Dismissed

The State of Mah. v. Ramchandra Shamrao Tirtkar and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2018FA/1071/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These consolidated appeals challenged the common award of the Reference Court which enhanced land acquisition compensation for the Ruibhar Medium Project. The State argued the valuation was arbitrary compared to sale instances. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding the Reference Court acted on a reasoned basis regarding municipal proximity and evidence of sale rates, allowing a moderate en

What did the court decide?

All appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

The State of Mah. Vs Ramchandra Shamrao Tirtkar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1072 OF 2002

¶5

The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶6

 ..Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mustafa Jafar Shaikh, age-36 yrs,
Occ.Agri, r/o. Ruibhar, Tq, and
Dist. Osmanabad.

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

WITH

¶11

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1071 OF 2002

¶12

The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶13

 ..Appellant

¶14

Versus

¶15

1. Ramchandra Shamrao Thirtkar, Age: 45 years, Occu: Agri., r/o: Ruibhar, (died) his L.Rs.

¶16

2. Sow. Vijaya Pandurang Gurave, Age: Adult, r/o Ruibhar Tq & Dist. Osmanabad.

¶17

3. Ranajana Ramchandra Tirtkar, Age: Adult, r/o Ruibhar Tq & Dist. Osmanabad.

¶18

4.Vithoba Shamrao Thirtkar
Age: 40 years, Occu: Agri.,
r/o: As above. ..Respondents

¶19

WITH

¶20

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1080 OF 2002

¶21

The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶22

 ..Appellant

¶23

Versus

¶24

Babasaheb Faridsaheb Khonde (Shaikh)
Age: 44 years, Occu: Agri.,r/o:Ruibhar,
Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad.. Respondent

¶25

WITH

¶26

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1081 OF 2002

¶27

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶28

(2)

¶29

The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶30

 ..Appellant

¶31

Versus

¶32

1. Goroba Namdeo Sherkhane

¶33

Age: 30 years, Occu: Agri.,
r/o:Ruibhar,Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad
(died his L.Rs. as under)

¶34

a. Mangal w/o Goroba Sherkhane Age: 27 years, Occu: Household, r/o:Ruibhar.

¶35

b. Kishor s/o Goroba Sherkhane

¶36

Age: 4 years,minor, u/f his real mother Mangal Goroba Sherkhane

¶37

c. Manikshi d/o Goroba Sherkhane

¶38

Age: 2 years,minor, u/f his real mother Mangal
Goroba Sherkhane

¶39

2. Vithoba s/o Namdeo Sherkhane Age: 35 years, Occu: Agri, r/o: as above. .. Respondents

¶40

WITH

¶41

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1082 OF 2002

¶42

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

¶43

Versus

¶44

Dagdu Daji Ghodake
Age: 50 years, Occu: Agri.,
r/o:Ruibhar,Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad .. Respondent

¶45

WITH

¶46

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1083 OF 2002

¶47

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

¶48

Versus

¶49

1.Bhimrao Satwa Sherkhane
Age: 63 years, Occu: Agri.,
r/o:Ruibhar,Tq. Osmanabad

¶50

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt (3)

¶51

2. Maruti Satwa Sherkhane Age: 57 years, Occu: Agri., as above ... Respondents

¶52

WITH

¶53

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1084 OF 2002

¶54

The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶55

 ..Appellant

¶56

Versus

¶57

Bibhishan Tukaram Kaspate
Age: 35 years, Occu: Agri.,
r/o:Ruibhar,Tq. Osmanabad .. Respondent

¶58

WITH

¶59

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1085 OF 2002

¶60

The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad.

