High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} FA 1481 of 2018IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1481 OF 20181.Vishwanth S/o. Rama WaghuleAge: 78 years, Occu.: Agri.R/o. : Deogaon Rangari, Tq.Kannad,District : Aurangabad.2.Bhanudas s/o. Vishwanath WaghuleAge: 37 years, Occu.: Agri.,R/o. : Deogaon Rangari, Tal.Kannad,District : Aurangabad. ….Appellants Versus1.The State of Maharashtra2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division No.1,Aurangabad.…..Respondents …..Advocate for Appellants : Ms.M.R. JamdhadeAGP for Respondent no.1 : Mrs.D.S.Jape Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.Ranjit B. Gaikwad….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 21 JULY, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 31 JULY, 2025 JUDGMENT :- 1.Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order dated09-01-2018 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,Aurangabad in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) No.130 of 2010. {2} FA 1481 of 2018FACTS IN BRIEF2.Present appellants, who are owners of land at Gut nos.230,232/1, 232/2 and 233 situated at Chambharwadi, Tq.Kannad,District Aurangabad, which came to be acquired by respondent no.2Acquiring Body for Deogaon Rangari Minor Irrigation Project, aredissatisfied by the judgment and award passed by the ReferenceCourt in aforesaid LAR. In the said LAR, case was set up that saidland was fully irrigated having wells with sweet lime trees. That, theappellants were harvesting crops like Cotton, Tur, Mug, Sugarcane,Jowar etc. in the said land and were earning approximatelyRs.75,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre per annum and therefore, theyset up a claim of Rs.7,00,000/- per hectare. The Acquiring Body, the Executive Engineer, Minor IrrigationDivision, Aurangabad and State both resisted the above LAR.Evidence adduced by the appellants -claimants was appreciatedby the learned Civil Judge, Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,Aurangabad, and reached to a finding that the appellants – claimantsare entitled for compensation @ Rs.3,375/- per Are and accordingly,passed judgment and award dated 09-01-2018. The learnedReference Court has granted aforesaid compensation with interestunder the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as the “Act”)
Legal Reasoning
{3} FA 1481 of 2018from the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of theReference Court, the appellants - claimants have preferred instantappeal for enhancement of compensation. SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of appellants :3. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that appellantsare owners of above land. That, the land is irrigated one. That,there are two wells located in Gut Nos.232/1 and 232/2 each. That,there is pipeline laid for watering the fields. That, there is evidenceto that extent. She would point out that even learned ReferenceCourt admitted about existence of well and pipeline in the fields.Thus, according to her, land was irrigated one. However, learnedReference Court failed to appreciate and consider such evidence anderred in holding that the land is not irrigated one and rather it isseasonally irrigated. Therefore, she seeks enhancement ofcompensation to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- per Hectare for land,wells, house structure, trees existing over acquired land. {4} FA 1481 of 2018On behalf of Respondents :4.Learned counsel for respondent Acquiring Body and learnedAPP have resisted the appeal on the ground that learned ReferenceCourt has correctly appreciated evidence. That, though there wasconsideration of existence of wells, there was no evidence that landwas irrigated. That, the area in which the said land was situated,does not have much rainfall and therefore, only seasonal rain wassource of irrigation and therefore, according to him, no fault can befound in manner of appreciation of evidence by the learnedReference Court. He further submitted that even he has objection tothe grant of interest from the date of Notification under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act and the interest may be granted from thedate of award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). 5.Heard. Perused the papers. 6.Appellant – claimant Vishwanth Rama Waghule has leadevidence by way of filing an affidavit at exh.14. The sum andsubstance of his evidence is as under :In paragraph no.5 of the affidavit, it is stated that in his landGut Nos.232/1 and 232/2, there were two constructed wells. That, {5} FA 1481 of 2018for fetching water from the said wells, there were two 5 H.P. electricmotors. That, electricity connection was taken from MSEB. That, insupport of his claim, he placed on record the original copies ofelectric motor bills of the respective wells. In paragraph no.6, it is stated that he had cultivated thesugarcane in the acquired land. That, he had supplied the sugarcaneto the nearest Sugar Factory in the vicinity. That, he placed on recordsome sugarcane supply receipt. In paragraph no.7, it is stated that as he used to cultivate croplike sugarcane, his land was totally irrigated land. In support of above evidence, appellants produced on record7/12 extracts of land at Gut No.232/1 and 232/2 and copies ofelectricity bills of the electric motors connected to the wells. 