Partly allowed

Mangala Manohar Ganjare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Oct 2018FA/303/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed this first appeal partly. The court enhanced the compensation for land acquired for a minor irrigation tank, fixing the market value at Rs. 22,000 per hectare based on a corrected interpretation of a post-acquisition sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Appellant held entitled to compensation at Rs. 22,000 per hectare with statutory benefits and interest; Respondents to pay enhanced compensation.

Mangala Manohar Ganjare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Judg-FA-303-2001 .odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2001

¶5

Sow. Mangala w/o Manohar Ganjare,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agri. & Household,
R/o : Bhingi as present Hingoli,
Tq. Hingoli, District Parbhani...Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Parbhani.

¶8

2.The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Department
(S.S.) Parbhani.

¶9

3.The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, U.P.P.2, Parbhani
Dist. Parbhani...Respondent

¶10

...

¶11

Mr. S.K. Adkine, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for Respondent/State.

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
 DATE : 30th OCTOBER, 2018.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶15

1.The appellant has filed the present

¶16

appeal against the judgment and award passed in
L.A.R. No.136 of 1991 by Civil Judge Senior

¶17

Division at Hingoli on 08.03.2000. The aforesaid

¶18

land acquisition reference was filed by the present

¶19

appellant seeking enhancement in the amount of

¶20

Judg-FA-303-2001 .odt

¶21

(2)

¶22

compensation which was offered by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer towards acquisition of her land
for the purpose of Hadgaon Minor Irrigation Tank.

¶23

2.The agricultural lands bearing gut
no.62/1 and 62/4 ad-measuring 4 H 64 R in total,
owned by the appellant situated at village Bhingi
Taluka Hingoli, District Parbhani were acquired for
the construction of Hadgaon Minor Irrigation Tank.
The notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 in that regard was published
in the official gazette on 15.04.1886. The award
under Section 11 came to be passed on 03.06.1989.

¶24

The SLAO had offered the compensation of the
acquired lands at the rate ranging from Rs. 7,500/-
to Rs.8,500/- per hectare. Dissatisfied with the
amount of compensation so offered, the appellant
who is hereinafter referred to as the claimant
preferred an application under Section 18 of the
Act with the Collector seeking enhancement in the
amount of compensation. The Collector forwarded
the application so received for its adjudication to
the Civil Court at Hingoli. The Civil Court is
hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court.

¶25

Judg-FA-303-2001 .odt

¶26

(3)

¶27

3.In the reference proceedings, the
appellant had demanded the compensation of the
acquired lands at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre.
It was the contention of the appellant that the
subject lands were irrigated lands and the
irrigation was on well water. In order to
substantiate the claim raised by her, the claimant
herself deposed before the Court and also examined
one more witness by name Sanjay Sudhakar Nimdeo and
has also placed on record three sale instances
claiming the same to be of the comparable lands
occurred during the said period. No evidence was
adduced on behalf of the respondents.

¶28

4.The learned Reference Court after having
considered the oral and documentary evidence on
record, determined the market value of the subject
lands at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per hectare and
accordingly enhanced the amount of compensation.

¶29

The Reference Court also held the appellant
entitled for the statutory benefits and the
interest under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act. According to the appellant, the
Reference Court also has not granted the adequate
compensation. The appellant has, therefore,

¶30

Judg-FA-303-2001 .odt

¶31

(4)

¶32

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement in
the amount of compensation so awarded by the
Reference Court.

¶33

5.The learned counsel for the appellant has
criticized the impugned judgment and award on
various grounds. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that though three sale
instances were brought on record by the appellant
respectively at Exhibit-24, 25 and 26 and though
the lands involved in all the three sale instances
were of similar quality and nature and were in the
vicinity of the acquired lands, the Reference Court
has for wrong reasons discarded the said evidence.
The learned counsel submitted that in spite of
there being sufficient evidence on record showing
that the subject lands were being irrigated on well
water, the learned Reference Court has wrongly held
the subject lands to be non-irrigated lands. The
learned counsel further submitted that the
Reference Court has also not awarded any

¶34

compensation for the fruit bearing trees existing

¶35

in the acquired land. The learned counsel has,
therefore, prayed for adequate enhancement in the
amount of compensation with all statutory benefits

¶36

Judg-FA-303-2001 .odt

¶37

(5)

¶38

thereon.

¶39

6.The learned AGP resisted the submissions

¶40

made on behalf of the appellant and supported the
impugned judgment and award. The learned AGP
submitted that though three sale instances were
brought on record by the claimant, the lands
involved in said two sale instances respectively at
Exhibit-25 and 26 were the small pieces of land and
on the basis of the said sale instances, the market
value of the acquired lands could not have been
determined by the Reference Court. The learned AGP
further submitted that the sale instance at
Exhibit-24 which was much emphasized by the
claimant was admittedly of the period post issuance
of Section 4 notification and as such could not

¶41

have been the basis for determining the market
value of the acquired lands on the date of
acquisition i.e. on the date of issuance of Section

¶42

4 notification on 15.04.1886. The learned AGP
submitted that despite the latches on part of the
appellant in bringing on record the cogent and
sufficient evidence, the Reference Court has
awarded the fair amount of compensation. The
learned AGP, therefore, prayed for rejecting the

¶43

Judg-FA-303-2001 .odt

¶44

(6)

¶45

application.

