High Court

Legal Reasoning

{1} FIRST APPEAL 3028 OF 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 3028 OF 2022Ashok Nivrati SabdeAge: 57 years, Occu.: Agril.,R/o. Janwal, Tq.Chakur,Dist. Latur...Appellant(Ori. Claimant)Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Collector, Dist.Latur.2.The Executive Engineer,Local Sector, Latur,Dist.Latur.3.Special Land Acquisition Officer,Swarna Project, Latur...Respondents(Ori. Respondents)...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S.S. HalkudeAGP for Respondent nos.1 & 3 : Mr.D.R.Korade …. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 30 SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 03 SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT :- 1. By consent, heard finally at admission stage.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27-09-2011passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge -1, Latur in L.A.R. No. {2} FIRST APPEAL 3028 OF 2022857 of 2009, the original claimant in the said L.A.R. has preferredthis appeal to the extent of quantum of compensation as awarded bythe Reference court at the enhanced rate.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal is as follows:-a) The State of Maharashtra has acquired the lands ownedand possessed by the appellant claimant situated at villageJanwal, Tq. Chakur, District Latur, for the purpose ofconstruction of Janwal percolation tank No. 16. Section 4Notification was published on 16-11-2006. The Special LandAcquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) has granted compensation at therate of Rs.1,178/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the inadequatecompensation awarded by the S.L.A.O., the appellant claimantpreferred aforesaid reference petition. It has been contended inthat reference petition that village Janwal is having population15000 and the said village is situated on Gharni-Vadval-Janwalroad and the same is at a distance of 10 kilometers from TalukaPlace Chakur. There are facilities such as school up to 12thstandard, electricity, post office, telephone, water supply, STBetc. There is broad gauge railway station, Hyderabad to Parali {3} FIRST APPEAL 3028 OF 2022via Janval and the main market is at Chakur. Furthermore, thesaid village is under the command area of Jai Jawan Jai KisanSugar Factory. It has also been contended that the acquiredlands were fertile and black cotton soil and the claimants weretaking double crops every year. However, the S.L.A.O. has notconsidered the same and awarded very meager amount ofcompensation.b) The respondents have strongly resisted that referencepetition by filing written statement. It has been contented that,the S.L.A.O., after visiting the acquired land and considering theexisting situation, has awarded just and reasonablecompensation.c) The appellant claimant has adduced evidence in L.A.R.No. 857 of 2009 and also relied upon the sale deed dated28-04-2003 Exh.14 from the same village, alongwith the 7x12extract at Exh. 15 respectively. The learned Ad-hoc DistrictJudge-1, Latur by its impugned judgment and award dated27-09-2011 partly allowed the aforesaid reference petition andawarded the compensation to the appellant claimant at the {4} FIRST APPEAL 3028 OF 2022enhanced rate of Rs.3,750/- per R. Being aggrieved by thecompensation as awarded the enhanced rate by the referencecourt, the original claimant has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per thecontents of sale deed Exh.14 out of Gat No.3, land admeasuring 80 Rwas sold for consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- on 28-04-2003. The landsunder sale instance Exh.14 is also from the same village Janwal, Tq.Chakur, where the acquired land is situated. Learned counsel submitsthat the reference court, though rightly placed reliance on the saleinstance Exh.14, has failed to add 10% of consideration amount inthe total consideration for every year. The said sale deed Exh.14 wasexecuted on 28-04-2003 whereas the Section 4 Notification in respectof acquired land was published on 16-11-2006. The reference courthas even reduced the consideration amount of the said sale instanceExh.14 alone on the ground that the land under sale instance issituated adjacent to the road, leading to railway station. Learnedcounsel submits that on careful perusal of the contents of saleinstance Exh.14, it appears that in the four boundaries of the landsold, towards western side one cart road is shown leading towardsrailway station. The reference court has not made any addition year {5} FIRST APPEAL 3028 OF 2022wise in consideration amount though there is considerable gapbetween the date of sale instance and section 4 Notificationpublished in respect of the acquired land, and reduced the amountconsiderably and awarded very meager amount of compensation atthe enhanced rate. 5. The learned A.G.P. for the respondents-State submits thatthough the sale instance Exh.14 is of the land situated at villageJanwal, the land acquired is away from the said land. P.W.1 has alsoadmitted in his cross examination that, towards western side of theland under sale instance, the road leading towards railway station issituated, Learned A.G.P. submits that considering the said fact,reference court has rightly reduced the consideration amount of thesaid sale instance and determined the market price of the land.Learned A.G.P. submits that there is no substance in the appeal andthe appeal is liable to be dismissed.6.On careful perusal of evidence and the judgment and awardpassed by the reference court, it appears that the reference court hasplaced reliance on the sale deed Exh.14. On careful perusal of thecontents of sale deed Exh.14, it appears that the land admeasuring {6} FIRST APPEAL 3028 OF 202280 R, out of the land at Gat No. 3, situated at village Janwal itself,sold for total consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- on 28-04-2003 i.e. threeand half years prior to issuance of Section 4 Notification in respect ofacquired land. It further appears from the contents of the saleinstance Exh.14 that only one cart road is shown towards westernside of the land under sale instance leading towards the railwaystation. It is not the case that the said road is tar road and as suchland under sale instance would have fetched more price than themarket price. The reference court should have added 10% per year inconsideration amount of sale instance Exh.14 after taking intoaccount the considerable gap between the date of sale instance andsection 4 Notification published in respect of acquired lands. If such10% addition per year is made, the market price on the publicationof Section 4 Notification in respect of acquired land, the amountcomes to Rs.6,750/- per R. It appears from the impugned judgmentand award that the reference court has awarded compensation at theenhanced rate of Rs.3,750/- per R. by reducing considerable marketprice as reflected from sale instance Exh.14 after addition of 10% onyearly basis. It appears that reference court has reduced the saidconsideration amount to the extent of 50% only for the reason thatthe land under sale instance is situated by the side of road, which is {7} FIRST APPEAL 3028 OF 2022leading towards railway station. It would be just and proper, if theamount is reduced to the extent of 30% by considering the fact thatthe land under sale instance is situated by the side of the cart roadwhich is leading to the railway station. It would be thus just andreasonable if the compensation is awarded at the enhanced rate ofRs.4,700/- per R instead of Rs.3,750/- per R as awarded by thereference court. 7. In view of the above discussion, the judgment and awardpassed by the reference court requires modification. Hence, I proceedto pass the following order:ORDER I. First Appeal No.3028 of 2022 is hereby partlyallowed.II. The judgment and award dated 27-09-2011 passedby the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Latur in L.A.R. No.857 of 2009, to the extent of the presentappellant/claimant is hereby modified in the followingmanner:- {8} FIRST APPEAL 3028 OF 2022"The Reference Petition No.857 of 2009 is herebypartly allowed with proportionate costs and claimantis entitled for the compensation at the enhanced rateof Rs.4,700/- per R corresponds to Rs.1,88,000/- peracre, with all statutory benefits as awarded by thereference Court. However, the appellant-claimant isnot entitled for the amount of interest for the periodof which the delay has been condoned by this court, asper the order passed by this court on 23-09-2022while condoning the delay in preferring the appeal."III. Rest of the judgment and award stands confirmed.IV. Award be drawn up as per the above modification.V. First Appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT