The State of Maharashtra Vs Sushila Shivgonda Patil

¶1

 19-FA-16-2000 P.doc

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2000

¶5

Digitally signed by TALLE TALLE SHUBHAM SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO ASHOKRAO Date: 2023.12.22 16:35:16 +0530

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra…Appellant.
Versus
Sushila Shivgonda Patil and Ors. …Respondents/Org
Claimants.

¶7

************

¶8

Ms. Tanaya Goswami, AGP for Appellant/State.

¶9

Mr. V. B. Rajure, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶10

************

¶11

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.

¶12

DATE : 20th DECEMBER, 2023

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1.Heard learned AGP for the Appellants/State and learned
counsel for the Respondents.

¶15

2.By this Appeal filed u/s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short “the said Act”), the State is challenging Judgment and
Order dated 10.03.1997 passed by Additional District Judge,
Kolhapur, in Land Reference No. 42 of 1989. By the said impugned
Order the Reference Court has held the Respondents/Claimants as
entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 19,360/-. The Reference
Court has also awarded statutory benefits of 30 % solatium as well as
12% additional component.

¶16

3.Few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as
under. The Respondent/Original Claimant was owner of Gat No. 291

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

Shubham Talle

¶19

 19-FA-16-2000 P.doc

¶20

to the extent of 1 hector 21-R, which was acquired for the purpose of
resettlement of the persons affected by Dudhaganga Project.
Necessary Notification was issued in the Government Gazette on
14.07.1983. Award has been passed on 20/08/1988, thereby
granting meagre compensation of Rs. 26,015/-.

¶21

4.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by this award, the
original Respondent/Claimant filed the aforesaid Land Reference u/s.
18 of the said Act. After hearing both sides and after considering the
evidence on record, the Reference Court has passed the impugned
Order.

¶22

5.Learned AGP for the Appellant/State has assailed the
impugned Judgment and Order as per grounds raised in the appeal
memo. It is submitted that the present Respondents were cultivating
only jawar and grass while as the owner of land of sale instance was
cultivating jawar, chille and tobacco and as such the sale instance
value is on the higher side and could not have been accepted. It is
further submitted that the assessment of land revenue of acquired
land and sale instance land were not equal and there is difference of
about 25 % in the same.

¶23

6.Per contra, Learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other
hand has supported the impugned Order. He submitted that the
enhancement is granted on the basis of valid reasons and call for no
interference.

¶24

7.I have carefully considered the submissions. Careful
perusal of the impugned Judgment and Order shows that the

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

Shubham Talle

¶27

 19-FA-16-2000 P.doc

¶28

Reference Court, despite variation in the revenue assessment, found
on appreciation of evidence, in para 15 that the sale instance land
was of equal quality as compared to the acquired land. The Reference
Court found that the sale instance land was at a short distance of 20
ft. from the acquired land and as such passing the test of proximity.
Thus the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the additional
rate is required to be granted.

¶29

8.In these circumstances, considering the fact that, the
amount granted by SLAO (Rs. 26,015/-) as well as additional
compensation granted by the Reference Court (Rs. 19,360/-) are both
meagre amounts, which are granted on the basis of appreciation of
evidence and valid reasons, no fault can be found with the impugned
Judgment and Order. So far as the grant of statutory benefits of
solatium, additional component and interest are concerned, there is
no question of interference in the same as they are statutory in
nature. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no reason to
interfere.

¶30

9.Facts of this case are more or less similar to a group of First
Appeals disposed of by another Single Bench of this Court with lead
First Appeal No. 208 of 1992 along with others under Order dated
03.04.2017 (Coram : M.S. Sonak, J.). I am completely in agreement
with the view taken by my brother Judge in the said Order. It has to
be noted that state compulsorily acquires lands of the citizens like
Respondent/Claimant and despite the compensation amount being so
paltry / meagre, the State carries the matters in appeal. In many
cases, it is found that on account of pendency of the Appeal

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

Shubham Talle

¶33

 19-FA-16-2000 P.doc

¶34

(primarily because no steps are taken by the State to effect service or
bring legal heirs on record or reasons alike), the
Respondent/Claimant remains deprived of even meagre amounts of
compensation awarded to them. It is also sadly noted that the State
Government in such Appeals, spends amounts on Court fees, typing
and other filing expenses and legal fees which are either comparable
to the existing amounts of compensation involved or more. In many
cases it is found that the AGPs express their helplessness because
despite communication/s the concerned Government officers do not
come forward and take responsibility by clearly stating whether a
particular Land Reference case is falling under relevant GRs
(including G.R. dated 03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated
23.02.2017, 04.05.2017 and 11.05.2018) and whether the Appeal
should be prosecuted or not in view thereof. It is further sadly noted
that the general perception seems to be, firstly that the claims which
are held against Government or Statutory Authority must be viewed
as illegal and therefore should be resisted and fought up to the
highest Courts and secondly, that if a decision on the issue could be
avoided or is to be avoided, then it is simply not taken so that
aggrieved party can approach the Court and let the Court take the
decision. This results in clogging of the judicial system and also eats
into the valuable judicial time. In view thereof I find that this is a fit
case for dismissal.

¶35

10.Hence the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of
the dismissal of Appeal, the Respondents/Claimants or their legal
heirs as the case may be, are at liberty to withdraw the amount of

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

Shubham Talle

¶38

 19-FA-16-2000 P.doc

¶39

compensation, if deposited by the State in the Reference Court along
with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn. Needless to mention
that the impugned order becomes executable.

¶40

11.All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.

¶41

 (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶42

Page 5 of 5

¶43

Shubham Talle

The State of Maharashtra v. Sushila Shivgonda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sushila Shivgonda Patil

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

John David Gonsalves Vs Smt. Violet Khaitan D'Mello and Ors.

John David Gonsalves Vs Smt. Violet Khaitan D'Mello and Ors.

Laxman Babaji Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Govind Amruta Kande

The State of Mah'Tra Vs Sindhu Dnyanu Wagh

The State of Maharashtra Vs M/S. Solanki and Sons