Partly allowed

The State of Mah v. Narayansingh Navalsingh Rajput

Bombay HC18 Jan 2018CA/2286/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court determined appropriate compensation rates for land acquisition, modifying the Reference Court's awards for seasonally irrigated, Jirayat, and Pot-Kharab lands to account for timing and comparability, partly allowing appeals and cross-objections.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs.1,35,000 per hectare for seasonally irrigated land, Rs.92,500 for Jirayat land, and Rs.46,250 for Pot-Kharab land.

The State of Mah Vs Narayansingh Navalsingh Rajput — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 ) 928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

928 FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2005

¶4

1. The State of Maharashtra through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nandurbar.

¶5

2. The Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Project, Nandurbar. ..Appellants

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

. Girdhar Tulshiram Marathe Age: Major, Occu.: Agril., R/o.Ranzani, Tq.Taloda, Dist.Nandurbar. ..Respondent

¶8

...

¶9

WITH

¶10

WITH CA/2287/2005 IN FA/591/2005 WITH CA/10584/2006 IN
FA/591/2005 WITH X-OBJST/9176/2011 IN FA/591/2005

¶11

WITH

¶12

929 FIRST APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2005

¶13

WITH CA/2285/2005 IN FA/592/2005 WITH CA/10581/2006 IN
FA/592/2005 WITH X-OBJST/9172/2011 IN FA/592/2005

¶14

WITH

¶15

930 FIRST APPEAL NO. 593 OF 2005

¶16

WITH CA/2286/2005 IN FA/593/2005 WITH CA/10586/2006 IN

¶17

FA/593/2005

¶18

WITH

¶19

933 FIRST APPEAL NO. 715 OF 2005

¶20

WITH CA/2176/2005 IN FA/715/2005 WITH X-OBJST/9174/2011

¶21

IN FA/715/2005

¶22

WITH

¶23

934 FIRST APPEAL NO. 716 OF 2005

¶24

WITH CA/2173/2005 IN FA/716/2005 WITH X-OBJST/9256/2011

¶25

IN FA/716/2005

¶26

( 2 ) 928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

¶27

WITH

¶28

940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 717 OF 2005

¶29

WITH CA/2175/2005 IN FA/717/2005 WITH X-OBJST/9854/2011
IN FA/717/2005

¶30

...

¶31

...

¶32

AGP for Appellants : Mr.A.M.Phule, Mr.K.N.Lokhande and
 Mr.S.P.Deshmukh

¶33

Advocate for Respondents : Mr.M.S.Kulkarni and Mr.Sachin
Bhosale h/f.Mr.R.C.Patil

¶34

...

¶35

CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 18^th January, 2018

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶37

1)Heard respective Assistant Government Pleaders for

¶38

the appellants and Mr.Sachin Bhosale learned counsel, who

¶39

holds for Mr.R.C.Patil learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants.

¶40

2)In all these appeals, the challenge is to the award

¶41

of the Reference Court, which has increased the
compensation in respect of seasonally irrigated lands
from Rs.45,000/- per hectare to Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare

¶42

and in respect of Pot-Kharab land from Rs.150/- per Are

¶43

( 3 ) 928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

¶44

to Rs.413 per Are. Similarly, the Reference Court has
increased the compensation in respect of Jirayat lands
from Rs.45,000/- per hectare to Rs.82,500/- per hectare.

¶45

3)In all the First Appeals, except First Appeal No.593
of 2005, the respondents/claimants have taken out Cross-
Objections to claim compensation @ Rs.1,45,000 per
hectare in respect of seasonally irrigated land as well
as proportionate increase in respect of Jirayat and Pot-
Kharab lands.

¶46

4)Learned Assistant Government Pleaders submits that

¶47

the Reference Court has relied upon sale instances from
the neighbouring village, which Sale-Deed were never
produced on record in the present References. They
submit that the Sale-Deed was produced in L.A.R.No.20 of
2002 and therefore could not have been taken into
consideration in the present Reference proceedings. They
point out that there is no evidence on record on the

¶48

( 4 ) 928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

¶49

issue of comparability. Therefore, the enhancement

¶50

awarded by the Reference Court may be set aside and the
determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer be
restored.

¶51

5) Mr.Sachin Bhosale learned counsel for the

¶52

respondents/claimants submits that the enhancement
compensation awarded in the present cases is well within
the limit prescribed in the Government Resolution dated

¶53

3.11.2016. On this basis, he submits that the State
Government ought not to pursue these appeals. He further
points out that the Reference Court has correctly relied
upon the sale instance dated 27.8.1996. He, further
submits that the Reference Court, after considering the
date of issuance of Section 4 Notification, has granted
escalation and determined the compensation. He submits
that nearly 10% escalation per annum is required to be
considered and on the same basis the Cross-Objections are
liable to be allowed. He submits that the compensation

¶54

( 5 ) 928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

¶55

in respect of Pot-Kharab and Jirayat lands are also
liable to be proportionately increased. He submits that
there is no enhancement in respect of fruit bearings and
trees and the same is liable to be considered. On all
these grounds Mr.Sachin Bhosale submits that the appeals
be dismissed and the Cross-Objections be allowed.

¶56

6)In this case, it is true that the claimants failed
to place on record original Sale-Deed dated 27.8.1996.
However, a certified copy was produced on record. The
Reference Court has made reference to the provisions of
Section 51(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and accepted
the certified copy of Sale-Deed in evidence.

¶57

7)Apart from this, there is material on record, which
indicates that very same Sale-Deed has been produced and
proved in L.A.R. No.20 of 2002. In such circumstances,
there is no necessity to fault the Reference Court for
having placed reliance on the Sale-Deed dated 27.8.1996.

¶58

( 6 ) 928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

¶59

8)Again, the Sale-Deed dated 27.8.1996 pertains to the
neighbouring village. There is ample evidence on record
on the issue of comparability. It is not the case of the
appellant State that the Sale-Deed from the same village
was available but not produced. No doubt some deductions
will have to be made taking into consideration the sale
instance is not from the same village. However, there is
no reason to discard the sale instance dated 27.8.1996 in
its entirety as urged by the learned Assistant Government
Pleaders.

¶60

9)The Reference Court on the basis of the sale
instance dated 27.8.1996, has held that the Jirayat land
fetch market value of Rs.82,500/- per hectare and on this
basis determined the rate of seasonal irrigated land @
Rs.1,23,750/- per hectare on the basis that the seasonal
irrigated land can be valued at 1 & ½ times of the
Jirayat land. Further, the Reference Court has granted

¶61

( 7 ) 928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

¶62

some appreciation, possibly taking into consideration the
circumstances that the Sale-Deed is of 1996 and Section 4
Notification was of the year 2001 and determined the rate
of Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare.

¶63

10)There is no fault on the part of the Reference court
in relying on the sale instance of the year 1996. Though,
the same was of neighbouring village. Since, the sale
instance indicates the value of the Jirayat land as
Rs.82,500/- per hectare, normally double the amount
should have been determined in respect of the seasonally
irrigated land. Further, enhancement @ 10% per annum was
also due, taking into consideration that the Sale-Deed
has been of the year 1996 and the Section 4 Notification
was of the year 2001. However, as pointed out by the
learned Assistant Government Pleaders, the sale instance
pertains to land situated in the neighbouring village and

¶64

there is no clear evidence on the aspect of
comparability. The lands are held to be some or less

¶65

( 8 ) 928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

¶66

comparative. On this basis, there is no necessity to

¶67

fault the determination @ 1 and ½ times the rate of
Jirayat land. However, the escalation granted is quite
less taking into consideration that the Sale-Deed was of
the year 1996 and Section 4 Notification issued in the
year 2001.

¶68

11)Taking all these aspects into consideration, it will
be appropriate if compensation in respect of seasonally
irrigated land is determined @ Rs.1,35,000 per hectare
and in respect of Jirayat land, the same is determined @
Rs.92,500/- per hectare. Consequently, the compensation
in respect of Pot-Kharab land will have to be determined
@ Rs.46,250 per hectare. To that extent, therefore, all
these appeals have to be partly allowed.

¶69

12)As submitted by Mr.Sachin Bhosale learned counsel

¶70

for the respondents, even the increased amount after
allowing the Cross-Objections are within the limits

¶71

( 9 ) 928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

¶72

prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 3.11.1996
as amended from time to time.

¶73

13)The enhanced rate in the present case is well within
the limits prescribed in the Government Resolution dated
3.11.2016 as amended from time to time. This Government
Resolution relates to the policy of the State Government
that it shall not institute or pursue appeals where the
enhanced compensation is less than four times of the
Ready Reckoner Rate prevalent on the date of the issue of
Section 4 Notification.

¶74

14)For the aforesaid reasons, First Appeal No.593 of
2005 is dismissed. Since, there is no Cross-Objection in
this appeal, there is no question to disturb the
compensation already granted. However, rest of the
appeals are dismissed and the Cross-Objections are partly
allowed.

¶75

( 10 ) 928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

¶76

15)The compensation in respect of seasonally irrigated
land is determined @ Rs.1,35,000/- per hectare, Jirayat
land @ Rs.92,500/- per hectare and Pot-Kharab land @
Rs.46,250/- per hectare. The respondents/claimants shall
be entitled to proportionate statutory benefits as well.

¶77

16)The Appeals and Cross-Objections are disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.

¶78

17)As the Appeals are disposed of, the Civil

¶79

Applications pending, if any, do not survive and they are
also disposed of.

¶80

18)There shall be no order as to costs.

¶81

SPT/928 - FA 591 of 2005 & ors.

The State of Mah v. Narayansingh Navalsingh Rajput

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Narayansingh Navalsingh Rajput

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

Priyanka W/O Anand Banbare @ D/O Pundlikrao Chinchalkar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Div. Manager, Nanded and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sopan Vishwanath Wagh Died L.Rs. Shindhula Sopan Wagh

State of Maha and Anr. Vs Vijay Sundarrao Lokhande

State of Mah.Thru.Spl.Land Acq.Officer,Jalgaon. Vs Vijay Youraj Patil.

State of Maharashtra,Thru Spl.L.Acq.Offr.Jalgaon Vs Yuraj Ramdas Patil

The State of Mah Vs Girish Yadneshwar Agnihotri