The High Court
Case Details
(1) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2003 Venkatrao Ramchandrarao Patil Age : 34 years, oc : agri., R/o Yenki, Taluka Udgir, District Latur Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2003 Vitthal Gundaji Dhadge Age : 64 years, oc : agri., R/o Yenki, Taluka Udgir, District Latur Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2003 Gopikabai Shivaji Birajdar Age : 43 years, oc : agri., R/o Yenki, Taluka Udgir, District Latur Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent (2) WITH FA-411.2003 + 7.odt
Legal Reasoning
the observation of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, but here in this case the sale instance is not from the same locality or vicinity from where the lands were acquired. On the contrary, it has come on record that the sale instance is in respect of the land at village Devni which is situated far away from village Yenki. Moreover, witness Manikrao Patil has also admitted that village Devni is developed far better than the village Yenki and having all the vital facilities which could yield better consideration for immovable property at Devni. 10. Further, the award at Exh.14 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Offcer clearly indicates that village Yenki is a small village having population of only 2000 people as per the census of 1981. Further, it appears that education facilities are available only upto 7th standard in village Yenki. (11) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt Moreover, the said village is at a distance of 10 kms from Taluka headquarters Udgir and Devni. Thus, considering all these aspects, it cannot be inferred that the lands at village Yenki are having similar advantages as that of the lands situated at village Devni. Therefore, the lands at village Yenki cannot be compared with the lands situated at village Devni in respect of the market value. Considering the facilities of village Devni, the land at Devni would defnitely fetch more price. It is extremely important to note that the sale instance relied upon by the appellants – claimants is in respect of land situated at village Devni and there is nothing on record to show that what was the market value of the land situated at village Yenki at the relevant time when the acquisition took place. As such, the sale instance relied upon by the appellants cannot be considered as comparable sale instance while determining the market value of the lands at village Yenki, which is defnitely a smaller village than Devni. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants also tried to argue that the learned Reference Court though observed that the lands under acquisition were fertile, but granted only meager enhancement. Admittedly, the learned Reference Court has mentioned the contents of original award (Exh.14) (12) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt wherein it was mentioned the lands under acquisition were fertile lands having black cotton soil and agriculturists used to take Kharip and Rabbi crops from those lands and those were situated at the bank of Manmodi river. However, that observation was only to determine whether the lands involved in these matters were Bagayat lands or Jirayat lands. Moreover, considering the nature of the lands under acquisition, the learned Reference Court has already determined the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per Acre for Jirayat land and rate of Rs. 10,000/- per Acre for Bagayat land which is defnitely more than the rate awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Offcer. 12. It is extremely important to note that the appellants – claimants have miserably failed to bring the sale instances in respect of the lands situated in the same vicinity of the acquired lands. The enhanced rate granted by the Reference Court defnitely appears proper since it cannot be compared with the rates of lands at village Devni. Another important aspect is that the appellants – claimants have claimed rate of Rs. 10,000/- per Acre for Jirayat land and Rs.15,000/- per Acre for Bagayat land. Since they are relying on the rates in respect of the lands at Devni which was Rs. (13) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt 30,000/- per Acre, they could have demanded the price of their lands at the same rate. However, their demand of lessor amount itself shows the quality of their lands at village Devni. Thus, the rate awarded by the learned Reference Court of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- per Acre for Jirayat and Bagayat lands respectively, defnitely appears proper. On going through the impugned judgment, it is clearly evident that the learned Reference Court has taken into consideration all the necessary factors in proper perspective for determination of market value of the acquired lands and on independent search of the material on record, I also come to the same conclusion. As such, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Hence, all the appeals are dismissed. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) VD_Dhirde
Arguments
Shivaji Shripati Birajdar Age : 44 years, oc : agri., R/o Yenki, Taluka Udgir, District Latur Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2003 Govindrao Ramchandra Patil Age : 39 years, oc : agri., R/o Yenki, Taluka Udgir, District Latur Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2003 Dhanaji Madhavrao Birajdar Age : 37 years, oc : agri., R/o Yenki, Taluka Udgir, District Latur Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2003 Uttamrao Madhavrao Birajdar Age : 41 years, oc : agri., R/o Yenki, Taluka Udgir, District Latur Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent Appellant (3) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2003 Madhavrao Ganapati Birajdar Age : 41 years, oc : agri., R/o Yenki, Taluka Udgir, District Latur Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur Respondent Appellant Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 546 OF 2003 1. 2. 3. Uttam Madhavrao Biradar Age : 40 years, oc : agri., Rangrao Madhavrao Biradar Age : 43 years, occ : agri., Dhanaji Madhavrao Biradar Age : 36 years, occ : agri., All above R/o Yenki, Taluka Udgir, District Latur Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur ... Respondent Mr. Umakant Patil, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, A.G.P. for respondent – State. Mr. P.N. Kutti, A.G.P. in FA No.546/2003 for State. ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. (4) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt Judgment Reserved on : Judgment pronounced on : 15.09.2022 17.10.2022 Judgment: 1. The appellants, who are the respective claimants in their Land Acquisition References Nos. 511/1985, 515/1985, 508/1985, 516/1985, 514/1985, 513/1985, 507/1985, 512/1985 and 504/1985 have challenged judgment and order dated 01.04.1991 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Reference Court”) commonly in almost 18 Land References, including the Land References of the present appeals, being dis-satisfed with the quantum of compensation. 2. Heard Shri Umakant Patil, learned Counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.P. Shri A.A. Jagatkar, for the respondent – State. Also perused the impugned judgment and documents on record with the assistance of learned Counsel for the rival parties. 