Allowed¶44

Shivaji Manikrao Malode and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Enhancement – First Appeal by original claimants

Bombay HC25 Jan 2024FA/1510/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Perennially irrigated land; existence of well in acquired land; burden on acquiring body to prove well lacked water year-round; SLAO valuation mode with multipliers (semi-irrigated 1.5x, irrigated 2x dry-land rate); enhancement of compensation; Section 4 Land Acquisition Act; LAR No. 74/2013; FIRST APPEAL NO. 1510 OF 2018; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; compensation raised Rs.3,150 to Rs.6,300 per R; unchallenged reference court award findings confirmed; Chindha Fakira Patil (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 787 applied; R. M. Joshi, J.; decided 25/01/2024.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified: claimants entitled to receive compensation @ Rs.6,300/- per R; rest of the award remains unchanged. ¶44

Shivaji Manikrao Malode and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned award modified: claimants entitled to receive compensation @ Rs.6,300/- per R; rest of the award remains unchanged.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquired land (Gut No. 206, village Malodechiwadi (Pal)), in which a well admittedly existed, is perennially irrigated land for the purposes of valuation of compensation. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

A well admittedly existed in Gut No. 206; in the absence of any evidence (none was brought on record by the respondents) showing that the well did not have water throughout the year, the acquired land must be treated as perennially irrigated land.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court was not challenged by the respondents, all findings other than the valuation of the land stand confirmed for want of challenge.

¶34

Key takeaways

As per the mode of valuation adopted by the SLAO (irrigated land valued at double the dry-land rate), the claimants are entitled to double the amount determined by the Reference Court, i.e. compensation on valuation of land @ Rs.6300/- per R; the finding of the Reference Court that the land was non-irrigated was not consistent with the material on record.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Enhancement – First Appeal by original claimants – Land Gut No. 206, village Malodechiwadi (Pal), Tq. Phulabri, Dist. Aurangabad (4H 31R) acquired; SLAO (Land Acquisition File NO. AR-86/98, validation date 12/05/1998) awarded Rs.560/- per R; Reference Court in LAR No. 74/2013 (judgment and award dated 02/05/2016, Jt. CJSD, Aurangabad) fixed Rs.3,150/- per R with 30% solatium and interest – Respondents did not challenge the Reference Court award, hence all findings except valuation stand confirmed for want of challenge – Admittedly a well existed in the land; in the absence of any evidence by respondents that the well lacked water throughout the year, land held to be perennially irrigated – As per SLAO's own mode, irrigated land is valued at double the dry-land rate – Following the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 787, claimants held entitled to double the Reference Court amount, i.e. Rs.6,300/- per R – Impugned award modified accordingly; appeal allowed.

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:1973

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1510 OF 2018

¶4

Shivaji s/o Manikrao Malode

¶5

Vishnu s/o Manikrao Malode 3. Smt. Chaturabai Manikrao Malode (Deceased)

¶6

Through LR’s

¶7

3-A. Ashok Manikrao Malode

¶8

3-B. Laxmibai Vishnu Vankhede

¶9

3-C. Shivaji Manikrao Malode

¶10

3-D. Vishnu Manikrao Malode 3-E. Hirabai Tejrao Pawar

¶11

… APPELLANTS

¶12

(Ori. Claimants)

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

The State of Maharashtra Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer Krushna Khore Vikas Mahamandal Collector Office, Aurangabad

¶15

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation (Local Sector), Aurangabad

¶16

The Collector, Collectorate, Aurangabad … RESPONDENTS

¶17

Mr. N. J. Pahune Patil, Advocate for the appellants Mr. S. V. Hange, AGP for the respondent/State

¶18

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 25^th JANUARY, 2024

¶19

P.C. :-

¶20

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and award dated 02/05/2016 passed in LAR No. 74/2013 by Jt. CJSD, Aurangabad.

¶21

964.fa1510.18.odt

¶22

1 of 5

¶23

Parties are referred to as claimants and respondents for sake of convenience.

¶24

The facts which led to the filing of the appeal can be narrated in short as under:

¶25

(i) Claimants owned land bearing Gut No. 206 at village Malodechiwadi (Pal), Tq. Phulabri, Dist. Aurangabad admeasuring 4H 31R. Respondents /State had issued notice under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act which was published in the village on 12/05/1998 and the same was considered as validation date by SLAO. SLAO declared the final award in Land Acquisition File NO. AR-86/98 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.560/- per R. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said award the Land Reference No. 74/2013 came to be filed. Reference Court by passing impugned judgment and award directed compensation of Rs.3,150/- per R to the claimants with 30% solatium and interest.

¶26

ii) This appeal is filed by claimants with specific contention that admittedly the land acquired had a well. It is their further case that once well exists in the land if becomes perennially irrigated land. The objection is raised to the impugned judgment and award on the ground that by ignoring the said fact the reference Court has treated the said land as non irrigated land an has decided the compensation at the rate of

964.fa1510.18.odt

2 of 5

3,150/- per R.

Learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on the award passed by the SLAO wherein the valuation of land is determined of non irrigated land and treating this as base value, semi irrigated land is valued at one and half times and irrigated land double of the said valuation. Thus, it is his contention that this Court is not required to go into any other evidence in order to decide the issue of enhancement of the compensation. It is his further submission that the impugned judgment and award has not been challenged by the respondents and as such the findings recorded by the reference Court with regard to the existence of the well which was acquired and compensation was paid to that extent cannot be interfered with now. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chindha Fakira Patil (Dead) Through LR’s Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 787 .

¶31

Learned AGP sought to oppose the appeal with the contention that mere existence of the well will not be sufficient to treat the land as perennially irrigated land and in absence of any other evidence led by claimants the land cannot be treated so.

¶32

964.fa1510.18.odt

¶33

3 of 5

¶34

Admittedly, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR No. 74/2013 has not been challenged by the respondents. As far as claimants are concerned, the same is challenged only to the extent of the determination of value of the land which according to the claimants is perennially irrigated land. Hence, except for the dispute about the valuation of the land rest of the findings recorded by the Reference Court stand confirmed for want of challenge.

¶35

There is no dispute about the fact a well existed in Gut No. 206. The same can be ascertained even from the award passed by SLAO as well as the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. In absence of any other evidence to show that a well in question did not have water for all through out the year, it cannot be held that it is not the perennially irrigated land. Admittedly, no such evidence is brought on record by respondents.

¶36

In the present case, from the award passed by SLAO it is clear that the mode of valuation of the land adopted by SLAO shows that valuation is determined only in respect of dry land and the valuation of the irrigated land is determined by adopting appropriate multiplier. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that it is perennially irrigated land even as per the the award passed by the SLAO the valuation of the irrigated land

¶37

964.fa1510.18.odt

¶38

4 of 5

¶39

shall be double to the dry land. The reference Court has held that the land acquired of the claimants is non irrigated land and hence the valuation was held at the rate of Rs.3,150/-. The said finding recorded by the reference Court is not consistent with the material evidence on record.

¶40

Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chindha Fakira Patil (cited supra) has granted double of the compensation to the irrigated land as compared to dry land. As such it is held that the land acquired of the claimants is perennially irrigated land and by following the mode adopted for the valuation by the SLAO the claimants are entitled for double of the amount determined by the Reference Court. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for compensation on valuation of land @ of Rs.6300/- per R.

¶41