Dismissed

Venkat Tulshiram Kankure Died Thr. Lrs. Pachfula and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2024FA/1284/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad disposed of two first appeals regarding land acquisition compensation. The court classified the disputed lands as 'bagayat land' (seasonally irrigated) based on a panchanama, directing the reference court to deposit compensation at Rs.60,000 per acre within eight weeks and dismissing pending civil applications.

What did the court decide?

Compensation directed to be deposited at Rs.60,000 per acre within eight weeks before the reference court. Pending civil applications disposed of. Appeals of which all disposals are sent back.

Venkat Tulshiram Kankure Died Thr. Lrs. Pachfula and Ors. Vs the… — Partition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 fa 1284&1288.2006

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:8931

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

201 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1284 OF 2006

¶5

VENKAT TULSHIRAM KANKURE DIED THR. LRS. PACHFULA AND ORS.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR.

¶8

Advocate for Appellant :

¶9

Mr. H. B. Nandagavale and Mr. A. V. Sakolkar h/f. Mr. V. G. Sakolkar AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar

¶10

WITH

¶11

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1843 OF 2016 IN

FA/1284/2006

…

AND

…

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2006 TUKARAM KISHAN SUKANE VERSUS

¶17

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS.

¶18

… Advocate for Appellant :

¶19

Mr. H. B. Nandagavale and Mr. A. V. Sakolkar h/f. Mr. V. G. Sakolkar AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar

¶20

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 24^th APRIL, 2024

¶21

PER COURT:

¶22

1. Heard Mr. H. B. Nandagavale and Mr. A. V. Sakolkar holding

¶23

for Mr. V. G. Sakolkar , learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. B.

¶24

Jadhavar , learned AGP for the respondents.

¶25

2 fa 1284&1288.2006

¶26

There is no dispute that the present appeals are also covered with the judgment of this court in First Appeal No.1284 of 2006 dated 03.06.2024 except the dispute relating to whether the land acquired is bagayat land or jirayat land. All the appeals decided in First Appeal No.1284 of 2006 and other connected matters are jirayat lands. As such, these 2 appeals were separated.

¶27

The learned counsel has placed on record Exhibit 21 which is part of the record and submits that the record indicate that the panchnama it is stated that it is a bagayat land from which the yield of sugarcane, chilly and onion, which are ordinarily taken in bagayat land for cultivation and would indicate the bagayat nature of the land.

¶28

The learned counsel has produced Exhibit 21, which is the panchnma recorded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in presence of claimants and villagers and is necessary and relevant for our purpose and quoted below:-

¶29

“ पंचनामा

¶30

आज ��नांक २०.१२.१९९१ रोजी लघु पाटबंधारे तलाव सुक�न मधील जमीन सव� नंबर ३१, ३२, ३४, ३५, ३६, ३७, ४०, ४१ ची $%य'ात पाहणी कर*यात आली सव� नंबर ३४, ३६, ४० �ह बागायत जमीन असून उभे �पक ऊस े े , �मरची, कां�े वैगरे �पक ��सून आली तसेच े े , बाकी संयु�3क मोजणी $माणे तपासणी कली असता फळझाडे �वहीर व मोट ��सून आली े े . स�रील तलावातील जमीन �ह का8या $तीची ��सून आली आहे. सबब पंचनामा कलेला बरोबर आहे े े .”

¶31

3 fa 1284&1288.2006

¶32

The learned counsel submits that the panchanama conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer indicates that the land in Survey No.34, 36 and 40 are bagayat land and based on the same he contends that First Appeal No.1284 of 2006 from Survey No.36/2 and 40/1 be declared as bagayat land, so also, land in First Appeal No.1288 of 2006 from Survey No.34 be declared as bagayat land.

¶33

Per contra, the learned AGP has taken me through the old record award e-statement and points out that there is no separate Survey No.34 and that Survey No.34 consists of various individual small sub divisions, so also, 36/1 and 36/2 are also sub divisions apparently of Survey No.36 as there is no separate Survey No.36. As regards Survey No.40, the learned counsel submits that individual entry of Survey No.40 and, as such, Survey No.40.1 would not be a part of Survey No.40 and he further submits that the same statement shows that all the lands are dry lands and none of the lands are bagayat lands and the award does not show that the lands are seasonally or perennially irrigated.

¶34

The reference court at Exhibit 39, which was relied upon in First Appeal No.1287 of 2006 under order dated 06.03.2024 and other connected matters granted compensation either as dry lands or the bagayat lands. Although, the nomenclature used is bagayat land, the

¶35

4 fa 1284&1288.2006

¶36

same would mean seasonally irrigated lands because the difference of price of land granted between the dry and bagayat lands is 20%.

¶37

In view of the same and the panchanama, where it is mentioned that the acquired lands in instant appeals are bagayat lands, these lands are classified as bagayat lands and in terms of Exhibit 39 compensation is granted at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per Acre. The survey number mentioned in the panchanama would include all its sub divisions.

¶38

On production of the Judgment, the compensation be deposited before the reference court in eight (08) weeks.

¶39

Both the First Appeals are accordingly disposed of.

¶40

All the pending civil applications are also disposed of.

¶41

R & P shall be sent back to the concerned court.

¶42

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]

¶43

marathe

Venkat Tulshiram Kankure Died Thr. Lrs. Pachfula and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkat Tulshiram Kankure Died Thr. Lrs. Pachfula and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Faisal Farooqui Mohammad Khurshid Farooqui Vs Premilabai Rajmal Ostwal through Poa Vinodkumar Rajmal Ostwal

Mohammad Faisal Farooqui Mohammad Khurshid Farooqui Vs Premilabai Rajmal Ostwal through Poa Vinodkumar Rajmal Ostwal

Kashinath Gunda Papalwad Since Died through His Lrs and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Nanded

Shital Yogesh Changlere vs Yogesh Omprakash Changlere

Dr Arvindanand Murlidharrao Rajgure Vs Narayan Mahajan Lakwaal

Tukaram Kishan Sukane Vs the State of Mah and Ors.