7.Award passed by the SLAO has been taken exception to byfiling LAR. In the said LAR, it is a specific case of the appellants thatland acquired by the Acquiring Body, was irrigated land having twowells and therefore, compensation in that consonance ought to havebeen granted, which is alleged to be not done. Apart from evidence of appellant Vishwanath, appellants haveplaced on record 7/12 extracts of aforesaid Gut numbers. Close {6} FA 1481 of 2018scrutiny of the same, it appears that, apart from taking crops likecotton, Bajra, Jowar, Maize, Wheat, Sunflower, there were sweet limetrees in Gut No.232/1. It has also come in evidence that appellantshave laid pipeline of length of 1000 feet in the field. In the 7/12extracts of Gut Nos.232/1 and 232/2, to which attention of thisCourt is invited, there is reference about existence of two wells.Therefore, considering the aspect of existence of wells coupled withexistence of evidence about pipeline being laid and taking intoaccount the fact that the appellants were harvesting sweet lime apartfrom regular crops, the claim of appellants that land is irrigatedseems to be justified. The observations of the learned Reference Court in paragraphno.10 show that existence of pipeline and well is also admitted.However, learned Reference Court has held that there is no evidencethat the well has sufficient water and on this count coupled withaspect that, in that area, usually there are no heavy rains, land isconsidered as seasonally irrigated one. In fact evidence on record iscontrary to above inference drawn by the Reference Court as there isevidence to show that there is source of water not in the form of onewell but in the form of two wells having pipeline laid for supply ofwater to the fields. {7} FA 1481 of 20188.It appears that the learned Reference Court has considered theland as seasonally irrigated land and has awarded compensation @Rs.3,375/- per Are. However, in view of above discussed evidence,the compensation is required to be enhanced to atleast Rs.5,000/-per Are, which seems to be just and proper. 9.The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Acquiring Bodysubmits that, the interest should be computed from the date ofpassing of award by the SLAO and not from the date of Notificationof Section 4(1) of the Act. In support of such submission, he placed reliance on decisionof Full Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in case of State ofMaharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016(4) ALL MR 513. 10.Perused the aforesaid ruling. The computation of interest asawarded by the learned Reference Court is as per the settled positionof law i.e. as summarized in the above ruling. SUMMATION11.To sum up, the appellants, in this appeal, have demonstratedand substantiated that the land acquired by the respondent acquiringbody was in fact irrigated one. There is evidence in the form of 7/12 {8} FA 1481 of 2018extracts and even learned Reference Court has agreed aboutexistence of a well. However, learned trial Court has lost sight ofanother well, which was also situated along with adjoining land inGut No.232/2. That apart, even learned Reference Court has takeninto account evidence about existence of pipeline of 1000 feet.Therefore, there is trustworthy evidence suggesting land to beirrigated one and therefore, the inferences drawn by learnedReference Court that, land is seasonally irrigated and there is scarcityof rain in the area, are without any foundation. For above reasons,interference at the hands of this Appellate Court is necessary andresultantly appeal deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly, I passfollowing order : ORDER(I)Appeal is partly allowed.(II)The judgment and award passed by the learnedReference Court on 09-01-2018 is modified only to theextent of compensation. The appellants – claimants areentitled to get enhanced compensation @ Rs.5,000/- perAre for acquired land. (III)All consequential benefits under the Land AcquisitionAct, be given on the aforesaid enhanced compensation, asper the judgment and award of the Reference Court. {9} FA 1481 of 2018(IV)The appellants - claimants are entitled for theinterest on the enhanced amount excluding delayed period,if any. (V)The appellants – claimants are directed to pay courtfee on the enhanced compensation amount, if any, as perRules.(VI)Award be drawn up accordingly after payment ofdeficit court fee, if any. (VII)First Appeal is disposed of in above terms. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT