Partly allowed

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

Bombay HC29 Oct 2018FA/349/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeals challenging low compensation for land acquired for village extension, the High Court permitted admissibility of evidence regarding a similar case (LAR No. 259/1992). Finding the projects and village identical, the Court held that the higher compensation rate awarded to adjacent landowners must apply. Consequently, compensation was enhanced to Rs. 20,000 per hectare along with statutory

What did the court decide?

Civil Application allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,000 per hectare; statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), 28, and 34 granted.

Sk. Amir Shaikh Mahebob Vs the State of Mah. and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

FA 349/2004 & Ors

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.349 OF 2004

¶5

¶6

SK.Amir s/o Shaikh Maheboob

¶7

Age: 32 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o Chandaj, Tq. Jintur,

¶8

District Parbhani...APPELLANT
 (orig.Claimant)

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶11

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Asstt. Collector, Parbhani.

¶12

.. RESPONDENTS

¶13

WITH

¶14

FIRST APPEAL NO.350 OF 2004

¶15

¶16

Shaikh Maheboob s/o Shaikh Ahmed
Age: 56 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Chandaj, Tq. Jintur,
District Parbhani...APPELLANT

¶17

 (orig.Claimant)

¶18

Versus

¶19

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶20

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Asstt. Collector, Parbhani.

¶21

.. RESPONDENTS

¶22

WITH

¶23

FIRST APPEAL NO.383 OF 2004

¶24

WITH

¶25

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2132/2004

¶26

¶27

Sk. Maula s/o Shaikh Maheboob Age: 35 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o Chandaj, Tq. Jintur,

¶28

District Parbhani...APPELLANT

¶29

 (orig.Claimant)

FA 349/2004 & Ors

(2)

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶34

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Asstt. Collector, Parbhani.

¶35

.. RESPONDENTS

¶36

…..

¶37

Mr.SS Rathi, for Appellants.

¶38

Mr.AM Phule, AGP for Respondents

¶39

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATED : 29th October, 2018.

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶41

1.These appeals arise out of common
Judgment and Award passed by 3rd Additional
District Judge, Parbhani in LAR No.261/1992;
262/1992 and 263/1992 decided on 23.11.2001. I,
therefore, heard the common arguments in all these
appeals and I deem it appropriate to decide these
appeals by a common reasoning.

¶42

2.The lands, which are the subject matter

¶43

of the present appeals, were acquired for extension of Gaothan of village Chandaj. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein

¶44

after referred to as the Act) was published in the
official gazette in that regard on 19th April, 1984

¶45

and Award under Section 11 of the Act came to be

¶46

FA 349/2004 & Ors

¶47

(3)

¶48

passed on 16.10.1987. The Special Land Acquisition

¶49

Officer offered the compensation @ 14,000/- per
hectare. Dissatisfied with the amount of

¶50

compensation so offered, the appellants, who are
herein after referred to as claimants, preferred
applications under Section 18 of the Act to

¶51

Collector, Parbhani, who, in turn, forwarded the
said applications for adjudication to the District

¶52

Court (which is herein after referred to as the
Reference Court), and the Reference Court dismissed
all the three LARs, observing that the claimants

¶53

did not bring on record any evidence in order to
substantiate the claim raised by them. Aggrieved
by, the claimants have preferred these appeals.

¶54

3.Shri Rathi, learned counsel appearing for

¶55

the claimants, submitted that the Reference Court
has grossly erred in appreciating the evidence
placed on record by the claimants. The learned

¶56

counsel submitted that though the sale instances
which were brought on record by the claimants were
of the period after publication of the notification

¶57

under Section 4 of the Act, that could not have
been the only reason for outrightly rejecting the

¶58

FA 349/2004 & Ors

¶59

(4)

¶60

said sale instances. The learned counsel submitted

¶61

that in such circumstances, the Reference Court
could have considered all plus-minus factors as
well as factum of increase in the value of the
lands sold after publication of section 4
notification whereby the subject lands were
acquired and considering all those factors, could
have adequately determined the market value on the
basis of the said sale instances also.

¶62

4.The learned counsel submitted that in the
similar period, from village Chandaj itself,
certain lands, which are adjacent to the subject
lands, were acquired by the Government and in the
Reference Applications filed by the landholders of
the said lands, the Reference Court has determined
the market value of the said lands @ Rs.20,000/-
per hectare. The learned counsel submitted that
the claimants have also filed application in the
present appeals seeking leave to produce on record
the said Judgment and Award as additional evidence
so as to substantiate their contentions.

¶63

5.Inviting my attention to the judgment

¶64

FA 349/2004 & Ors

¶65

(5)

¶66

delivered in LAR No.259/1992 to support the said
contention, the learned counsel submitted that,
though the claimants, in fact, are entitled for
more enhancement in the price of the acquired
lands, since in the said Reference Applications,
the Reference Court has determined the market value

¶67

@ Rs.20,000/- per hectare, at least that much of
enhancement, needs to be granted in the present
matters also.

¶68

6.Learned AGP Shri Phule resisted the

¶69

submissions made on behalf of the appellants
claimants. Reading out the observations made by

¶70

the Reference Court in para Nos.11 and 12 of the
impugned common judgment, the learned AGP submitted

¶71

that when the claimants failed in bringing on
record any evidence in order to substantiate their
contentions, no fault can be found in the finding
recorded by the learned Reference Court. The
learned AGP further submitted that the judgment,
which is now sought to be relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants, could
have been very well relied upon and cited by the
claimants in the present appeals. The learned AGP

¶72

FA 349/2004 & Ors

¶73

(6)

¶74

further submitted that no reasons has been assigned

¶75

by the appellants claimants as to why they could
not produce on record the said evidence. The
learned AGP further submitted that in absence of

¶76

any such reasons provided by the claimants, they
cannot be permitted to adduce any additional
evidence. The learned AGP on all these grounds
prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

¶77

7.I have given due consideration to the

¶78

submissions made by learned counsel appearing for

¶79

the appellants claimants and learned AGP appearing
for Respondent – State. The lands, which are the

¶80

subject matter of the present appeals, were admittedly acquired for extension of Gaothan and all these lands hail from village Chandaj, Tq. Jintur District Parbhani.

¶81

8.In LAR No.261/1992, the land admeasuring
1 hectares and 58 Ares was acquired. In LAR

¶82

No.262/1992 the acquired land was admeasuring 1
hectare and 58 Ares; whereas in LAR No.263/1992,

¶83

the land was admeasuring 2 hectares and 39 Ares. As
was submitted by Shri Rathi, learned counsel for

¶84

FA 349/2004 & Ors

¶85

(7)

¶86

the claimants, all the lands, which are the subject

¶87

matter of the present appeals, were acquired from
out of Gut No.80 situated at village Chandaj. The

¶88

land, which was the subject matter of LAR No.
259/1992, was admeasuring 2 hectares and 33 Ares
and was the part of Gut No.79 of village Chandaj.
It is thus evident that the said land was acquired

¶89

from adjacent gut number. The said land was
acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of
village Chandaj and notification under Section 4 of
the Act in that regard was published on 2.8.1984.
Thus, the said land was acquired after four months
of the acquisition of the lands, which are the
subject matter of the present appeals. For the
land acquired from Gut No.79, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer had offered the similar rate of
compensation, i.e. @ Rs.14,000/- per hectare, as
was offered for the acquired land. The land owner
of Gat No.79 filed LAR No.259/1992 and while

¶90

deciding the said Reference application, the
Reference Court determined the market value of the
said land @ Rs.20,000/- per hectare and accordingly
enhanced the amount of compensation.

¶91

FA 349/2004 & Ors

¶92

(8)

¶93

9.In the aforesaid background, it was the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants that the claimants be permitted to adduce
the additional documentary evidence by placing on
record a certified copy of the judgment delivered
in LAR No. 259/1992 by the concerned Reference
Court.Though it was sought to be contended by
the learned AGP that the copy of the judgment in
LAR No.259/1992, which was admittedly decided on
28.6.1994, i.e. prior to date the LARs which are
the subject matter in the present appeals were
decided, merely on the said ground, the request of
the appellants to rely upon the said contention
cannot be rejected. Moreover, it further appears
to me that when the adjacent landholder has
received the compensation at the higher rate, which
was also acquired for the sister project from the
same village, the claimants in the present appeals
cannot be deprived of the said benefit granted to
their neighbours.

¶94

10.In the above circumstances, I deem it

¶95

appropriate to first allow the civil applications
filed by the appellants claimants and permit them

¶96

FA 349/2004 & Ors

¶97

(9)

¶98

to place on record a copy of the judgment passed in
LAR No.259/1992 decided on 28.6.1994 on record and
to rely upon the same.

¶99

11.Having regard to the fact that for the
adjacent land acquired for the sister project, the
owner of the said land has received compensation @
Rs.20,000/- per hectare, the same scale has to be
applied in so far as the present appellants are
concerned.

¶100

12.It was also brought to my notice by Shri
Rathi that while preparing E statement,consolidated
Statement was prepared by Special Land Acquisition
Officer wherein the land, which was the subject
matter of LAR No.259/1992 was also incorporated
along with lands which are the subject matter of
present appeals. It appears to me that it would be
in the fitness of things if the same benefit is
extended to the present appellants claimants also.

¶101

13.For the reasons stated above, I deem it
appropriate to pass following order, -

FA 349/2004 & Ors

(10)

ORDER

i.Civil Application No. 2132/2004 is
allowed;

¶106

ii.The market value of the lands
involved in the present appeals be
determined at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per
hectare and the amount of compensation
payable to the applicants be enhanced
accordingly;

¶107

iii.Appellants are also held entitled
to the statutory benefits as provided
under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act
on the enhanced amount of compensation;

¶108

iv.Appellants also held entitled to
receive the interest under section 28 and
34 of the Act in accordance with law from
the date of declaration of Award under
Section of the Act;

¶109

v.All the three appeals, thus, stand
partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
vi.Pending civil application, if
any, stands disposed of.

¶110

bdv

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Kamar Sultana Sayyad Anwar and Ors. Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

The Ex. Engineer, Nandur Madhameshwar Canal Div. Vaijapur Under Gmidc Aurangabad Vs Sahebrao Jaganath Shete and Anr.

The Ex. Engineer, Nandur Madhameshwar Canal Div. Vaijapur Under Gmidc Aurangabad Vs Sahebrao Jaganath Shete and Anr.

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

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

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Authorized Officer. Vs Suryakant Shankarrao Sakhare and Anr.