High Court
Legal Reasoning
WP 162/2002 & Ors.1IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYAPPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 2002The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersusDeorao S/o. Nivrutti Savase,Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agril.,R/o. Laxmipur, Tq. Majalgaon,Dist. Beed.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent. WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1040 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersusSheshrao s/o. Sitraam Savase (Died through Lrs.)1.Shrimant s/o. Sheshrao Savase,Age 40 yrs., Occu. Agri.,2.Asaram s/o. Sheshrao Savase,Age 35 yrs.,3.Gangadhar s/o. Sheshrao Savase,Age 32 yrs.,All by Occu. Agri., and R/o. Laxminpur, Tq. Majalgaon,Dist. Beed.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. B.R. Sabale, Advocate for respondents.WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1059 OF 2002The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersus WP 162/2002 & Ors.2Vyankati S/O. Dyanoba Savase,Age 40 yrs., Occu. Agril.,R/o. Laxmipur, Tq. Majalgaon,Dist. Beed.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. B.U. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent. WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1061 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersus1.Deorao s/o. Yadav Sawase,Age 45 yrs., Occu. Agri.,R/o. Laxipur, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.2.Laxman s/o. Yadav Sawase,Age 40 yrs, Occu. Agri.,R/o. As above.3.Rambhau s/o. Yadav Sawase, Age 35 yrs., Occu. & R/o. As above.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. B.U. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondents.WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 1063 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersus1.Sitaram Kisanrao Savase,Age 45 yrs.,2.Datta s/o. Gopinath Savase,Age 12 yrs, Minor U/g. Of realmother Bhimabai w/o. Gopinath Savase,Age 45 yrs.,3.Vishwanath Kashinath Savase,Age 40 yrs, WP 162/2002 & Ors.34.Kausabai Kashinath Savase,Age 50 yrs., All by Occu. Agril. And R/o. Laxmipur,Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.(Appeal abated against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and dismissed againstrespondent No. 4 vide order dated 26.8.2003.)WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1069 OF 2002The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersusAsruba s/o. Eknath Savase,Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agril.,R/o. Laxmipur, Tq. Majalgaon,Dist. Beed.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. B.U. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1070 OF 2002The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersusKishan s/o. Bapu Sawase,Age 60 yrs., Occu. Agril.,R/o. Laxmipur, Tq. Majalgaon,Dist. Beed.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. B.U. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1111 OF 2002The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersus1.Deorao s/o. Nivruti Sawase,Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,R/o. Laxmipur, Tq. Majalgaon. WP 162/2002 & Ors.42.Kalyan s/o. Deorao Sawase,Minor U/g. Mother Somitrabai w/o. Deorao Sawase, Age 40 yrs,3.Dilip s/o. Deorao Sawase, Minor,U/g. Grandmother Bhagitrabai Sawase,R/o. As above. Occu. Agri.,4.Babu alias Nivruti s/o. Deorao Sawase,Age 20 yrs., R/o. As above.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. B.R. Sabale, Advocate for respondent No. 1.(Appeal abated against respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30.9.2003)WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1112 OF 2002The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersusMachindra s/o. Yadav Sawase,Age 32 yrs., Occu. Agril.,R/o. Laxmipur, Tq. Majalgaon,Dist. Beed.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent.WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2002The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersusUdhav s/o. Ganaji Jadhav,Age 35 yrs., Occu. Agril.,R/o. Salimba, Tq. Majalgaon,Dist. Beed.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. B.U. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2002The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersus WP 162/2002 & Ors.5Parasmal s/o. Pannalal Nahar,Age 24 yrs., Occu. Agril.,R/o. Wadwani, Tq. Majalgaon,Dist. Beed.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1120 OF 2002The State of Maharashtra....AppellantVersus1.Datta S/o. Gopinath Pataskar,Age 28 yrs., Occu. Agril.,R/o. Wadwani, Tq. Majalgaon,Dist. Beed.2.Sanjay s/o. Gopinath Pataskar,Age 12 yrs. Minor U/g. Datta S/o. Gopinath Pataskar, Age 28 yrs,Occu. & R/o. As above.....RespondentsMr. V.M. Chate, AGP for appellant.Mr. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1087 OF 2002Mahadeo Kisanrao Jadhav,Age 27 yrs., Occu. Medical Practice & Agril., R/o. Salimba, Tq. Majalgaon,Dist. Beed.....AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra....RespondentsMr. S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for appellant.Mr. V.M. Chate, AGP for respondent/State. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE : 23rd January 2024.JUDGMENT : 1.In the first appeals filed by the State, the appellant/State is WP 162/2002 & Ors.6challenging the common judgment and award passed passed by thereference court i.e. 4th Additional District Judge, Beed in L.A.R. Nos. 729,731, 733, 734, 735, 736, 738, 739, 769, 770, 771, 778, 786 of 1987 onthe ground of excessive compensation being granted to the claimants inabove L.A.Rs. by the reference court and the wrong consideration of thesale instances. By the First Appeal No. 1087/2002, the originalclaimant/appellant is challenging the judgment and award passed in L.A.R.No. 800/1987 on the ground that meager amount of compensation isgranted to him by the reference court. Since the Reference Award is by thecommon judgment, the present appeals are taken up for final hearingsimultaneously. 2.The lands under acquisition are situated at village Laxmipur andSalimba, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed. The following lands were acquiredfor the purpose of minor irrigation tank.Survey No.Area Acquired H. R.Survey NumberArea AcquiredH. R.2/1400-1820/200-522/1800-1220/100-252/600-282/14-A00-1825/1-A00-862211-0825/1-D00-652/4-D00-3324/1-A05-082/4-C00-0824/1-D01-1820/202-652/4-B00-333 /401--103/1,2,602-003/700-6524/2-A24/2-C02-9624/EA07-20 G2/4-A01-382 /300-40 R2/4-C2/1300-4979/8007-582/4-E18600-36 WP 162/2002 & Ors.72/4-1080/10801-7423/103-4923/206.002/1,5,1700.992/82/1200.642/900.412/200.9278/18504.082/16-B00.4024/1-B00.4924/1-D01.083.On 9.8.1982 notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) was issued and on 23.8.1984notification under section 6 of the Act was issued and the award grantingcompensation at the rate of Rs.45/-, Rs. 60/- and Rs.70/- per Are for groupNo. I, II and III was declared on 16.9.1986. The groups were classifiedbased on the revenue entries/receipts as depicted from the revenue record.Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants filed references. 4.On consideration of the material and evidence on record, referencecourt granted compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per R. The referencecourt had taken into consideration the fact that the classification of thegroups of the lands were made on the basis of revenue assessment perhectare, which was erroneous, as the land revenue was settled long backand there was no reconsideration of the land revenue despite agriculturaldevelopment effected on account of development schemes operated by theState and consequent improvement of the potentiality of the agriculturallands. 5.While deciding the references, the reference court relied upon thesale instances. The sale instance dated 19.5.1981 (Exh. 12) was of the 13R. land out of Survey No. 12/7 situated at village Pool, Taluka Majalgaon,
Legal Reasoning
WP 162/2002 & Ors.8which was sold for Rs.9,000/-. which was Bagayat land and the above saleinstance shows the market rate of the Bagayat land as Rs.27,000/- perAcre.6.The second sale instance dated 17.7.1981 (Exh. 18) was of 23 G.land out of the block No. 67 of village Pool, which was sold for Rs.10,000/-.The said land was Bagayat. The sale instance shows that market rate ofBagayat land as Rs.18,000/- to 20,000/- per Acre approximately. Both theabove sale instances are prior to notification under section 4 of the Act andthey are within the period of about one year of notification u/s. 4 of the Act.So also they are from the taluka wherein the acquired lands are situated.The reference court, thus, held that these sale instances depicts the marketprice of Bagayat lands between 18,000/- to Rs.27,000/- per Acre in theyear 1981. Thus, the reference court, taking into consideration variousfactors held that the market rate of Bagayat land of village Laxmipur wouldbe between Rs.25,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per Acre at the time of section 4notification.7. The reference court further held that there is no evidence on recordto show that the lands acquired were Bagayat land and the record of theS.L.A.O. award as well as the proceedings show that the lands acquired areJirayat lands. The reference court, taking into consideration the commonknowledge that Jirayat lands are of lesser market value than the Bagayatlands, market rate of the acquired lands is considered from Rs. 10,000/- toRs. 25,000/- per Acre from place to place and as per the said calculation themarked rate of acquired lands is fixed at the rate of Rs.250/- per R. (i.e. Rs.10,000/- per Acre) 8.It is the contention of the Sate that the sale instances are not from WP 162/2002 & Ors.9the village from where the lands are acquired, but from the villages whichare at around 15 to 20 k.m. away from the acquired lands and as such thevalue quoted in the sale instances should not be taken into considerationwhile determining the compensation of the acquired lands. It is to be notedthat the agricultural lands under the sale instances are from the sametaluka place and there is no contra evidence produced by the State onrecord in this regard. It can reasonably said that the agricultural lands inthe vicinity of the neighbouring villages would be of a similar value and thereference court has taken into consideration the lowest value possible of thesale instances. The reference court has also considered the fact that theacquired lands are Jirayat lands and has further reduced the rate of around50% that from the Bagayat lands. There is much reduction in the valuetowards the Jirayat land. In view of the above discussion, the contention ofthe State that the value of the acquired land, which are Jirayat lands, is lessthan Rs.10,000/- per Acre cannot be accepted. I see no error in thejudgment and award passed by the Reference Court on the point ofquantum of compensation. 9.From the record, it reveals that the State has not challenged thejudgment and award in L.A.R. Nos. 785, 728, 732, 734, 737, 740, 777 and800 of 1987, arising out of the same acquisition proceedings and the Statehas also accepted the compensation granted at the rate of Rs. 250/- per R.in those awards, although the said lands are Jirayat lands as per thereference court award and are similarly situated lands in the referenceaward under appeals. The State has not produced any record to show thechallenge to the award in above L.A.R’s.10.The Government has notified the Government Resolutions dated 3rd WP 162/2002 & Ors.10November, 2016 and 23rd February, 2017. In the aforesaid GovernmentResolutions, the State has taken a policy decision, not to challenge theaward wherein the increase in compensation is not more than two times inthe city/urban area and not more than four times in rural areas. The Statehas also accepted the same in the pending appeals also. In the instant case,there is illegal classification of the acquired lands on the basis of revenuereceipts since the land revenue assessment was settled long back and therewas no reconsideration of land revenue despite agricultural developmenteffected on account of development schemes by the State and consequentimprovement of the potentiality of the agricultural lands. If the award of theSpecial Land Acquisition Officer is considered, in which compensation isgranted at the rate of Rs.70/- per R., the enhancement by the referencecourt is within four times of Rs.70/- per R. i.e. Rs. 250/ per R. If theaforesaid Government resolutions are applied to the present appeals filed bythe State, the appeals would not be tenable. 11.In view of the discussion made above and considering overall facts, Ihold that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the State as they are nottenable in view of the aforesaid Government Resolutions and also onaccount of the sale instances discussed by the Reference Court anddiscussed in this judgment. In the result, the first appeals filed by the Stateare dismissed. 12.Coming to the appeal filed by the claimant/appellant i.e. First AppealNo. 1087/2002 arising out of the L.A.R. No. 800/1987, it is to be noted thatthe State has not filed any appeal against the judgment and award passedin the said L.A.R. It is the contention of the claimant/appellant – MahadeoKisanrao Jadhav, is that there is well in his land and his land is irrigated/ WP 162/2002 & Ors.11Bagayat land. It is the contention of the claimant that he used to take cropslike sugercane, banana, chilly and other Bagayat crops. It is his contentionthat at the relevant time the prices of the Bagayat land were Rs.20,000/- toRs.25,000/- per acre and he claimed compensation at the rate ofRs.15,000/- per acre. 13.However, on perusal of the original record, so also the proceedings,appellant is not able to point out any document showing the proof ofexistence of a well in the acquired land of the claimant. As such, it cannotbe said that the land of the claimant/appellant in First Appeal No.1087/2002 is a Bagayat land and therefore, the learned reference court hasrightly applied the classification of the other lands i.e. Jirayat land (semiirrigated) to the land of the appellant and has rightly granted thecompensation, which requires no interference. In view of the above, I donot find any error in the judgment and award passed by the reference courtin the case of the claimant/appellant in First Appeal No. 1087/2002. Hisappeal is also dismissed. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER J.]SSC/