3. It is not in dispute that under Notifcation dated 05.11.1981 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the Special Land Acquisition Offcer acquired lands for the purpose of (5) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt constructing minor tank. Final Notifcation under Section 6 of the Act was also made. The Land Acquisition Offcer, by taking into consideration all the aspects, ultimately reached to the conclusion that the market value of the lands under acquired in the year 1981 was between Rs. 3500/- to Rs. 5500/- per Acre and accordingly award dated 18.07.1984 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Offcer. The appellants then fled References against the said award and claimed amount of Rs. 10,000/- per Acre in respect of Jirayat land and Rs. 15,000/- per Acre in respect of Bagayat land. The learned Reference Court partly allowed the References and determined the market price of the lands under acquisition to the extent of Rs. 8,000/- per Acre for Jirayat land and Rs. 10,000/- per Acre for Bagayat land. Therefore, the appellants are before this Court for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Reference Court has defnitely erred in increasing the compensation by meager amount. He further submits that the learned Reference Court did not consider the evidence of Manikrao Patil in respect of comparable sale instance wherein he had purchased the land admeasuring 1 (6) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt Acre 1 Guntha for Rs. 30,000/- on 9th April 1981. According to him, the learned Reference Court despite holding that the lands under acquired were fertile, refused to enhance the compensation amount to the expectations of the appellants. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 13.03.2009 in First Appeal No. 250 of 1994 (Damu Motiram Rathod vs State of Maharashtra). 5. On the contrary, the learned A.G.P. supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the sale instance on which the appellants had relied before the Reference Court, was in respect of the land situated at village Devni which is 5 kms away from the lands under acquisition which are situated in village Yenki. He pointed out that the comparable sale instance was in respect of the land which was situated near the under-construction bus stand at village Devni which is having more facility than village Yenki. He also pointed out that the appellants did not produce any evidence showing that the lands under acquisition were yielding handsomely. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 6. The record shows that though the appellants - claimants in their respective References had claimed amounts of Rs. 10,000/- per Acre in respect of Jirayat land and Rs. (7) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt 15,000/- per Acre in respect of Bagayat land, but the learned Reference Court has awarded amount of Rs. 8,000/- per Acre for Jirayat land and Rs. 10,000/- per Acre for Bagayat land. It is further evident that in all these References only two witnesses have been examined by the appellants. One is the claimant in LAR No. 511/1985 namely Venkatrao Ramchandrarao Patil and another is Manikrao Patil who had purchased the property situated nearby to the lands under acquisition during the relevant period. Further, there is no dispute that the lands under acquisition were acquired in the year 1981 and accordingly the award was passed in the year 1984. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants heavily relied on the judgment cited supra for two main reasons. First is, the observation of this Court under which it has been held that for determination of market value of the acquired land, the Court either has to rely on the sale instances in respect of the lands of the same locality or previous judgments in respect of acquisition in the same project from the same locality and if both these things are not available, then the Court has to decide the market value on the basis of testimony of witnesses examined by the parties for fxing the (8) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt market value of the acquired land. Secondly, the observation of this Court as refected in the aforesaid judgment i.e. in the case of State of Maharashtra and another vs Baliram Baliram Girdhar Patil, reported in 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 82, wherein it is held that the market value of Bagayat land generally to be double than the value of dry crop land. However, these are general observations and the modes of determining the market value of the land based on the facts of each case. As such, I have to consider the sale instance as well as testimony of witnesses in these maters to ascertain as to whether the learned Reference Court has rightly determined the market value of the lands under acquisition. 8. On going through the paper books, it appears that the appellants – claimants have examined two witnesses in support of their contentions. The frst witness is Manikrao Gunderao Patil in respect of the sale instance and witness No.2 is Venkatrao Ramchdrarao Patil, who is one of the present appellants and also the claimant in LAR No.511/1985. Let us consider the evidence of witness No.2 Venkatrao. Though he stated that he had demanded Rs.15,000/- per Acre for the acquired land, but he has not deposed anything in respect of quality of the lands under (9) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt acquisition and what sort of crops were being taken in those lands. Moreover, he has not deposed anything about future potential of the lands. Thus, there is nothing in his evidence for determination of market value of the lands. 9. It appears that the appellants have relied upon one sale instance in respect of which witness Manikrao Patil has deposed. From the paper book itself, it is evident that the evidence of Manikrao is also very short and he has only deposed that he had purchased land bearing Survey No. 217/ E admeasuring 1 Acre 1 Guntha for Rs. 30,000/- on 09.04.1981. Though he has stated that the land is situated in the vicinity of village Devni, but there is only Shiv between village Yenki and Devni. However, in the cross-examination he has clearly admitted that the village Devni from which he purchased the aforesaid land, is a big place and cattle business of Devni is famous. He has specifcally admitted that Devni village is well developed and having all the facilities like school, hospital, etc. Further, he has given important admission which indicates that the distance between village Devni and village Yenki is of 5 kms and the prices of various lands in the villages are not similar. He has also admitted that when he purchased the land at village Devni, the (10) FA-411.2003 + 7.odt construction of bus stand was going on just adjecent to his said land. From this evidence of Witness No.2 Manikrao Patil, it is clearly evident that the lands under acquisition are situated at village Yenki which is 5 kms away from village Devni from where witness Manikrao Patil had purchased the land. No doubt we have to determine the market value of the lands on the basis of sale instance in the same locality as per