High Court

Legal Reasoning

1 39-FA 1059-2014.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1059 OF 2014Narsing Pandurang Alange.. AppellantVersusThe State Of Maharashtra And Others.. RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1054 OF 2014Bhaguram Pandurang Alange.. AppellantVersusState Of Maharashtra And Others.. RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2014Chandbee Abdul Shaikh.. AppellantVersusState Of Maharashtra And Others.. RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1056 OF 2014Govind Ramrao Alange.. AppellantVersusState Of Maharashtra And Others.. Respondents 1 of 8 2 39-FA 1059-2014.odtANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1057 OF 2014Maruti Ramrao Alange.. AppellantVersusState Of Maharashtra And Others.. RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1058 OF 2014Ram Maruti Alange.. AppellantVersusState Of Maharashtra And Others.. RespondentsMr. Shashikiran N. Patil, Advocate for the Appellants in all matters.Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondents/State in all matters. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2025. PER COURT :- .Heard learned advocate for the claimants and the learnedA.G.P. for the respondents/State.2.By way of these appeals, the appellants – original claimantshave approached this Court seeking enhancement in the amountof compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court inrespective land acquisition references as per the chart given below: 2 of 8 3 39-FA 1059-2014.odtSr. No. L.A.R. No.Name of ClaimantsSy. No.Area H.R.Amount paid byL.A.O. of land1349/2006Narsing s/o Pandurang Alange16116403 R58 RRs. 3,829/-Rs. 82,215/-2350/2006Govind s/o Ramrao Alange1641641 H 66 R36 RRs. 2,35,305/-Rs. 51,030/-3351/2006Tanaji s/o Sambhaji Wante16441 RRs. 58,117/-4352/2006Chandbee Abdul Shaikh16440 RRs. 56,700/-5353/2006Maruti Ramrao Alange1641 H 30 RRs. 1,84,275/-6354/2006Bhaguram Pandurang Alange16418 RRs. 25,515/-7355/2006Ram Maruti Alange16281 RRs. 1,03,401/-3.The learned S.L.A.O. had granted compensation at the rateof Rs. 875/- per R. to irrigated land and Rs. 788/- per R toseasonally irrigated land. The same is enhanced to Rs. 2000/- perR for irrigated land and Rs. 1750/- per R. for seasonally irrigatedland by the impugned judgment and award dated 03.03.2011.While enhancing the amount of compensation the learned TrialJudge considered two sale instances Exh. 19 and Exh. 20 dated02.01.2001 and 31.07.2001 respectively. Both the sale instancesare of 11 R land for consideration of Rs. 65000/- which comes toRs. 5900/- per R. and has awarded the rate of Rs. 2000/- per R forirrigated land.4.The learned advocate for the appellants vehemently argued 3 of 8 4 39-FA 1059-2014.odtthat, when the sale instances show the rate of Rs. 5900/- per R.,there was no reason for the learned Trial Court to awardcompensation at a lesser rate which is less than even 50% of therate shown in the sale instances. There was evidence of theclaimant Maruti Alange in L.A.R. No. 353/2006 which wasconsidered in all the references by proving the sale instances. Inthe cross-examination there is nothing to disbelieve the saidwitness. The learned Trial Court, however, awarded the rate onlyby observing that the land in the sale instances is a small piece ofland of 11 R whereas, the total land acquired in all these sixappeals is of 5 H and 37 R. He thus submits that, it was necessaryfor the learned Trial Judge to accept the rate as per the saleinstances. For that purpose he relies upon the followingjudgments :(I)Prema Pramodkumar Laddha and Ors. Vs. The Stateof Maharashtra and Ors. reported inMANU/MH/1633/2019.(II)Dhondiba Sakharam Thange Vs. The State ofMaharashtra reported in MANU/MH/1634/2003.(III)Raghunath Baba Pathare and Ors. Vs. State ofMaharashtra reported in MANU/MH/1385/2009.5.The learned A.G.P. vehemently opposes the appeals. He 4 of 8 5 39-FA 1059-2014.odtsubmits that, the learned S.L.A.O. had rightly awarded thecompensation by considering all relevant factors such as earliersale instances and situation of the land. There was no reason forthe learned Trial Court to enhance the amount of compensation.The learned Trial Court has liberally granted the enhancement.6.After hearing the parties, this Court has gone through theevidence. Exh. 19 is the sale deed showing that 11 R land ispurchased for an amount of Rs. 65,000/- from land Gat No. 163 ofvillage Kanheri. The land was purchased by one BabruwanBhojane from Maruti Alange i.e. claimant whose evidence wasrecorded. The said land is from land Gat No. 163 whereas, thepresent lands are from Gat No. 164 of the same village. From therecord it is seen that, well is situated in land Gat No. 164 and theland is therefore considered as irrigated land. As it is, there is nodispute about the nature of the land. The dispute is only aboutthe rate.7.In the case of Prema Pramodkumar Laddha (supra), thisCourt considered that, even if the sale instance is of small piece ofland, still the same can be considered. 5 of 8 6 39-FA 1059-2014.odt8.In the present cases, the sale instances are of 02.01.2001and 31.07.2001 whereas, notification under section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act was issued on 08.11.2002. Thus, the first saleinstance is almost two years prior to the notification and anothersale instance is about one and half years prior to the notification.There is no difficulty in accepting the sale instances to be genuine9.In the case of Dhondiba Sakharam Thange (supra), thisCourt has again considered that, merely because the sale instanceis of small area is no reason not to accept the rate.10.In the case of Raghunath Baba Pathare (supra), also thesame principle is reiterated by this Court. 11.This Court finds that, only evidence before the learned TrialCourt to decide the rate was in the nature of two sale instances.From the cross examination of Maruti it is seen that, there is noteven a suggestion given that there are other sale instancesavailable from the said village. It is also not a case of therespondent – acquiring body that, there are other sale instancestaken place in the village prior to acquisition. This Court thusfinds that there is no difficulty in accepting the rate of Rs. 5900/-. 6 of 8 7 39-FA 1059-2014.odtHowever, this Court finds that, it would be necessary to deduct25% amount. The rate would come to Rs. 4425/- per R. Thereshall be escalation of Rs. 10% per R. Thus, this Court finds that,fair and adequate compensation would be at the rate ofRs. 5310/- per R. Hence, following order :ORDER(I)The first appeals stand partly allowed.(II)In First Appeal Nos. 1059/2014, 1056/2014, 1057/2014and 1058/2014 the land is considered as irrigated land. Theclaimants – appellants are entitled to receive compensation at therate of Rs. 5310/- per R for irrigated land.(III)In First Appeal Nos. 1054/2014 and 1055/2014, theclaimants – appellants are entitled to receive compensation at therate of Rs. 3983/- per R.(IV) Fresh award be passed. The compensation be paid within aperiod of twelve (12) weeks from today deducting the amountalready paid from the date of award in view of the judgment inthe case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari 7 of 8 8 39-FA 1059-2014.odtreported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. Needless to say that, theappellants shall be entitled to get all the statutory benefits exceptfor a period of delay, if any, caused in filing these appeals.(V)With this, first appeals stand disposed of. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 8 of 8