. 60 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ( Formal Party). ...RESPONDENTS. (Orig. Respo. No.1&2)

¶172

aaa/-

¶173

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶174

¶175

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. V.S. Tanwade Advocate for Respondent/State : B.V. Virdhe Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rajale Gulab

¶176

...

¶177

FIRST APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2012

¶178

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Through Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation.

...APPELLANT

(Orig. Respo. No. 2)

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶183

Raghunath S/o Sakharam Dukare, Age. 40 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶184

Haridas S/o Sakharam Dukare, Age. 32 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. As above.

¶185

Shriram S/o Sakharam Dukare, Age. 29 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. As above.

¶186

...RESPONDENTS. (Orig. Respo. No.1& & Orig. Claimants.)

¶187

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Rajale Gulab Advocate for Respondent/State : Mr. B.V. Virdhe Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. V.V. Ingale Advocate for Respondent No. 3 & 4: Mr. V.S. Tanwade

¶188

WITH

¶189

FIRST APPEAL NO. 335 OF 2012

¶190

aaa/-

¶191

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶192

¶193

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Through Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation.

¶194

...APPELLANT (Orig. Resp.No. 2)

¶195

Versus

¶196

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶197

Rajabhau S/o Govind Dukare, Age. 22 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS. (Orig. Respo. No.1& & Orig. Claimants.)

¶198

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Rajale Gulab Advocate for Respondent/State : Mr. B.V. Virdhe Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. V.V. Ingale

¶199

WITH

¶200

FIRST APPEAL NO. 336 OF 2012

¶201

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Through Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation.

¶202

...APPELLANT (Orig. Respo. No. 2)

¶203

Versus

¶204

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶205

aaa/-

¶206

15 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶207

Raghunath S/o Sakharam Dukare, Age. 40 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶208

...RESPONDENTS. (Orig. Respo. No.1& & Orig. Claimants.)

¶209

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Rajale Gulab Advocate for Respondent/State : Mr. B.V. Virdhe Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. V.V. Ingale

¶210

WITH

¶211

CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO. 18135 OF 2013 IN FA NO.336/2012

¶212

Raghunath S/o Sakharam Dukare, Age. 55 years, Occu. Agri. R/o. Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶213

...APPLICANT (Resp. No. 2 in F.A.)

¶214

Versus

¶215

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad, Maharashtra Krishana Valley Development Corporation. (Ori. Appellant in F.A.)

¶216

The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶217

...(Ori. Resp. in F.A.) Non-Applicants

¶218

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.V. Ingale Advocate for Respondent No. 1: Mr. Rajale Gulab Advocate for Respondent/State : Mr. B.V. Virdhe

¶219

….

¶220

CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J. Dated: April 26, 2017

¶221

aaa/-

¶222

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶223

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶224

1-I. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 12.1.2009 passed by the Reference Court in LAR No.65/1995, the respondent-Acquiring body has preferred First Appeal No.779/2011.

¶225

II. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR No.59/1995, 52/1995, 54/1995, 79/1995 the respondent-Acquiring body has preferred First Appeal No.2494/2011, 2495/2011, 2496/2011, 2497/2011.

¶226

III. Similarly, being aggrieved by the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR Nos.56/1995 and 64/1995 the respondentAcquiring body has preferred First Appeal Nos.234/2012 and 239/2012 and the original claimants against the same common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court preferred First Appeal Nos. 460/2016, 461/2016 and 462/2016 for enhancement of the compensation. So far as FA No.461/2016 is concerned,

¶227

aaa/-

¶228

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶229

¶230

the same has been preferred by the original claimants for enhancement of the compensation by accepting that their acquired land is of dry land.

¶231

IV. Similarly, being aggrieved by the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR Nos.57/1995, 60/1995, 61/1995 the respondentAcquiring body has preferred First Appeal Nos.332/2012, 335/2012 and 336/2012.

¶232

In all the aforesaid appeals, except F.A. Nos.332/2012, 335/2012, 336/2012 and 460/2016, 461/2016 and 462/2016 respondents-original claimants preferred cross objections respectively for enhancement in compensation as awarded by the reference Court.

¶233

In all the aforesaid land reference petitions, the agricultural lands owned and possessed by the respondents-claimants, situated at village Tambewadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad came to be acquired by the Government for construction of Tambewadi Medium Project under notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act

¶234

aaa/-

¶235

18 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶236

published in the Government Gazette on 31.8.1989.

¶237

In a group of appeals referred as I, II, III and IV in the above mentioned paragraphs, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.50,000/-, 53,925/-, 41,481/- and 41,481/- per acre respectively. In all the aforesaid reference petitions, the Reference Court placed reliance on the sale deed dated 3.4.1987 of village Umbarage.

¶238

The Respondents-original claimants have preferred their cross appeals/objections on the ground that the Reference Court in LAR No.511/1994 and 512/1994 in respect of the lands acquired for the same project though under different awards, awarded the compensation at the enhanced rates of Rs.72,000/- per acre. Hence all these first appeals and cross appeals/objections.

¶239

The learned counsel for the appellant-acquiring body submits that the acquired lands are situated far away from the lands under the sale instance dated

¶240

aaa/-

¶241

19 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶242

3.4.1987 of village Umbarage. Learned counsel submits that, said sale instance dated 3.4.1987 executed two years prior to publication of section 4 notification in respect of the present acquired lands. Learned counsel submits that, it is the duty of the claimants to lead evidence in support of its case and in absence of any satisfactory evidence, court is not under legal obligation to determine the market value merely as per the prayer of the claimants. In the instant matter, the claimants have not produced on record any site map/map indicating the exact distance between the acquired land and land under sale instance dated 3.4.1987 of village Umbarage and as such, there was no satisfactory material placed before the Reference Court to determine the correct market price of the acquired land. Learned counsel submits that, respondents-claimants have claimed the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre before the Reference Court and now they are claiming Rs.72,000/- per acre by filing cross-objections and appeals. Learned counsel submits that, inordinate delay has been occurred in filing the

¶243

aaa/-

¶244

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶245

cross appeals/objections and this Court has condoned the said delay on the condition that the respondentsclaimants shall not be entitled to claim interest of the said period and further directed the respondentsclaimants to file undertaking to that effect. Respondents-claimants have also filed undertaking before this Court and as such, in the event, if this Court enhanced the compensation by allowing or partly allowing their cross objections/appeals, respondentsclaimants would not be entitled to claim interest for the

¶246

said period of delay in terms of their undertakings. Learned counsel for the appellant-acquiring body, in the alternate submits that, claim for the enhanced compensation of claimants/cross objectors can be considered to the extent of enhancement at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre as awarded by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram:S.V.Gangapurwala and A.M.Badar, JJ.] dated 20.6.2014 (page 32) of compilation. Learned counsel for the appellant-acquiring body submits that the acquiring body has produced one another sale deed before the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.65/1995,

¶247

aaa/-

¶248

21 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶249

60/1995, 61/1995 and 57/1995 however, the Reference Court has not considered the same.

¶250

Learned counsel for the appellant-acquiring body

¶251

has placed his reliance on a judgment in case of Bhule Ram Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 307 .

¶252

The learned counsel for the respondentsclaimants/cross objector submits that, the Reference Court in respect of the acquired lands from the same village Tambewadi and for the same project, awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.72,000/- per acre vide judgment and award passed on 11.02.2011 in LAR No.511/1994 and 512/1994. The Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.72,000/- per acres by relying upon the said sale deed dated 3.4.1987 of village Umbarage. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-acquiring body herein has preferred first appeal no.1365/2013 and 1363/2013 before this Court and this Court by order

¶253

aaa/-

¶254

22 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶255

dated 10.9.2015 dismissed the said first appeals by confirming the order passed by the Reference Court in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference petitions. Learned counsel submits that the claimants are entitled for the compensation for their acquired lands at same rate since the order passed by this Court in the said first appeal has now attained finality and admittedly, the acquiring body or the State Government have not preferred any appeal against the said judgment before the Supreme Court. Learned counsel submits that, though the claimants have claimed compensation before the Reference Court at the enhanced rate of Rs.60,000/per acre, the claimants are entitled for just and reasonable compensation, for which they are ready to pay deficit court fees, if directed by this Court. Learned counsel submits that rightful claim of the claimants cannot be denied on the ground of deficit court fees and the claimants are entitled for the compensation as per the market value.

¶256

Learned counsel for respondents-claimants/cross

¶257

aaa/-

¶258

23 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶259

objectors submits that, the acquiring body has placed before the Reference Court xerox copies of the sale instance and neither bothered to produce on record the original or certified copy of the sale deed nor examined vendor or vendee to prove the contents of the said sale deed and as such the reference court has rightly discarded the said sale instance.

¶260

Learned counsel for the claimants in order to substantiate his contentions placed his reliance on a case Chandrashekhar and others Vs. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2009 Supreme Court 3012 .

¶261

I have carefully perused the judgment and award passed by the reference court as categorized in group I to IV. It appears that, relying on the same sale deed dated 3.4.1987 of village Umbarge, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the two enhanced rates. In the group of appeals referred in I, to IV, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at

¶262

aaa/-

¶263

24 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶264

different enhanced rate of Rs.50,000/-, 53,925/-, 41,481/- and 41,481/- respectively per acre. In all these reference petitions, the status of the land as irrigated or seasonally irrigated land is not disputed. It further appears that the Reference Court in LAR No.511/1994 and 512/1994, has awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.72,000/- per acre for the acquired land by treating the said land as seasonally irrigated land. It thus appears that, there is no uniformity in the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the enhanced rate. However, this Court had an occasion to examine the judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court in the said LAR No.511/1994 and 512/1994. This Court while disposing off FA no.1365/2013 with FA No.1363/2013 arises out of

¶265

the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in the aforesaid reference petitions No.511/1994 and 512/1994 in paragraph No.4 of the judgment has observed that said sale instance has been properly considered by the Reference Court. Admittedly, the order passed by this Court in FA No.1365/2013 with FA

¶266

aaa/-

¶267

25 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶268

No.1363/2013 has now attained finality.

¶269

Though, the Division Bench of this court by order dated 20.6.2014 confirmed the order passed by the Reference Court, awarding the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre for the land from the village Tambewadi, however, it is to be noted here that those appeals came to be preferred by the present acquiring body and the respondents-claimants therein have not preferred any cross objections. However, the learned Single Judge of this court had an occasion to examine the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court awarding compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.72,000/- per acre for the acquired land in the same village Tambewadi and accordingly confirmed the order passed by the Reference Court.

¶270

In view of the same, the claimants are entitled for the compensation at the same rate as awarded by the Reference Court in those L.A.R. Nos.511/1994 and 512/1994 confirmed by this Court in F.A.Nos.

¶271

aaa/-

¶272

26 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶273

1365/2013 with 1363/2013 and the same is also essential to maintain the uniformity in grant of compensation at the enhanced rate for the acquired lands of the same village for the same project under the same notification.

¶274

So far as First Appeal No.461/2016 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the original claimants for enhancement of the compensation by accepting that their acquired land is a dry land. Hence, following order.

¶275

O R D E R

¶276

I] The appeals preferred by the acquiring body bearing First Appeal Nos.779/2011, 2494/2011, 2495/2011, 2496/2011, 2497/2011, 234/2012, 239/2012, 332/2012, 335/2012, 336/2012 stands dismissed.

¶277

II] Cross objection Nos.X-OBJECTION ST NO.25914/2014 IN FA 779/2011, X- OBJECTION NO.30120/2011 IN FA 2494/2011, X-OBJECTION NO.30072/2011 IN FA 2495/2011, X-OBJECTION STAMP NO.30074 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2496 OF 2011, X-OBJECTION STAMP NO.

¶278

aaa/-

¶279

27 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶280

30068 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2497 OF 2011, CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.18132 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 234 OF 2012, CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO. 18432 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2012, CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO. 18135 OF 2013 IN FA NO.336/2012 are partly allowed with proportionate costs.

¶281

III] The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in the aforesaid Land Reference Petitions as detailed in paragraph No.1-I. to IV of this Judgment are hereby modified in the manner that the claimants are entitled for the compensation for the acquired lands at the enhanced rate of Rs.72,000/- (Rs. Seventy Two Thousand) per acre with all statutory benefits as awarded by Reference Court.

¶282

IV] First Appeal Nos.460/2016 and 462/2016 are hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs and claimants in all those Land Acquisition Reference Petitions are entitled for the compensation for the acquired lands at the enhanced rate of Rs.72,000/-(Rs. Seventy Two Thousand) per acre with all statutory benefits as awarded by Reference

¶283

aaa/-

¶284

¶285

FA 779.2011+ connected.odt

¶286

Court.

¶287

V] So far as FA No.461/2016 is concerned, same is hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs and the appellantsclaimants are entitled for the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.52,000/- (Rs. Fifty Two thousands) per acres with all statutory benefits, as awarded by the Reference Court, however, in view of the order passed by this Court and in view of the undertaking furnished by the claimants before this Court, the claimants are not entitled for the interest for the period for which delay sought to be condoned.

¶288

VI] In view of the order passed by this Court and in view of the undertaking furnished by the claimants before this Court, the claimants are not entitled for the interest for the period for which delay sought to be condoned.

¶289

VII] Award be drawn up as per the above modifications.

¶290

VIII] All the First appeals and cross objections are disposed of.

¶291

aaa/-

¶292

29 FA 779.2011+ connected.odt IX] In view of dismissal of first appeals and cross objections, pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶293

X] The claimants/cross objectors shall pay the deficit court fees within four weeks from the date of this Order.

¶294

sd/-

¶295

( V.K. JADHAV, J. )

¶296

…

¶297

aaa/-

¶298

aaa/-

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Divn Osmanabad through Mah Krishna Valley Development Corpo v. the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Divn Osmanabad through Mah Krishna Valley Development Corpo v. the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah. Vs Tilakraj Malhotra

New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Aurangabad. Vs Seema Sanjay Kolte and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Its Branch Manager, Aurangabad Vs Savita Khema Thakare and Ors.

Pandhari Hari Mang Died Thr Lrs Chandrakant and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mandabai Onkarrao Kharat and Others Vs Laxman Namdeo Bhokre and Others

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Divn Osmanabad through Mah Krishna Valley Development Corpo Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.