¶46

7.I have given due consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing
for the acquiring body and the learned AGP
appearing for the State. I have also perused the
impugned judgment and the evidence on record.

¶47

8.The material on record reveals that the
claimant had placed on record three sale instances
in order to support the claim made by her in the
reference application. The said sale instances are
at Exhibit-24, 25 and 26. In order to prove the
sale instance at Exhibit-24, the claimant had
examined AW-2 Sanjay Sudhakar Nimdeo. The Reference
Court has declined to rely upon any of the said
sale instances. In so far as the sale instances at
Exhibit-25 and 26 are concerned, it does not appear
to me that the Reference Court has committed any
error in discarding the said sale instances. The
sale deed at Exhibit-25 pertains to the sale of 11
R land whereas, the land which was the subject
matter of the sale deed at Exhibit-26 was
admeasuring only 1 R. Both the sale deeds could

¶48

Judg-FA-303-2001 .odt

¶49

(7)

¶50

not have been relied upon by the Reference Court
since they were pertaining to the small pieces of
land whereas, the acquired lands were quite large.
However, it appears to me that the sale deed at
Exhibit-24 could not have been outrightly discarded
by the learned Reference Court only on the ground

¶51

that it was executed after the issuance of the
notification under Section 4 of the Act whereby,
the subject lands were acquired. Admittedly, the
respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary
evidence in the circumstances, the only evidence
which was before the Reference Court for its
consideration was the oral testimony of the present
appellant and the sale instance produced on record
by her at Exhibit-24.

¶52

9.The land which was the subject matter of
Exhibit-24 was admeasuring 93 R and was situated at
village Bhingi and was sold for the consideration
of Rs. 35,000/- on 26.04.1989. The said land had
thus earned the price at the rate of Rs.37,600/-
per hectare. In absence of any contrary evidence
there was no difficulty for the Reference Court to
determine the market value of the acquired lands on
the date of their acquisition on the basis of the

¶53

Judg-FA-303-2001 .odt

¶54

(8)

¶55

said sale instance by making some guess work and by
proportionately reducing the value received to the
the land which was the subject matter of Exhibit-24
considering the fact that the same was sold after
about three years of acquisition of the subject
lands.

¶56

10.As I noted here-in-above the claimant had
examined AW-2 Sanjay Sudhakar Nimdeo who had
purchased the said land which is the subject matter
of Exhibit-24. In his cross-examination nothing has

¶57

been brought on record by the respondents-
defendants that the value of the said land had
increased as because the construction of the
Hadgaon Minor Tank. In the circumstances, by
applying the same criteria that the prices of the
lands increase ordinarily at the rate 10% every
year, the market value of the acquired lands could
have been determined by the Reference Court on the
basis of the sale deed at Exhibit-24. By applying
the said criteria, the market value of the acquired
lands comes to Rs.26,320/- per hectare. Having
regard to the further fact that the said land was
not from the same village Bhingi but was of village

¶58

Judg-FA-303-2001 .odt

¶59

(9)

¶60

Ghuli, some more deductions can be made. Even by
making such deductions, the market value of the
acquired lands could not have been determined at
the rate less than Rs.22,000/- per hectare.

¶61

11.The land which was the subject matter of

¶62

Exhibit-24 was admittedly jirayat land. Though, it

¶63

is the contention of the present appellant that the
subject lands were having well therein and two
crops used to be taken in the said lands and as
such the said lands must be held to be irrigated
lands and the market value thereof shall be held
double of the jirayat land, the same contention is
difficult to be accepted. As has been observed by

¶64

the Reference Court, the appellant-claimant has not
brought on record sufficient evidence to show that

¶65

diesel engine was being used and two crops used to
be taken from the acquired lands. The acquired
lands, therefore, are to be held non-irrigated
lands. I, therefore, determine the market value of
the said lands on the date of their acquisition as
Rs.22,000/- per hectare. The compensation therefore

¶66

needs to be accordingly enhanced. I also held the
appellant-claimant entitled for the statutory

¶67

Judg-FA-303-2001 .odt

¶68

(10)

¶69

benefits under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act.
The appellant-claimant is also entitled to receive
the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation
under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act from the date
of passing of the award under Section 11 of the Act
i.e. from 03.06.1989. For the reasons stated above,

¶70

the following order is passed:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

(i)The appellant-claimant is held entitled
to receive the compensation at the rate of
Rs.22,000/- per hectare. The enhanced amount of
compensation be accordingly determined.

¶73

(ii)Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall jointly or
severally pay the enhanced amount of compensation
to the appellant – claimant along with the
statutory benefits thereon under Sections 23 (1A)
and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as well as
the interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act in accordance with law.

¶74

(iii)The modified award be prepared

¶75

accordingly.

¶76

(iv)The appeal stands partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms.

¶77

Mujaheed//

Mangala Manohar Ganjare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangala Manohar Ganjare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Sk Maheboob Sk Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sk Maula Sk Maheboob Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sk. Amir Shaikh Mahebob Vs the State of Mah. and Anr.

Vishnu Kashinath More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mariba Yada Ingole Deceased Thro. Lrs. Arun Mariba Ingole and Others Vs the Executive Engineer ( Architecture), (Building and Repairs Division), Osmanabad and Anr.

The Executive Engineer ( Architecture), (Building and Repairs Division), Osmanabad Vs Mariba Yada Ingole Deceased Thro. Lrs. Arun Mariba Ingole and Others