High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 3177-18-FA+.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.3177 OF 2018Muktaram Natha GandgeAge: 48 Occu: AgriR/o At post Kasarwadi, Tal-AmbadDist – Jalna… Appellant(Ori Petitioner)Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Jalna2.The Special Land Acquisition Officer(B & C), Jalna. At presentSub-Divisional Officer, Ambad3.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Department(Local Sector), Jalna… Respondents(Ori Respondents)…WITHFIRST APPEAL NO.161 OF 2019Rohidas Balaji PangreAge: 25 Occu: AgriR/o At post Kasarwadi, Tal-AmbadDist – Jalna… Appellant(Ori Petitioner)Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Jalna2.The Special Land Acquisition Officer(B & C), Jalna. At presentSub-Divisional Officer, Ambad3.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Department(Local Sector), Jalna… Respondents(Ori Respondents)…WITHSVH 2 3177-18-FA+.odtFIRST APPEAL NO.3170 OF 2018Sheshrao Namdev Pangre (Dead)1. Dadarao Sheshrao PangreAge: Occu: Agri2. Subhash Sheshrao PangreAge: Ocu: Agri2. Narayan Sheshrao PangreAge: Occu: AgriR/o At post Kasarwadi, Tal-AmbadDist – Jalna… Appellant(Ori Petitioner)Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Jalna2.The Special Land Acquisition Officer(B & C), Jalna. At presentSub-Divisional Officer, Ambad3.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Department(Local Sector), Jalna… Respondents(Ori Respondents)…WITHFIRST APPEAL NO.2186 OF 2019Ashok Dhondiba GiriAge: 47 Occu: AgriR/o At post Kasarwadi, Tal-AmbadDist – Jalna… Appellant(Ori Petitioner)Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Jalna2.The Special Land Acquisition Officer(B & C), Jalna. At presentSub-Divisional Officer, Ambad3.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Department(Local Sector), Jalna… Respondents(Ori Respondents)SVH 3 3177-18-FA+.odt…WITHFIRST APPEAL NO.160 OF 2019Ankush Asraji GandgeAge: 65 Occu: AgriR/o At post Kasarwadi, Tal-AmbadDist – Jalna… Appellant(Ori Petitioner)Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Jalna2.The Special Land Acquisition Officer(B & C), Jalna. At presentSub-Divisional Officer, Ambad3.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Department(Local Sector), Jalna… Respondents(Ori Respondents)…Mr. Abhijit Kale, Advocate for AppellantsMr. B.B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State… CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. RESERVED ON : 10th JULY, 2024PRONOUNCED ON : 09th AUGUST, 2024JUDGMENT : 1.Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.2.Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensationawarded by reference Court, appellants/original claimants havechallenged judgment and awards passed by learned Joint CivilJudge, Senior Division, Jalna, in L.A.R. No. 118/2011 on 24/11/2016,L.A.R. No.117/2011 on 03/12/2016, L.A.R. No.185/2011 on05/12/2016, L.A.R. No.119/2011 on 22/11/2016 and L.A.R.No.171/2011 on 30/11/2016.SVH 4 3177-18-FA+.odt3.Portion of lands of claimants from Gut Nos.50, 51, 268and 269, situated at Kasarwadi village, Taluka Ambad, Dist. Jalna,are acquired for Kasarwadi/ Bantakali Percolation Tank. Notificationunder Section 4(1) in that regard was published in official gazette on01/01/2004. The award was declared on 01/03/2005. Special LandAcquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.1090/- andRs.1310/- per R for irrigated land, whereas @ Rs.655/- and Rs.545/-per R for Jirayat land. Reference Court treated all the acquired landsas seasonally irrigated lands and enhanced compensation toRs.3675/- per R. Claimants have filed these appeals forenhancement of compensation.4.Heard learned advocate for appellants and learned AGPfor respondents – State.5.Learned advocate for claimants submits that SpecialLand Acquisition Officer has considered acquired lands as irrigatedlands. However, the reference Court has erred in treating the landsas seasonally irrigated lands. There is a well situated in acquiredland, but reference Court has erroneously denied compensation ofirrigated land on the ground that no sale receipts of crops areplaced on record. He submits that reference Court cannot go behindthe award of Special Land Acquisition Officer. Reference Court hascommitted error in deducting 65% while assessing compensation.Though the sale instance is rightly relied upon by the referenceSVH 5 3177-18-FA+.odtCourt, it erred in deducting 65% amount from the considerationamount of sale instance on untenable ground. In spite of therebeing revenue record, reference Court has proceeded to hold thatsale deed is not from the same village. In support of hissubmissions, learned advocate relied on Chindha Fakira Patil(Dead) Through L.Rs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,Jalgaon, [2012(2) Mh.L.J. 530] and Raghunath Baba Pathare& Others Vs. State of Maharashtra [2009(4) Mh.L.J. 288].6.Per contra, learned AGP supported the impugnedjudgment and awards. He submits that lands were acquired fromthe vicinity of Grampanchayat Narayangao, for percolation tank.The sale instance relied upon by claimants is of Ambad City which is15 Km away from the acquired land. Further submission is that, thesale instance relied upon is of smaller area whereas the acquisitionis of larger area. Therefore, reference Court has rightly madededuction of 65%. There is no material placed on record byclaimants to show that acquired lands are irrigated lands. 7/12extracts placed on record show that the lands of claimants areJirayat lands. Though well is shown in 7/12 extract, it is not clear asto where the well is situated and who is the owner of well. He,therefore, submits that no case is made out by claimants tointerfere in the impugned judgment and awards.7.Perusal of record shows that in E-statement the SpecialSVH 6 3177-18-FA+.odtLand Acquisition Officer has treated part of land Gut Nos.50, 268and 269 as partly irrigated and partly Jirayat. 38 R land acquiredfrom Gut No.51 is treated as irrigated land, however, compensationis calculated at Rs.655 per R and the total compensation ofRs.49,780/- is shown in column No.12 i.e. of irrigated land.There is evidence on record in the form of 7/12 extractof land Gut No.268 (Exhibit-28) which shows that in 59 R landacquired from Gut No.268 there is a common well and crop entriesshow that cash crops like sugarcane, sweet lime and cotton aretaken in the said land.In 7/12 extract of land Gut No.269 well is shown in otherrights column and crop entries of cash crop cotton are reflected. It isalso recorded that claimant Rohidas Balaji Pangare has a well in hisportion of land in Gut No.269. The 7/12 extract of land Gut No.50 shows that claimantAnkush Gandge has separate well in the said land and there arecrop entries of cash crops like cotton and sweet lime.8.In view of decision in Chindha Fakira Patil (supra)lands of claimants are required to be treated as irrigated lands.Presence of well in claimants’ lands is supported by 7/12 extract. Sofar as land Gut No.51 is concerned, Special Land Acquisition Officerhas already treated the same as irrigated land. Therefore, merelybecause claimants failed to place on record receipts showing sell ofSVH 7 3177-18-FA+.odtcash crops, the said lands cannot be treated as seasonally irrigatedlands. Finding to that effect recorded by the reference Court is,therefore, liable to be interfered with.9.Sale instance at Exhibit-29 relied upon by claimants aswell as the reference Court is of the year 1999 and it is of the landfrom Kasarwadi, Taluka Ambad, Dist. Jalna, by which BaburaoDagaduba Kharat sold 22(III) Gunthe land from Survey No.31/2 toDwarkadas Ritkaran Joshi for consideration of Rs.1,15,000/-.Reference Court, however, has deducted 65% from the marketvalue of the said sale instance on the specious ground that landunder sale deed was abutting to the land of purchaser andtherefore, higher value is given by purchaser. In sale instance, theland is sold for consideration of Rs.7,000/- per R. Reference Courthas observed that claimants have placed nothing on record to showthat land in sale instance is nearby land of acquired lands, so also,claimants have produced sale instance of different villages. Whilemaking this observation, reference Court has ignored certificateExhibit-32 issued by Talathi, Ambad, Dist. Jalna, on 28/12/2015,stating that Narayangaon is a revenue village under Saja Ambadand it is also known as Kasarwadi. Narayangaon and Kasarwadi isone and the same village. In view of certificate Exhibit-32 referenceCourt has erred in making the observation that claimants haveproduced sale instance of different villages. Reference Court hasSVH
Legal Reasoning
8 3177-18-FA+.odtassessed value of Jirayat land at Rs.7,000/- per R. Even if thisamount is taken as market value of Jirayat land, reference Court hasdeducted 65% from the said market value by relying on ShrimatiVishwanath Acharya Through L.Rs. Vs. Special LandAcquisition Officer and Others [2011 LAC 607 Bombay].Reference Court has misread and misconstrued said decision andmisdirected itself by placing reliance on the same.10.Coming to the objection raised by learned AGP that thesale instance is of smaller piece of land and the acquisition is oflarger area, the said argument can be accepted to the extent ofland of claimant Ankush Gandge, as from Gut No.50, his 1 Acre 99R land is acquired, so far as claimant Rohidas Pangre is concerned,from Gut No.269 his 1 Acre 44 R land is acquired. Considering thearea under acquisition, 25% can be deducted from the market valueassessed by reference Court. Reference Court has assessed marketvalue @ Rs.7,000/- per R for Jirayat land. For irrigated land marketvalue would be Rs.14,000/- per R. 25% will have to be deductedonly to the extent of claimants Ankush Asraji Gandge and RohidasBalaji Pangre, and not for other claimants.11.Reference Court while assessing compensation hasignored the above aspect and has erroneously proceeded to holdthe acquired lands as seasonally irrigated lands by ignoring relevantrecords. Findings recorded by reference Court to that extent areunsustainable in law and facts of present case.SVH 9 3177-18-FA+.odt12.In the result, following order:-ORDER(I)First Appeals are partly allowed with proportionate costs.(II)Claimants in First Appeal Nos.3177/2018, 3170/2018 and 2186/2019 are held entitled for compensation @ Rs.14,000/- per R, along with all consequential statutory benefits.(III)Claimants in First Appeal Nos.160/2019 and 161/2019 are heldentitled for compensation @ Rs.10,500/- per R along with all consequential statutory benefits.(IV)While paying compensation, the compensation already received by claimants shall be deducted. (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)SVH