Dismissed

Bhausaheb Panditrao Kaste and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC6 Apr 2017FA/825/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the compensation award in a land acquisition reference petition. The Court observed that the Reference Court grounded its enhanced award on the land's proximity to a town and available water facilities, deeming the enhancement reasonable despite extract discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; there shall be no order as to the costs.

Bhausaheb Panditrao Kaste and Another Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

904 FA.825.16.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 825 OF 2016

¶5

BHAUSAHEB PANDITRAO KASTE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi. AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. C. V. Dharurkar. Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ruturaj C. Patil.

¶7

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. DATE : 06^th April, 2017.

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.

¶10

2 Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by

¶11

the Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani dated 22^nd August, 2014 in LAR No.10 of 2011 and other connected reference petitions, the original Claimants in LAR No.11 of 2011 only preferred this appeal.

¶12

3 Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

¶13

i) Land Gat No.136 owned and possessed by the Appellants / original Claimants came to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of Right Bank Canal of Lower Dudhna Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land

¶14

2 904 FA.825.16.odt

¶15

Acquisition Act published on 13^th January, 2006 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,040/- per Are. Being dissatisfied by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Appellants / original Claimants have preferred LAR No.11 of 2011. It has been contended in the said claim petition that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not correctly assessed the market value of the acquired lands. The Claimants used to take the horticulture crops like sugarcane, banana, sweet-lemon, watermelon etc. alongwith cotton, toor etc. The acquired land of the Claimants was hardly 5 to 6 kilometers away from Sailu bus-stand and at a distance of 2 kilometers from the locality of Sailu town. The acquired land of the Claimants being adjoining to the Sailu town and situated on Sailu-Walur road, was convenient for cultivation and transportation. It has been also

¶16

¶17

904 FA.825.16.odt

¶18

contended that in the acquired land Gat No.136, there is common well and borewell. The Claimants have therefore, claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Acre by treating their land as irrigated land. The Claimants have also claimed the compensation for sweet-lemon trees, mango trees and neem trees.

¶19

ii) Respondents / State and the acquiring body have strongly resisted the said reference petition by filing the written statement. It has been denied that the acquired land owned and possessed by the Claimants is irrigated land and the Claimants used to take the horticulture crops and other crops in the acquired land. It has been also denied that there were fruit trees and sweet-lemon trees in the acquired land. It has been contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded just and reasonable compensation.

¶20

iii) The Claimants have adduced their oral and

¶21

¶22

904 FA.825.16.odt

¶23

documentary evidence in support of their contentions. However, the State and the acquiring body have not adduced any evidence. The learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani vide its impugned judgment and award dated 22^nd August, 2014 has awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.3,400/- per Are by treating the acquired land of the Claimants as seasonally irrigated land. Being aggrieved by the same, the original Claimants in LAR No.11 of 2011 have only preferred this appeal.

¶24

4 The learned counsel for the Appellants / original Claimants submits that in the said group of land acquisition reference petitions i.e. LAR No.10 of 2011 and other connected reference petitions, the Reference Court in LAR No.13 of 2011 has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,750/- per Are. The learned counsel submits that the subject matter of said LAR No.13 of 2011 was acquired land Gat No.133 wherein only one common well was situated. So far as the acquired land of the Appellants / Claimants Gat No.136 is concerned,

¶25

¶26

904 FA.825.16.odt

¶27

one common well and borewell came to be acquired alongwith the land Gat No.136. In view of the same, the Reference Court ought to have treated the acquired land as irrigated land and awarded the compensation at the same rate of Rs.3,750/- per Are as awarded to the Claimant in LAR No.13 of 2011. The learned counsel submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any separate compensation to the fruit bearing trees and the Reference Court has also not considered the same.

¶28

5 The learned counsel for the Respondent / acquiring body submits that in the acquired land Gat No.133, though there was a facility of water available from the common well, the crop pattern in 7/12 extract was shown as sugarcane, Toor, Jawar etc. plus sweetlemon fruit trees and as such, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.3,750/- per Are. The learned counsel submits that in the instant case, though the water facility was available from the common well and borewell, the crop pattern as shown in 7/12 extract only speaks about the dry crops like Kardai, Jawar etc. The learned counsel submits that the Appellants / Claimants have deposed before the Reference Court only about two neem trees and two sweet-lemon trees in the acquired land Gat

¶29

No.136. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the

¶30

¶31

904 FA.825.16.odt

¶32

compensation based on the both the value of the land and trees. Thus, the Appellants / Claimants are not entitled to claim any separate compensation for the aforesaid trees. There is wrong entry in E-statement about the number of trees in the acquired land Gat No.136. However, the Appellants / Claimants have also not deposed about it and it appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has also not considered the same and the Appellants / Claimants have also accepted the said position. The learned counsel submits that on the basis of the water facility through the common well and borewell, even though the crop patter in the 7/12 extract does not indicate the Bagayati crops, the Reference Court has treated the acquired land Gat No.136 of the Appellants / Claimants as seasonally irrigated land and accordingly awarded the just and reasonable compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.3,400/- per Are. No interference is required. There is no substance in the appeal.

¶33

6 On careful perusal of the evidence and the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, it appears that so far as LAR No.13 of 2011 is concerned, in para 21 of the judgment, the Reference Court has observed that there is a well in the acquired land Gat No.133 and in the cultivation column of 7/12 extract, there is an entry about the common well as well as crops like sugarcane, cotton, toor,

¶34

¶35

904 FA.825.16.odt

¶36

jawar. There is also an entry in the cultivation column of sweet-lemon

¶37

trees in the area of 40 Ares for the year 2002-03 onwards. The Reference Court has therefore, rightly held that the acquired land Gat No.133 in LAR No.13 of 2011 is an irrigated land and accordingly awarded the compensation to the acquired land of Gat No.133 at the enhanced rate of Rs.3,750/- per Are.

¶38

7 So far as the acquired land Gat No.136 is concerned, though there is an entry about the water facility from the common well and borewell in 7/12 extract, in para 18 of the judgment, the Reference Court has observed that in the cultivation column of 7/12 extract at Exhibit – 30, there is entry of the crop Kardai, Jawar etc. Obviously the entry in 7/12 extract does not substantiate the claim of the Appellants / Claimants about taking the crops like sugarcane, banana, sweet-lemon trees etc. in the acquired land. It further appears from the record that there is an erroneous entry in the E-statement about 1252 fruit trees in the land Gat No.136. The Reference Court has considered the acquired land Gat No.136 as seasonally irrigated land

¶39

on the basis of the water facility available to the said land and also considering the fact that the acquired land is near to Sailu town. It further appears from the observations made by the Reference Court that the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the

¶40

¶41

904 FA.825.16.odt

¶42

enhanced rate of Rs.3,400/- per Are by considering the value of the land, trees and also damage sustained by the Claimants.

¶43

8 In view of the above, I do not find any fault in the impugned judgment and award. There is no substance in the appeal. Hence, the following order:

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

I. The appeal, is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to the

¶46

costs.

¶47

II. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶48

[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]

¶49

ndm

Bhausaheb Panditrao Kaste and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhausaheb Panditrao Kaste and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Bhalchandra Dashrath Sarwade Vs Bhima Lahu Shitole

Bhalchandra Dashrath Sarwade Vs Bhima Lahu Shitole

Karbhari Trimbak Wahadne Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Padminibai Maroti Shikhare and Ors. Vs Union of India, Thr G.M. South Central Railways, Secunderabad (Andra Pradesh)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Babita Madhukar Badgujar and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jyoti Deepak Badgujar and Others