VENKAT TULSHIRAM KANKURE DIED THR. LRS. PACHFULA AND ORS v. THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:5315 1 207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 207 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1284 OF 2006 VENKAT TULSHIRAM KANKURE DIED THR. LRS. PACHFULA AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR. ... Advocate for Appellant : H. B. Nandagawale h/f. Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar AGP for Respondent/State Authorities: Mr. V. M. Chate ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1287 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1290 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1286 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1289 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1285 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1291 OF 2006 2 207 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1843 OF 2016 IN FA/1284/2006 ... CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 06th MARCH, 2024 PER COURT: 1. 2. Heard.
Legal Reasoning
List the First Appeal No.1284 of 2006 and First Appeal No.1288 of 2006, for hearing in the next week. 3. In the present first appeals except First Appeal No.1284 of 2006 and First Appeal No.1288 of 2006, the appellants are challenging the award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur Camp at Udgir, District Latur in LAR Nos.2345/2001, 2340/2001, 2342/2001, 2341/2001, 2348/2001, 2344/2001 and 2347/2001. 4. 5. The brief facts of the case are summarized as under. The lands of the claimants are acquired for the construction of Minor Irrigation Tank at village Sukani and Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 11.10.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 16.11.1993. The claimants 3 207 lands were acquired and compensation was granted. The below chart gives the details of land acquired and compensation granted. Appeal by for First filed Claimants enhancement F.A. No.1284 Of 2006 F.A. No.1285 Of 2006 F.A. No.1286 Of 2006 F.A. No.1287 Of 2006 F.A. No.1288 Of 2006 F.A. No.1289 Of 2006 F.A. No.1290 Of 2006 F.A. No.1291 Of 2006 F.A. No.1292 Of 2006 LAR No. Sy. No. Area Compensation awarded by LAO Ref. awarded Court 2343/2001 36/2 40/1 2345/2001 31 2340/2001 32/2 2342/2001 2339/2001 41 34 4 h 32 R 3 H 42 R 210/- per R 230/- per R 420/- per R 460/- per R 34 R 72 R 250/- per R 500/- per R 250/- per R 500/- per R 1 H 62 R 230/- per R 460/- per R 1 H 05 R 230/- per R 460/- per R 2341/2001 35/2 43 R 230/- per R 460/- per R 2348/2001 37 32/2/1 2 H 18 R 1 R 230/- per R 250/- per R 460/- per R 500/- per R 2344/2001 39 2347/2001 39/2 13 R 58 R 230/- per R 460/- per R 230/- per R 460/- per R 6. It is disputed position that First Appeal No.1284 of 2006 and First Appeal No.1288 of 2006 are bagayat lands, as such, the said appeals are to be taken-up for hearing separately. All other lands in remaining first appeals, are jirayat lands. 7. Perusal of the reference court award, so also, the award passed the Land Acquisition Officer, the lands are categorized in 3 different categories based on revenue price and the LAO has granted market value of acquired land Rs.210, Rs.230 and 250 per Are for Group 1, 2 and 3 respectively. 4 207 8. In para 20 of the impugned judgment it is noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer in all relied upon 23 sale instances in village Sukani and on the basis of land revenue the Land Acquisition Officer has acquired lands divided the acquired lands in 3 groups by relying upon 23 sale instances of the village and has categorized the Group 1 – Rs.210/- per Are, Group 2 – Rs.230/- per Are and Group 3 – Rs.250/- per Are. 9. The learned counsel submits that the lands cannot be classified on the basis of revenue receipts and as has been held in various Judgments passed by this court. He submits that the lands in the instant case are jirayat lands and bagayat lands and he also submits that the reference court in another reference at Exhibit 39 has classified lands as jirayat and bagayat and has awarded the compensation accordingly. 10. The reference court considered the evidence before it as under:- CW 1 Narayan Tulshiram Kankure claimant in LAR No.2343 of 2001, who has produced the certified copy of the Judgment in LAR No.734/1995, at Exhibit 39, he has also produced all certified copies of sale instance at Exhibit 40 and 41 and award at Exhibit 42. The evidence was stated common for all. 5 207 11. On consideration of the evidence, the court enhanced the compensation to Rs.420 per Are for Group 1, Rs.460/- per Are for Group 2 and Rs.500/- per Are for Group 3, against which the present first appeals are filed by the claimants claiming enhanced compensation of Rs.1875/- per Are for the acquired lands. 12.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel has taken me through Exhibit 40, 41 of the sale deed dated 06.03.1990 and 22.03.1991. The learned counsel particularly stressed and relied upon Exhibit 39, which is in L.A.R. No.734 of 1995 along with other connected references. LAR No.734/1995 is the award passed in Reference proceedings arising out of the same acquisition proceedings for the same project in the same village. The land acquired was for the same purpose under section 4 of the Act. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and published in the official gazette for the Village Sukani in the year 1989. In the said reference lands acquired are identically placed, where the SLAO has granted Rs.210/-, Rs.230/- and Rs.250/- per Are for Group 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The reference court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Acre for dry land and Rs.60,000/- per Acre for irrigated land. 13. The reference court at Exhibit 39 has discarded the compensation on the basis of revenue receipts but has granted 6 207 compensation based on the classification of jirayat and bagayat which has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Acre for the dry land and Rs.60,000/- per Acre for the bagayat land. 14. In the reference court award at Exhibit 39, the classification is altered on the basis of revenue receipt to the basis of jirayat and bagayat. The classification cannot be on the basis of revenue receipt as the revenue records are not proved to be updated. Thus, the lands in the instant case can be classified as bagayat and jirayat lands. 15. Except First Appeal No.1284 of 2006 and 1288 of 2006, in all other first appeals, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that all the acquired lands are jirayat lands and that the award be passed in terms of the Exhibit 39. 16. The learned AGP has not disputed the Exhibit 39 in which the common judgment is passed in the land acquisition references for the same project and the lands are acquired in the year 1989, whereas in the instant case, lands are acquired in the year 1990, for same project and in the same village and the lands are identically placed. There is no challenge to the award as LAR No.734/1995 and other connected matters. In view of the same, the same award is also made applicable to 7 207 the instant first appeals except First Appeal No.1284 of 2006 and First Appeal No.1288 of 2006, which are to be considered separately. 17. The learned AGP has objected that the evidence placed in both these matters being different the compensation as awarded of LAR No.734/1995 should not be made applicable to the instant case. However, on perusal of the LAR and also the other evidence on record which is produced in terms of Exhibit 40 and 41, the compensation awarded in LAR No.734/1995 cannot be said to be exorbitant in any manner and is a reasonable compensation, as it is rightly contended by the appellants / claimants the said compensation granted in the said LAR is also made applicable to the present first appeals. 18. Thus, the appellants / claimants are granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Acre i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- per Hector. Interest and statutory benefits are to be worked out accordingly. All the first appeals are accordingly disposed of except First Appeal No.1284 of 2006 and First Appeal No.1288 of 2006, which are to be considered separately. marathe [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]