High Court
Facts
FA-919-2017-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 919 OF 2017Jagdish s/o Kishanlal JoshiAge : 57 years, Occupation : Agril.,R/o Shiradhon, Taluka Kallam,District Osmanabad.… Appellant[Orig. Claimant]Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Collector,Osmanabad.2.The Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division,Osmanabad.3.The Special Land AcquisitionOfficer No.2, Osmanabad.… Respondents…..Mr. Aashish T. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. N. D. Batule, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.Mr. Anand Chavre, Advocate for Respondent No.2...... CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on: 11.07.2025Pronounced on: 16.07.2025JUDGMENT : 1.In this First Appeal, the judgment and order dated 05.02.2014passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad,partly allowing Land Acquisition Reference No. 549 of 2001 is takenexception to, on various grounds.
Legal Reasoning
FA-919-2017-6- instance i.e. while determining just and reasonable market value, andthat the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that the comparable saleinstance is to be selected on the basis of proximity in between thedate of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act andthe date of execution of sale deed (sale instance) and on the basis ofthe proximity in between situation of acquired lands and land undersale instance. On such lines, there are specific observations of thiscourt in para 12 that, the acquired land in that acquisition was inShiradhon and the land under sale instance (Exhibit 53) was ofvillage Nipani which is just adjoining to the Shiradhon. Applying theproximity test, this Court has enhanced the compensation and hasfurther categorically observed in para 17 that, though crop statementof the land in question therein, bearing Gat No. 420, did not showcultivation of irrigated crops, in view of existence of a well in theacquired land, though acquired land was not perennially irrigated, itwas considered as seasonally irrigated land. Some crop yield isobtained which is not denied. A reference is also made to theobservations of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v.Prashram Jagannath Aute and another AIR 2007 Bombay 167 that,market value of irrigated land is to be determined after consideringthe quality of land, its location and advantageous factors
Arguments
FA-919-2017-2- 2.It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that, landof the appellant along with lands of other land-owners located invillage Shiradhon came to be acquired for medium project. All landswere in same block number. After Notifications issued under both,Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Special LandAcquisition Officer issued notice as required under Section 9 of theAct, calling upon appellant to submit his claim for compensation. 3.Learned counsel further pointed out that, the Special LandAcquisition Officer failed to consider the market price, quality of theland and awarded Rs.22,500/- per Hector which is grosslyinadequate. He further pointed out that, the land in question being inclose proximity to taluka Kallam, taluka Murud as well as Terna SugarFactory, it carries high value. However, there is no properconsideration and assessment of market value. There is nonconsideration of quality of the land to be irrigated one. Crucial factorswhile determining compensation, like existence of well, trees,pipeline, fertility of the land, its potential, have not been kept in viewand therefore, reference was preferred. However, even referencecourt has not correctly appreciated the above aspects and therefore,appellant is constrained to file the instant appeal. FA-919-2017-3- 4.Learned counsel pointed out that this Court, in similarlysituated other First Appeals, i.e. First Appeal No. 2217/2024 decidedon 30.04.2025, First Appeal No. 593/2024 decided on 30.04.2025,relying on the judgment dated 02.04.2019 while deciding First AppealNo. 654/2014, awarded just and fair compensation and hence, heurges similar treatment and similar rate of compensation. Learnedcounsel placed on record copies of judgments in above matters forready reference.5.Learned counsel for the acquiring body i.e. respondent no.2would raise objection on two counts, i.e. firstly, in above referredmatters, there was evidence about acquired lands to be perenniallyirrigated and there being no evidence in that regard in the instantcases; and secondly, the subject matter of present First Appeal isdistinct than other lands in which First Appeals have been decidedand the same cannot be taken recourse to on the ground of parity,being identical. 6.Heard at length. Perused the orders passed by this Court inabove referred First Appeals. On comparative analysis, this court ismore than convinced that the land of appellant is also located in the FA-919-2017-4- same village namely Shiradhon and acquisition of lands in which FirstAppeals are dealt and decided, are also of the same village. In thisconnection, it would be fruitful to refer to the judgment of theHon’ble Apex Court in Lal Chand v. Uniof of India and another[(2009) 15 SCC 769], wherein it has been held that, “if theacquisition is in regard to a large area of agricultural lands in a villageand the exemplar sale deed is also in respect of an agricultural landin the same village, it may be possible to rely upon the sale deed asprima facie evidence of the prevailing market value, even if such landis at the other end of the village.” Here, as stated above, land inquestion and lands in decided matters are of same village andtherefore, same parameters would be attracted and would be ratherdecisive in taking call on the quantum of compensation. Moreover,applicant has asserted in appeal that the village is in proximity totaluka places like Osmanabad, Kallam, Murud and which are districtand taluka places. Needless to say that, rates have to be higher withsuch fact situation. 7.It has been pointed out by learned counsel that this Court,while deciding First Appeal No. 2217 of 2024 as well as First AppealNo. 593 of 2024, has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court inthe case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (died) through Legal FA-919-2017-5- Representatives v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others(2020) 19 SCC 599 ; Union of India (UOI) v. Bal Ram and others AIR2004 SC 3981 ; Ali Mohammad Baig and others v. State of Jammuand Kashmir AIR 2017 SC 1518, and has categorically emphasized thenecessity of maintaining parity of compensation and avoiddiscrimination between the land owners who lost lands in the sameacquisition. 8.Applying the above settled legal position also, apart from abovediscussion, which is indicative and demonstrative of the fact that inthe First Appeals decided by this Court from same village havingproximity to developed district and taluka places, even presentappellant is entitled for similar treatment on the ground of parity.9.As regards to objection raised by learned counsel for acquiringbody, about land to be not irrigated and there to be no evidence, isconcerned, the observations of this Court while deciding First AppealNo. 654 of 2014, i.e. in para 11 are borrowed wherein, afterdiscussing the law set down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofChimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune1988 (3) SCC 751, this Court has quoted the observations that, theLand Reference is to be decided by making use of comparable sale
Decision
FA-919-2017-7- 10.Therefore, indisputably when land of present appellant is alsoof similar nature, being located in the same village, being proximateto district place and taluka place having development facilities, rule ofparity does come into play.11.In view of the above, following order is passed :ORDERI.The First Appeal is partly allowed.II.The claimant is held entitled for enhanced compensation @Rs.2890/- per are for acquired land. He shall also be entitled forstatutory benefits in terms of Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of theLand Acquisition Act. However, the appellant shall not be entitled forthe interest and statutory benefit for the period of delay, if any, fromthe date of decision of Reference Court i.e. 05.02.2014 till filing ofappeal before this Court. III.Award be drawn up accordingly.IV.The First Appeal is accordingly disposed off. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre