High Court

Legal Reasoning

FA-2729-2021-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 2729 OF 2021WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12469 OF 2021IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2729 OF 2021Keshav s/o Gangaram Kendre,Age : 57 years, Occupation Agriculture,R/o. Anandwadi, Taluka Ahmedpur,District Latur. … Appellant(Orig. Claimant)Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Collector, Latur.2.The Sub Divisional Officer/Special Land Acquisition Officer,Ahmedpur, District : Latur.3.Kashinath Eknath Kendre,Age : 67 years, Occupation : Agriculture,r/o. Kalegaonwadi, Taluka Ahmedpur,District Latur.… Respondents(Orig. Respondents)…..Mr. Pramod C. Mayure, Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.Mr. Jayant R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3...... CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on: 11.08.2025Pronounced on: 19.08.2025 FA-2729-2021-2- JUDGMENT : 1.Appellant, whose land came to be acquired for construction ofpercolation tank and has been denied compensation, is aggrieved bythe judgment and order dated 11.10.2021 passed by learned CivilJudge Senior Division Ahmedpur in L.A.R. No. 461 of 2018. 2.In nutshell, facts giving rise to L.A.R. No. 461 of 2018 are that,respondent Government acquired lands for village KalegaonwadiPercolation Tank No.2 by issuing Notification under Section 4 of theLand Acquisition Act (for short, “the Act”), and Special LandAcquisition Officer passed award and called upon villagers, whoselands were acquired, to approach said authority for compensation.Appellant Keshav accordingly approached and sought compensationfor land Gat No.20 admeasuring 46 Ares. Respondent Kashinath alsoasserted claim over 20 Ares land in Gat No. 20 and he too soughtcompensation. As Keshav and Kashinath were seeking compensationfor one and the same land, land acquisition authorities took recourseto Section 30 of the Act and applied before learned Civil Judge SeniorDivision, who was competent to decide title and ownership of land, togive finding as to who amongst the two was rightful owner of theacquired land and was thus entitled for compensation. FA-2729-2021-3- 3.Learned trial court i.e. learned Civil Judge Senior Division,Ahmedpur, vide judgment dated 11.10.2021, held present respondentKashinath to be the rightful owner of 20R land located in Gat No. 18. 4.Feeling aggrieved by the above, Keshav has approached thisCourt by filing instant appeal on various grounds spelt out in theappeal memo. 5.Learned counsel for the appellant criticized the impugnedjudgment on the ground that there is improper appreciation of facts.That, appellant had land in Gat No. 20 and total area in hispossession was 46 Ares. That, respondent has no concern with GatNo. 20 as his land was in Gat No. 18. That, respondent has no right toseek ownership or compensation to the extent of 20 Ares land whichwas owned and possessed by appellant. Learned counsel pointed outthat evidence adduced by the parties has not been correctlyappreciated. Moreover, present appellant was not given sufficientopportunity to cross examine respondent and therefore, alternatively,oral prayers are raised that matter be referred back to the learnedtrial court to afford opportunity to the appellant to cross examinerespondent. FA-2729-2021-4- 6.In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent no.2 wouldsupport the impugned judgment and order and would put forth that,appellant has no concern or right over 20 Ares land, which he isclaiming to be his own. That, document at Exhibit 18 drawn byacquiring bodies clearly reflects the area possessed and owned byeach of the villagers whose lands are acquired. That moreover, inview of the answers given by present appellant while facing cross,learned trial court correctly held present respondent Kashinath to beowner of 20 Ares land of which there was dispute and as such, heprays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits. 7.After appreciating contentions raised by each of the sides, it isemerging that parties are not disputing acquisition proceedings forpercolation tank. They are also not disputing about each of them to beholding land in Gat Nos. 18 and 20 respectively, which happens to beadjoining to each other. They are at loggerheads only on the issue of20 Ares land and are asserting claim of ownership and consequentlyseeking compensation for its acquisition. Two claims being raisedregarding 20 Ares land, acquiring body rightly took recourse toSection 30 of the Act, as they were not competent to decide title and FA-2729-2021-5- ownership, and thereby approached learned court of Civil JudgeSenior Division, Ahmedpur by filing L.A.R. No. 461 of 2018. Thus,applicant Government in the LAR is just a formal party and bothrespondents in LAR are the contesting parties, and bone of contentionis 20 Ares land. 8.For proper comprehension, evidence produced before learnedtrial court is briefly discussed herein. Apart from placing documentaryevidence, appellant and respondent put up writtenstatement/affidavit of evidence. 