¶61

 ..Appellant

¶62

Versus

¶63

1.Maruti s/o Mahadeo Kaspate
Age: 45 years, Occu: Agri.,
r/o:Ruibhar,Tq. Osmanabad

¶64

2.Balbhim Mahadeo Kaspate
Age: 35 years, Occu: Agri.,
r/o: as above... Respondents

¶65

WITH

¶66

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1086 OF 2002

¶67

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

¶68

Versus

¶69

Sharubhai Bapu Khonde
Age: 60 years, Occu: Agri,
r/o:Ruibhar,Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad .. Respondent

¶70

...

¶71

Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Appellants.
Mr. V.V. Ingle, Advocate for Respondents.

¶72

...

¶73

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶74

(4)

¶75

 CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
th OCTOBER, 2018.

¶76

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶77

.These appeals are arising out of the
common judgment and award delivered by the Joint
Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in L.A.R.
No.246 of 1991 with connected eight land

¶78

acquisition references decided by the said Court by
a common judgment on 03.03.1997.

¶79

2.The lands which are the subject matter in
the present appeals were acquired for Ruibhar
Medium Project. The lands were acquired from
Village Ruibhar. The notification under Section 4

¶80

of the Land Acquisition Act in that regard was
published in the official gazette on 07.08.1984 and
the award under Section 11 came to be passed on
19.02.1987. The SLAO had offered the compensation

¶81

at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per Acre i.e. Rs. 125
per R. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation
so offered, the claimants had filed the
applications under Section 18 of the Act which were

¶82

adjudicated by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, at Osmanabad. The said Court is
hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court'.

¶83

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶84

(5)

¶85

The respondents in all these appeals are

¶86

hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants'.

¶87

3.Theclaimantshadclaimedthe

¶88

compensation in reference applications at the rate
of Rs. 40,000/- per Acre and had also claimed the
enhanced amount of compensation for the acquired
Wells and Tals as well as the trees standing in
their lands. The record reveals that all nine
reference applications were heard commonly and
common evidence was adduced in the said reference
applications. In addition to the evidence of the
respective claimants, the reliance was also placed
by the claimants on certain sale instances. The
record shows that three sale instances were brought
on record by the claimants in order to substantiate
their claims. The claimants had also examined the
valuer for bringing on record the valuation of the
wells, tals and the trees in some of the lands. No
oral evidence was adduced by the SLAO.

¶89

4.The learned Reference Court after having
assessed the oral and documentary evidence brought
on record before him, determined the market value
of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 30,000/-

¶90

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶91

(6)

¶92

per Acre i.e. Rs. 750 per R and also enhanced the
compensation for the Wells in about four matters.
The compensation was also enhanced by the Reference
Court for Tals in four matters. Aggrieved by, the
State has preferred the present appeals.

¶93

5.Shri Phule, the learned AGP appearing for
the State assailed the impugned common judgment and
award on various grounds. The first objection as
has been raised by the learned AGP is that the
Reference Court has not provided any rational in
determining the market value of the acquired lands
at the enhanced rate. The learned AGP pointed out
that the Reference Court has also failed in
appreciating that the land which was the subject
matter of Exhibit-39 when was sold at the rate of
Rs. 40,000/- per Acre though it was within
municipal area, the lands which are the subject
matter in the present appeals which were admittedly
not within the municipal area, in all probabilities
were liable to receive the market value at half of

¶94

the said rate received to the land which was in the
municipal area. In the circumstances, according to
the learned AGP, the Reference Court could not have
determined the market value of the acquired lands

¶95

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶96

(7)

¶97

at the rate more than Rs. 20,000/- per Acre.

¶98

6.The learned AGP further submitted that

¶99

another sale deed at Exhibit-40 was of the period
after the publication of Section 4 notification.
The same was therefore not liable to be considered
at all. It was further contended by the learned
AGP that the sale deed which seems to have relied
upon by the learned AGP was infact an agreement of
sale and the land ad-measuring 81 Are was agreed to
be sold for the consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. The
learned AGP submitted that the Reference Court has
mentioned that the said land is not away from the
acquired lands. The learned AGP submitted that
nothing has come on record to show as to how much
was the distance of the acquired lands from the
said land and how that land can be said to be
comparable for determining the market value of the
acquired lands. The learned AGP submitted that the
Reference Court has thus arbitrarily enhanced the
amount of compensation which cannot be sustained.

¶100

7.The learned AGP further submitted that

¶101

the valuer on whose evidence the Reference Court
has placed the implicit reliance was infact not a

¶102

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶103

(8)

¶104

approved valuer and no implicit reliance therefore
could have been placed on the valuation given by
the said valuer. On all these grounds, the learned
AGP prayed for setting aside the judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court and/or to modify
award and/or suitably modify the impugned common
judgment and award.

¶105

8.Shri Ingle, the learned counsel appearing

¶106

in these appeals for the respondents i.e. original
claimants supported the impugned judgment and
award. The learned counsel submitted that Village
Bhuibhar is just adjacent to Osmanabad city. The

¶107

learned counsel submitted that in such

¶108

circumstances, there is no much difference in the
value of the lands falling in the area of municipal
limit of Osmanabad and the lands situate at Village
Ruibhar. The learned counsel further submitted

¶109

that the said village is at Osmanabad-Latur road
and has all potentials of ongoing developments and
as such the Reference Court has rightly determined

¶110

the market value of the said lands at the rate of

¶111

Rs. 30,000/- per Acre.

¶112

9.The learned counsel further submitted

¶113

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶114

(9)

¶115

that the Reference Court has not awarded the same

¶116

rate as was received to the lands which was the
subject matter of the sale instances relied upon by
the claimants. The learned counsel pointed out that
the Reference Court has specifically observed that
the average rate which was received to the lands
which were the subject matter of the sale instances
brought on record by the claimants was of Rs.
40,000/- per Acre. The Reference Court has awarded
the market value of Rs. 30,000/- to the acquired
lands. The learned counsel submitted that the
market value as has been determined by the
Reference Court was based on the evidence and was
the real market value of the acquired lands at the
relevant time.

¶117

10.The learned counsel further submitted

¶118

that the witness examined by the claimants may not
be a government approved valuer but admittedly he
was an expert in the field and in absence of any
contrary evidence on record, his evidence was

¶119

liable to be considered and was accordingly
considered by the Reference Court. The learned
counsel submitted that the compensation as has been
enhanced by the Reference Court is moderate and in

¶120

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶121

(10)

¶122

no case can be said to be arbitrarily enhanced or
exorbitant. The learned counsel further submitted
that the claimants had already received the entire
amount of compensation with interest thereon as was
enhanced by the Reference Court. The learned
counsel for all above reasons prayed for dismissing
the appeals.

¶123

11.I have given due consideration to the

¶124

submissions made by the learned AGP and the learned
counsel appearing for the original claimants. I
have perused the impugned common judgment and award
as well as the evidence on record. It is not in
dispute that the lands which are the subject matter
in the present appeals were acquired for Ruibhar
Medium Project vide the notification published on
07.08.1984. Though the learned AGP was much
persuasive in submitting that the Reference Court

¶125

has failed in appreciating the sale instances on
record after having gone through the discussion
made by the Reference Court, it is difficult to
agree with the contention so raised.

¶126

12.The Reference Court has made exhaustive
discussion while determining the market value of

¶127

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶128

(11)

¶129

the acquired lands and has thoroughly considered
the evidence on record. The Reference Court has
appropriately considered the sale instances brought
on record by the claimants and based on the value
received to the lands involved in the said sale
instances has determined the market value of the
acquired lands. In the circumstances, it is
difficult to accept the contention raised by the
learned AGP that the market value of the acquired
lands has been arbitrarily enhanced by the
Reference Court.

¶130

13.As has come on record, Village Ruibhar

¶131

from where the lands were acquired for the project,
is adjacent to the municipal limit of Osmanabad.
As was submitted by the learned counsel for the
claimants, where the municipal limits ends, area of
village Ruibhar starts. Considering the situation
as above, it can be reasonably said that there may
not be much difference in the prices of the lands
falling within the municipal limits but at a very
short distance from the acquired lands. It is true
that while discussing the sale instances i.e.
agreement of sale executed by one Shri Nanasaheb
Tirthkar, the Reference Court has not provided

¶132

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶133

(12)

¶134

further particulars as about the distance of the
said land from the acquired lands. Nothing
contrary is, however, brought on record to suggest
that the acquired lands were at far away distance
from the said lands. In the circumstances, merely
because the exact distance is not mentioned, the
fact mentioned by the Reference Court that the said
land is not away from acquired lands cannot be
discarded.

¶135

14.It further appears to me that the
Reference Court has not blindly accepted the sale
instances brought on record by the claimants.
Admittedly, the sale instances which are brought on
record show that the lands involved in the said
sale deeds had received the consideration at the

¶136

rate of Rs. 40,000/- per Acre. Though the
Reference Court has not made any elaborate
discussion, there is reason to believe that
considering the plus and minus factors, the
advantages and disadvantages, the Reference Court

¶137

has determined the market value of the acquired
lands at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per Acre and has
accordingly enhanced the amount of compensation.

¶138

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶139

(13)

¶140

15.After having considered the entire

¶141

evidence on record, it does not appear to me that
the Reference Court has committed any error so as
to cause interference in the judgment and award
passed by it.

¶142

16.Similarly, though the learned AGP has

¶143

argued that there is no uniformity in the amount of
compensation awarded for wells and tals, this
submission also does not carry any weightage for
the reason that in each of the matter, the size of
the well and the nature of its construction appears
to be different. In the circumstances obviously
the Reference Court has valued the said Wells at
difference prices.

¶144

17.It is further revealed that the claimants

¶145

had adduced the evidence of an expert in order to
prove the valuation of the said wells. The
evidence on record shows that though the valuer has

¶146

valued the wells at the price as are mentioned in
the said valuation reports, the Reference Court has
awarded the compensation almost at half of the said

¶147

rate in the judgment and award passed by it. It is
therefore quite evident that the Reference Court

¶148

1-FA-1072-2002 grp Judg.odt

¶149

(14)

¶150

has not accepted the evidence of the valuer as it
is but has applied its mind and has accordingly
determined the enhanced amount of compensation
liable to be paid for the Wells existing in four
matters. Same is the case in respect of the Tals
existing in four of the lands involved in the
present matters. I need not to make any more
discussion in this regard for the reason that a
very meager enhancement is granted for the tals.

¶151

18.After having considered the entire
material on record, it does not appear to me that
there is any scope for causing any interference in
the common judgment and award so passed. In the
result, the following order is passed:

¶152

ORDER

¶153

i)The appeals are dismissed however without

¶154

any order as to costs.

¶155

ii)Pending civil applications, if any, stand
disposed of.

¶156

Mujaheed//

The State of Mah. v. Ramchandra Shamrao Tirtkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah. v. Ramchandra Shamrao Tirtkar and Ors.

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 G.M.I.D.C, Aurangabad Thr the Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Minor Irrigation Div. Osmanabad and Ors. Vs Balu Sadhu Giri

The G.M.I.D.C, Aurangabad Thr the Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Minor Irrigation Div. Osmanabad and Ors. Vs Balu Sadhu Giri

The G.M.I.D.C, Aurangabad Thr the Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Minor Irrigation Div. Osmanabad and Ors. Vs Balu Sadhu Giri

Gursidhappa Channappa Karanje Vs Sunanada Baliram Salunke and Ors.

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur and Anr. Vs Sopan Gundappa Takbhide (Died) Thr Lrs Laxmibai (Died) Thr Lrs Pandit and Ors.

The State of Mah. Vs Mustafa Jaikar Shaikh