Partly allowed

Kalyansingh Bharatsingh Patil v. Special Lang Acquisition Officer Jalgaon

Bombay HC30 Jan 2018FA/1231/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation in two land acquisition appeals. It directed increased rates for Jirayat land and reclassified specific acquired land as Bagayat, applying a Supreme Court precedent, resulting in enhanced awards for the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced for Jirayat lands to Rs. 42,000 per hectare; Gut No. 409 reclassified as Bagayat land with compensation enhanced to Rs. 84,000 per hectare. Respondent directed to deposit amount

Kalyansingh Bharatsingh Patil Vs Special Lang Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

FA 1231/03 & another

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

 FIRST APPEAL NO.1231/2003

¶5

Kalyansing s/o Bharatsingh Patil,
age 52 yrs., occu.Agriculture
Labourer r/o Kunjar Tq.Chalisgaon
Dist.Jalgaon.

¶6

...Appellant..
(Org.claimant)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Government of Maharashtra)
Jalgaon Dist.Jalgaon.

¶9

...Respondent...

¶10

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶11

FIRST APPEAL NO.1488/2012

¶12

Babulal s/o Ambarsing Patil,
deceased through L.Rs.

¶13

1] Meerabai w/o Babulal Patil,
age 62 yrs., occu.Agricultural
Labourer r/o Kunzar Tq.Chalisgaon
Dist.Jalgaon.

¶14

2] Navalsing s/o Babulal Patil,
age 33 yrs., occu.Agricultural
Labourer r/o Kunzar Tq.Chalisgaon
Dist.Jalgaon.

¶15

3] Indrasing s/o Babulal Patil,
age 31 yrs., occu.Agricultural
Labourer r/o Kunzar Tq.Chalisgaon
Dist.Jalgaon.

¶16

4] Vakrasing s/o Babulal Patil,
age 28 yrs., occu.Agricultural
Labourer r/o Kunzar Tq.Chalisgaon
Dist.Jalgaon.

¶17

FA 1231/03 & another

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

5] Sumitra Bapusing Mahale,
age 42 yrs., occu.Agricultural
Labourer r/o Kunzar Tq.Chalisgaon
Dist.Jalgaon.

¶20

...Appellants..

¶21

Versus

¶22

The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jalgaon Dist.Jalgaon.

¶23

...Respondent...
(Org.opponent)

¶24

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶25

 .....

¶26

Shri P.R. Patil, Advocate for appellants.
Shri A.M. Phule, AGP for respondent.

¶27

 .....

¶28

CORAM: M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE: 30.01.2018

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶30

1]Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

2]In both these appeals, the challenge is to the

¶32

common judgment and award dated 27.7.1998 in Land

¶33

Acquisition Reference Nos.448/1991 and 449/1991.

¶34

Therefore, it is only appropriate that these two appeals
are disposed of by common judgment and order.

¶35

3]Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the compensation in the present case should have been

¶36

atleast Rs.8,00,000/- per Hectare in respect of Bagayat

¶37

FA 1231/03 & another

¶38

- 3 -

¶39

land and Rs.4,00,000/- per Hectare in respect of Jirayat

¶40

land. Besides, he submits that the valuation report
submitted by the Horticulture Expert examined by the
claimants has been unnecessary rejected. He submits that
on acceptance of the testimony of this expert, greater
compensation was required to be awarded in respect of the

¶41

trees in the acquired lands. He submits that in respect

¶42

of the land bearing Gut No.409, the same has been

¶43

unnecessarily treated as Jirayat land when in fact the
evidence on record suggests that it was Bagayat land. On

¶44

these grounds, he submits that these two appeals are
liable to be allowed and the compensation awarded is
liable to be enhanced.

¶45

4]Learned AGP for the respondent submits that the

¶46

only evidence produced on record by the appellants is the
sale instance dated 25.3.1985, which indicates the rate
of Rs.31,250/- per Hectare in respect of Jirayat land.

¶47

Taking the same into consideration, the Reference Court
has quite rightly awarded compensation of Rs.38,000/- in

¶48

respect of Jirayat land and Rs.76,000/- in respect of

¶49

Bagayat land. The learned AGP submits that the
Government Valuer was also examined in the Reference

¶50

FA 1231/03 & another

¶51

- 4 -

¶52

Court. After evaluating the evidence, the Reference
Court has rightly determined the compensation in respect
of the fruit trees and there is no case made out to

¶53

warrant interference. The learned AGP submits that there
is no clear evidence that the lands, which formed the
subject matter of these two appeals, were Bagayat lands
and, therefore, there is no case made out to interfere
with the impugned judgment and award.

¶54

5]Upon due consideration of the rival submissions
and upon perusal of the evidence on record, there is a
case made out to interfere with the impugned award.

¶55

6]Although there is no evidence to sustain the

¶56

award, the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- per Hectare or
Rs.4,00,000/- per Hectare, the sale deed, which has been
accepted by the Reference Court, itself suggests that the
rate in respect of Jirayat land in the year 1985 was

¶57

Rs.31,250/- per Hectare. In this case, since the Section

¶58

4 notification is dated 1.4.1988, escalation of 10% is

¶59

due and in fact such escalation is held as admissible by

¶60

the Reference Court itself. On this basis, the rate in

¶61

the year 1988 would come to Rs.41,593/-, which can be
safely rounded up to Rs.42,000/- per Hectare in respect

¶62

FA 1231/03 & another

¶63

- 5 -

¶64

of Jirayat lands. The Reference Court has reduced the
compensation to Rs.38,000/- per Hectare by observing that
the sale deeds are in respect of adjacent lands. The
fact that the sale instances are in respect of adjacent
lands is no ground to order any reduction. Therefore,
the rate in respect of Jirayat lands is on the date of

¶65

Section 4 notification will have to be taken at
Rs.42,000/- per Hectare.

¶66

7]There is no case made out for disturbing the
compensation awarded in respect of the trees. The
Reference Court has, in details, considered and discussed
the evidence not only of the expert examined on behalf of
the appellants, but also the expert on behalf of the
Government. Upon due evaluation, the Reference Court has
made an award in respect of the trees and there is really
no case made out to take any different view on this
aspect.

¶67

8]However, in First Appeal No.1231/2003, which
arises out of LAR No.448/1991, the Reference Court was
concerned with land bearing Gut No.409 admeasuring 63
Ares, which came to be acquired. The Reference Court has
treated this entire land as Jirayat land. At the same

¶68

FA 1231/03 & another

¶69

- 6 -

¶70

time, the Reference Court has awarded compensation of
Rs.2,57,300/- towards various fruit bearing trees that

¶71

were found in the acquired land. The circumstance that there were so many fruit bearing trees in the acquired land coupled with the evidence of the appellants to the effect that this was indeed a Bagayat land having water facility appears to have been ignored by the Reference Court. In Chindha Fakira Patil (dead) through L.Rs. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon (2011) 10 SCC 787) , the fact that part of the acquired land had wells and fruit bearing trees was held to be proved. Horticulture expert had also been examined in the matter. On this basis, the Supreme Court held that the land was required to be treated as Bagayat land. Applying this principle, the land bearing Gut No.409 will have to be treated as Bagayat land.

¶72

9]There is a thumb rule, which has in fact been
adopted by the Reference Court as well that the rate of
Bagayat land is usually twice as that of Jirayat land.

¶73

On this basis, the compensation for Bagayat land will
have to be determined at Rs.84,000/- per Hectare.

¶74

10]The First Appeal No.1231/2003, which arises out

¶75

FA 1231/03 & another

¶76

- 7 -

¶77

of LAR No.448/1991 is, therefore, partly allowed. The

¶78

compensation is directed to be determined at the market
rate of Rs.42,000/- per Hectare in respect of Jirayat
land and Rs.48,000/- per Hectare in respect of Bagayat
land. The land bearing Gut No.409 admeasuring 63 Ares is
directed to be treated as Bagayat land and in respect of

¶79

the same the compensation is determined at Rs.84,000/-
per Hectare. The land bearing Gut No.452 admeasuring 01
Hectare 49 Ares is to be treated as Jirayat land itself,
however, the compensation shall be computed at the rate
of Rs.42,000/- per Hectare instead of Rs.38,000/- per
Hectare. Similarly, the land bearing Gut No.407

¶80

admeasuring 64 Ares is to be treated as Jirayat land
itself, but to be paid compensation at the rate of
Rs.42,000/- per Hectare instead of Rs.38,000/- per
Hectare. The First Appeal No.1231/2003 stands allowed in
these terms. On the enhanced compensation, the appellant

¶81

is entitled to proportionate statutory benefits as well
as interest. The respondent to compute the compensation

¶82

amount in the aforesaid terms and deposit the same in

¶83

this Court within a period of eight weeks from today.
The respondent is obviously entitled to credit for the

¶84

FA 1231/03 & another

¶85

compensation amount already paid to the appellant.

¶86

11]The First Appeal No.1488/2012, which arises out

¶87

of LAR No.449/1991 is also partly allowed. The

¶88

compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.76,000/- per
Hectare in respect of Bagayat land to Rs.84,000/- per
Hectare. The appellants are entitled to proportionate
statutory benefits and interest. The respondent is
directed to compute the compensation amount on the said
basis and to deposit such compensation in this Court

¶89

within a period of eight weeks from today. The

¶90

respondent is obviously entitled to credit for the
compensation amount already paid to the appellants.

¶91

12]The aforesaid two First Appeals are partly
allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.

¶92

ndk/ c3011823.doc

Kalyansingh Bharatsingh Patil v. Special Lang Acquisition Officer Jalgaon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyansingh Bharatsingh Patil v. Special Lang Acquisition Officer Jalgaon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Mangu Jadhav and Anr. Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Thr Its Div. Manager, Nanded and Anr.

Shaligram Ananda Patil and Others Vs Dilip Harakchand Jain

State of Maha Vs Shankar Sonaji Bansode

Mrs Shewantabai Gangaram Rodekar Vs United Ins Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Bhagwat Rama Bangar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Babarao Yadavrao More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.