9.Sum and substance of affidavit of present appellant Keshav atExhibit 31 is that, land acquisition authorities acquired his land fromGat No. 20 which comprised of total 46 Ares land (i.e. 0.20 Are; 0.14Are and 0.12 Are). That, acquisition is reflected in the Gazette and heis in receipt of notice from the acquiring body. However, according tohim, respondent Kashinath Eknath Kendre also made applicationasserting claim over 20 Are land even when his land was in Gat No.18. That, land acquisition authorities called upon TILR to carry outjoint measurement and inspection and accordingly, in presence ofboth, panchanama was drawn by TILR and report was sent to landacquisition officer. That, appellant is in receipt of notice under FA-2729-2021-6- Section 12(2) regarding payment of acquired land. Merely to harasshim, respondent Kashinath put up a claim over 20 Are land when hehad no right or title. While under cross, he has admitted that previous survey no. ofGat No. 18 was 36/4, but he denied Kashinath to beowner/possession of 2 H 81 Are. He admitted that, even land ofKashinath from Gat No. 18 also came to be acquired for percolationtank, however denied that, from said Gat No. 18, total 67 Are came tobe acquired. He admitted about receipt of notice under Section 4(1)of the Act to him but denied similar notice being served onrespondent Kashinath. He admitted that, he had receivedcompensation on account of acquisition of 12 Are and 14 Are land outof Gat No. 20 and that he had received notice under Section 4(1)prior to acquisition to the extent of 12 Are and 14 Are. He answeredthat, except above notices, he had not received any notice foracquisition of land from Gat No. 20. He admitted re-measurement atthe hands of TILR, but is unable to give its year and answered thatafter re-measurement, 20 Are land got added in his name and he canproduce documents to that extent. He admitted that respondentKashinath had raised complaint on account of land from his Gat No.18 being shown in Gat No. 20, and in consequence to it, re-inquiry FA-2729-2021-7- and re-measurement was done, of which report was tendered to theGovernment on 17.02.2016 i.e. Exhibit 40, panchanama dated20.12.2005 to be Exhibit 41. He also admitted his statement dated20.12.2008 and finally admitted that wrongly land of respondentKashinath was shown in his Gat No. 20. He also admitted Exhibit 18and further admitted that he has a brother named Gopinath and both,he and his brother, are were owners of only 25 Guntha in land GatNo. 20 and it has been partitioned between them, out of which he hasreceived 14 Guntha and he is also having other 12 Are. Rest is alldenial.10.Even Kashinath gave his evidence at Exhibit 48. Substance ofthe same is that, Keshav’s land was in Gat No. 20 admeasuring only26 Ares. That, his own total land in Gat No. 18 was 67 Are (i.e. 20Are and 47 Are). However, appellant Keshav, by conniving withauthorities, has shown 20 Are land to be from his Gat. That, EStatement clearly reflects the position of Gat No. 20 and thereby, ongoing through the same, he raised objection with the authorities,upon which, re-inquiry was conducted and during re-inquiry, Keshavhad himself admitted that he has no concern with land in Gat No. 18. FA-2729-2021-8- Present appellant has not cross-examined Kashinath in spite ofopportunity.11.Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of above oral anddocumentary evidence comprising of Exhibits 39, 40, 41, 42 andAward “E” Statement, it transpires that, Keshav can only claimownership over 26 Are from Gat No. 20 and he has no right to claimownership over 20 Are land from Gat No. 18. Except stating that hehad received notice under Section 4(1) of the Act and his readiness toplace it on record, no document has been placed on record to thatextent. Moreover, as seen from above cross, he has admitted that, oncomplaint filed by respondent Kashinath, re-inquiry was done by TILRwherein both of them were called and in presence of panchas, re-measurement was done and his statement was also recorded, whereinhe has admitted that his possession over respondent’s 20 Ares land inGat No. 18 was wrongly shown and that he has no concern with saidland. He has further fairly conceded that in Gat No. 20, he and hisbrother jointly owned only 26 Guntha land, out of which he got 14Guntha and other 12 Are land. Therefore with such admissions, it isnot open to assert claim over further 20 Are land from Gat No. 18. FA-2729-2021-9- 12.Perused the impugned order. The learned trial court hascorrectly appreciated the respective cases advanced by each of thesides and by examining the documentary evidence, more particularlypanchanama of re-inquiry by TILR in presence of both parties andtheir statements being recorded reflecting candid admission, theconclusion drawn by trial court holding Kashinath to be rightfulowner of 20 Are land out of Gat No. 18 and thus entitled forcompensation for acquisition of the same, cannot be faulted at.Hence, the following order :ORDERI.The First Appeal is hereby dismissed.II.The pending Civil Application also stands disposed off. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre