High Court
Facts
FA-1500-2018+-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1500 OF 20181.Sampat s/o Namdeo Navle,Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture,2.Jyoti Sampat Navle,Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture,3.Lankabai Sampat Navle,Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture,All R/o: Aminabad, Taluka Gangapur,District Aurangabad.… Appellants[Orig. Claimants]Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Special Land Acquisition Officer,Aurangabad.2.The Executive Engineer (Irrigation),Zilla Parishad, District Aurangabad.… Respondents[Orig. Respondents]WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 279 OF 20191.Tulshiram Raghunath Navle,Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture,2.Vimal alias Nirmal Tulshiram Navle,Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture,Both R/o: Aminabad - Akoliwadgaon,Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad.… Appellants[Orig. Claimants]Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Special Land Acquisition Officer,Aurangabad. FA-1500-2018+-2- 2.The Executive Engineer (Irrigation),Zilla Parishad, District Aurangabad.… Respondents[Orig. Respondents]WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 281 OF 20191.Shardabai Sampat Navle,Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture,2.Ashok Trimbak Navle,Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture,Both R/o: Aminabad, Taluka Gangapur,District Aurangabad.… Appellants[Orig. Claimants]Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Special Land Acquisition Officer,Aurangabad.2.The Executive Engineer (Irrigation),Zilla Parishad, District Aurangabad.… Respondents[Orig. Respondents]WITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 282 OF 20191.Shivaji Sampat Navle,Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture,2.Indubai Sampat Navle,Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture,3.Shobhabai Prakash Bhise,Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture,All R/o: Aminabad - Akoliwadgaon,Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad.… Appellants[Orig. Claimants]Versus FA-1500-2018+-3- 1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Special Land Acquisition Officer,Aurangabad.2.The Executive Engineer (Irrigation),Zilla Parishad, District Aurangabad.… Respondents[Orig. Respondents]…..Mr. D. A. Bide, Advocate h/f Mr. V. B. Wayal, Advocate for theAppellants in all First Appeals.Mrs. D. S. Jape, Advocate for Respondent No.1-State in all FirstAppeals.Mr. P. R. Nangare Advocate for Respondent No.2 in FA/1500/2018,FA/279/2019 and FA/281/2019.Mr. V. C. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate forRespondent No.2 in FA/282/2019...... CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on: 14.08.2025Pronounced on: 18.09.2025JUDGMENT : 1.Appellants herein preferred instant appeal taking exception tojudgment and orders dated 10.02.2014, 12.02.2014 and 13.02.2014passed by learned Reference Court i.e. Civil Judge Senior Division,Vaijapur in LAR Nos. 1453/2010, 1456/2010, 1454/2010 and1452/2010 respectively, on the ground of grant of inadequatecompensation. FA-1500-2018+-4- 2.In nutshell, case giving rise to present appeals is that,respondent State on behalf of Execute Engineer (Irrigation), ZillaParishad, District Aurangabad, acquired lands of appellants for thepurpose of percolation tank at Aminabad, Taluka Gangapur, DistrictAurangabad i.e. after issuance of Notification dated 09.02.2006 byinvoking provision under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short, “the Act”). The Special Land Acquisition Officer(SLAO), on behalf of respondent State, passed award by grantingcompensation @ Rs.720/- per R and Rs.610/- per R respectively.Dissatisfied by the quantum, present appellants invoked provisionsunder Section 18 of the Act by approaching the Reference Court andsought enhancement of compensation. 3.After hearing each of the sides, learned Reference Court waspleased to partly allow the References directing compensation to bepaid to the appellants @ Rs.982/- per R with 12% interest and otherstatutory benefits.Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment and orders for non-consideration of their claim, appellants have knocked the doors of thisCourt by filing appeals seeking further enhancement on the ground FA-1500-2018+-5- that, there is improper appreciation of oral and documentary evidenceas well as failure to consider the legal precedent while computingcompensation. 4.The sum and substance of the arguments on behalf of theappellants before this Court is that, the acquired lands which wereowned by the appellants in First Appeal Nos. 1500 of 2018, 279 of2019 and 281 of 2019, were perennially irrigated on account ofavailability of well. That, in support of their claim both, before SLAOas well as Reference Court, even sale instance of land in the samevicinity was relied wherein land value was reflected at the rate ofRs.1833/- per R. Learned counsel emphasized that in fact, the aboverate under sale instance was of a land which was dry land, whereas,lands owned by appellants had well facility and were thus perenniallyirrigated. That, apart, there were fruit bearing trees suggesting landsto be well irrigated. That, learned Reference Court failed to considerand appreciate said sale instance and rather computed compensationon the basis of Government Valuation which is not permissible, moreparticularly in the light of availability of sale instance reflecting exactmarket value prevailing at that time. FA-1500-2018+-6- 5.Learned counsel further pointed out that even trial court failedto grant additional 15% rise per year to the amount reflected in thesale instance. Escalations or rise in price as spelt out in the landmarkjudgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishi UtpadanMandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun Through its Secretary v.Bipin Kumar and another 2004 AIR SC 2895 and Jage Ram(deceased) through LRS v. Union Of India (2017) 13 SCC 557; hasnot at all been considered by learned Reference Court and hence, it isurged that, compensation awarded by the Reference Court beenhanced i.e. by considering acquired lands to be perenniallyirrigated and by giving consequential 15% rise to the rate reflected inthe sale instance.6.Supporting the judgment and order passed by learnedReference Court, learned counsel for respondent no.2 would submitthat, there was no evidence on behalf of appellants regarding lands tobe irrigated. Therefore, it is pointed out that, learned Reference Courtwas justified in considering the lands to be dry lands. Learned counselfor the respondent took this court through the observations of learnedReference Court and would submit that even crops reaped by theappellants, which are reflected in the 7/12 extract and Revenuerecord, go to show that land was not irrigated and was rather Jirayat
Legal Reasoning
FA-1500-2018+-7- land. He further pointed out that, though there was sale instance,learned Reference Court has relied and referred to the judgment ofthe Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V. G. Kulkarni v. The SpecialLand Acquisition Officer 1996 LAC 560 and also pointed out that, asrequired and in view of settled legal position, 10% rise has alreadybeen considered, and accordingly computation has been done. Healso seeks reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in CentralWarehousing Corporation v. Thakur Dwara Kalan Ul-Maruf BaraglanWala (dead) & Ors. 2023 (14) SCR 926. While concluding, hesubmitted that there is no illegality or perversity and therefore,appeals deserve to be dismissed.7.After hearing both the sides and on going through the writtensubmissions placed on record, as well as on going through thepleadings and evidence on record, there is no dispute that the lands ofappellants situated in village Aminabad, Taluka Gangapur, DistrictAurangabad, along with others’ lands came to be acquired for thepurpose of percolation tank by the respondent authority. After issuingnotification under Section 4 of the Act, the SLAO seems to havepassed award on 08.10.2008 and claimants were called upon toaccept the compensation derived by the SLAO. It seems that, findingthe compensation inadequate, appellants moved Reference Court for FA-1500-2018+-8- enhanced compensation. After issuing notice, learned Reference Courtseems to have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence andhas reached to a finding that, claimants/appellants are indeedentitled for enhanced compensation and, considering the lands to bedry one, awarded compensation @ 982/- per R. Before the learnedReference Court, present appellants seem to have demandedRs.3,483/- per R for dry land and asserted rate of 5,525/- per R. forirrigated land. On going through the impugned judgment, as submitted, it isclearly emerging that claimants-appellants herein had placed onrecord oral evidence as well as sale instance between one KaduSuryabhan Bansode and Dattu Sampatrao Narwade bearing no. 139of 1997 (Exhibit 20) along with copies of 7/12 extract. Two-fold arguments raised before the learned Reference Courtare, firstly, non-consideration of land to be perennially irrigated inspite of availability of well; and secondly, non consideration of saleinstance proximate in both, time and place.8.Appreciation and analysis of Reference Court, as pointed out, isreflected in para 16 onward. The relevant observations for drawing FA-1500-2018+-9- conclusion seem to be appearing in para 21/22 to 24 of the respectivejudgments. On considering the same, it seems that though sale deedExhibit 20 of 24.01.1997 has been considered, learned ReferenceCourt has unfortunately held the lands to be dry land and thereafter,land value reflected in the Government Valuation seems to have beentaken into account i.e. by considering Rs.517/- per R., and directlygiving 10% rise per year in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court inthe case of V. G. Kulkarni (supra), the market value of the lands onthe date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act was computed tobe Rs.982/- per R.9.Learned counsel for the appellants has invited attention of thisCourt to the copies of 7/12 extract at Exhibits 17, 23 and 24respectively. It is clearly emerging that except land gat no. 16(FA/282/2019), wells are shown to be in existence in land gat nos.17, 33 and 36 of village Aminabad. Learned APP before this Courtneither refuted nor questioned the existence of such documentaryevidence. 10.Resultantly, as there does exist evidence by way of Revenuerecord regarding availability of well in the lands in question, there isno reason for not considering the lands to be irrigated one. Learned FA-1500-2018+-10- counsel has placed on record the judgment of this Court in State ofMaharashtra and Another v. Baliram Girdhar Patil (2006) 6 MhLJ 82[First Appeal Nos. 68, 70 to 74 and 76 of 1991 decided on13.07.2006]. There is no reason to take divergent view. By applyingsimilar method for computation, double rate for irrigated land has tobe considered. 11.As per the sale instance i.e. sale deed dated 24.01.1997 (Exhibit20), there is transaction of 60 R. dry land for the consideration ofRs.1,10,000/- which comes to Rs.1833/- per R for dry land. Thisrequires to be doubled for irrigated land which comes to Rs.3,666/-.Sale deed is of 24.01.1997 and date of Notification is 09.02.2006.Therefore, applying 10% rate of escalation since then, the figurecomes to Rs.3,482/- per R. for dry land and Rs.6,965/- per R. forirrigated land. As in the opinion of this Court, Reference Court haserred in awarding compensation @ Rs.982/- per R, hence,compensation needs to be awarded at such rate by enhancing thecompensation. 12.Accordingly, claimants-appellants in First Appeal No. 1500 of2018, First Appeal No. 279 of 2019 and First Appeal No. 281 of 2019are entitled for enhanced compensation at Rs.5,983/- per R FA-1500-2018+-11- (Rs.6965/- - Rs.982/- awarded by Reference Court) and claimants-appellants in First Appeal No. 282 of 2019 are entitled for enhancedcompensation at Rs.2,500/- per R (Rs.3482/- - Rs.982/- awarded byReference Court). In the result, the following order is passed :ORDERI.The First Appeals are partly allowed with proportionate costs.II.The judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court inrespective L.A.R. are modified to the effect that the claimants(appellants in First Appeal Nos. 1500 of 2018, First Appeal No. 279 of2019 and First Appeal No. 281 of 2019) shall be paid enhancedcompensation at Rs.5,983/- per R along with statutory benefits onenhanced compensation, and the claimants (appellants in First AppealNo. 282 of 2019) shall be paid enhanced compensation at Rs.2,500/-per R along with statutory benefits on enhanced compensation.III.Rest of the order of Reference Court granting rate of interest,not being touched upon or challenged, there is no change in the rateof interest. IV.The First Appeals are disposed off in above terms. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre