Bombay High Court
Muneshwar Pandharinath @ Babanrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 20 June, 2019
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
FA 788/08 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 788/2008
Muneshwar Pandharinath @ Babanrao Jawade,
Occ. Cultivator, R/o Karanja Chowk,
Tah. Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
2. The Collector, Yavatmal,
(Exercising Power under Land
Acquisition Act).
3. Sub Divisional Officer and Land
Acquisition Officer of Kelapur at
Pandharkawada (Acquiring Officer). RESPONDENTS
Shri Omkar R. Deshpande, Advocate holding for Shri A. Parchure, counsel for
appellant.
Shri A.M. Balpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 takes exception to the judgment of the Reference Court dated 24.10.2005 in L.A.C. No. 71 of 2002 whereby the reference filed by the appellant herein has been partly allowed enhancing the amount of compensation. The appellant seeks further enhancement in the amount of compensation.
::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:56:02 :::
FA 788/08 2 Judgment
2. It is the case of the appellant that he is the owner of land admeasuring 1 Hectare 39 R from Gat Number 46/2 situated at Mouza Parsoda. The land was acquired for extension of Gaothan. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 27.02.1992. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 13.08.1993 wherein he has granted an amount of Rs.9,000/- per Hectare. Rs.10,410/- was granted for the Well and compensation was also awarded for two mango trees and one tamarind tree. The appellant sought enhancement in the amount of compensation. The Reference Court after considering the evidence on record was pleased to enhance the amount of compensation for the acquired land to Rs.65,000/- per Hectare. For damages of the land that remained with the claimant, Rs.3,000/- was awarded. Compensation of Rs.17,000/- for the Well came to be granted and an amount of Rs.14,000/- for the trees was awarded. As the claimant is not satisfied with the aforesaid enhancement, the present appeal has been filed.
3. Shri Omkar R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was substantial evidence on record to support the prayer for further enhancing the amount of compensation. According to him, the land was acquired for extension of Gaothan which indicated that it had good non-agricultural potentiality. It was on account of its location that the said land came to be acquired. The sale instances placed on record at Exhibit 43 was required to be taken into consideration. He ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:56:02 ::: FA 788/08 3 Judgment submitted that the remaining land admeasuring 18R that was left after acquiring land admeasuring 1 Hectare 21 R was of no use for cultivation and therefore the claimant was entitled to a higher amount of damages than Rs.3,000/- as granted. He urged that a valuer had submitted his report and the amount awarded for the Well also deserves enhancement. The compensation granted for the fruit bearing trees was also on a lower side and the fact that there existed a Well in the acquired land indicated that the land was irrigated. Placing reliance on the decisions in Government Versus The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [AIR 1942 Bombay 105], Shalini Vaman Godbole Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Special Unit, Solapur & Others [2009(5) Mh.L.J. 884] and Dr. Caetano Jose Filomeno Jacinto De Loiola Pereira Versus Deputy Collector, South, Sub-Division & Others [2005(1) All MR 797], it was submitted that the appellant was entitled for higher compensation even with regard to the remaining land. Thus, it was submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation.
4. Shri A.M. Balpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents supported the impugned order. According to him, the Reference Court had taken into consideration the entire evidence on record while awarding compensation. The sale instance sought to be relied upon by the claimant was not a comparative sale instance and the ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:56:02 ::: FA 788/08 4 Judgment claimant was not entitled to further enhancement on the basis of that sale-deed. The compensation awarded for the Well and the fruit bearing trees was reasonable not requiring any further enhancement. The amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded for the acquired land did not deserve any further amount especially as the claimant continued to be a owner of that land. Hence, according to him, no interference with the impugned judgment was called for.
5. The following point arises for adjudication:-
"Whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced
compensation?"
6. Heard the learned counsel and perused the records of the case. Insofar as the compensation for the value of the acquired land is concerned, the claimant has examined himself at Exhibit 36. He has stated that there were no sale transactions in respect of plots from village Parsoda from where the land was acquired. He relied upon a sale instance of village Chahand dated 28.01.1992 at Exhibit 43. He stated that said village was at a short distance from the acquired land. The Reference Court has observed that the said sale instance was not a comparable sale instance in view of the fact that the transaction therein was with regard to 128 square meters of land. The acquired land was agricultural land and there was no application made for having it ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:56:02 ::: FA 788/08 5 Judgment converted for non-agricultural use. In absence of any such other evidence, a finding was recorded that the sale transaction was not comparable. After considering the said evidence, it is found that the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court does not deserve to be interfered with. Except that sale transaction there is no other sale transaction on the basis of which the compensation can be enhanced.
7. The Reference Court has taken into consideration the income capitalization method and in the light of the crops sown has determined the market value at Rs.56,810/- in the light of the location of the acquired land that figure has been enhanced to RS.65,000/- per Hectare. It is found that all the material placed on record has been taken into consideration while determining that amount. It is thus clear that the rate of Rs.65,000/- per Hectare is reasonable not warranting any further enhancement.
8. As regards compensation for the trees, reference is made to Exhibit 37 indicating presence of two Mango trees, one Gauva tree and ten Sitaphal trees. Compensation for those trees has been accordingly awarded and those amounts are also found to be reasonable. Similarly, for the Well in question, an amount of Rs.17,000/- has been granted and that compensation is also reasonable in the light of the evidence brought on record by the claimant.
::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:56:02 :::
FA 788/08 6 Judgment
9. Insofar as land admeasuring 18 R is concerned, the same has been left after acquiring land admeasuring 1 Hectare 21 R. The Reference Court has granted sum of Rs.3,000/- as damages for the same. It has come on record that portion of that land now stands encroached. After considering the observations in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant and keeping in mind the amount of compensation granted for the acquired land coupled with its purpose which is extension of Gaothan, the amount of damages as awarded can be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- for said 18 R land. Hence, instead of Rs.3,000/- being granted as damages towards severance, same would be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The point as framed is answered accordingly.
10. As a result, the judgment in L.A.C. No.71 of 2002 is partly modified. For 18 R land, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.10,000/- as damages. Rest of the award stands confirmed. The First Appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.
(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 11:56:02 :::