Bombay High Court
State Of Mah.Thr.Collector,Yeotmal & ... vs Mahadeo Sheshrao Patre(Lrs)Ganesh & 5 ... on 16 August, 2018
Author: V.M. Deshpande
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment
fa37.04 44
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.37 OF 2004
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yeotmal.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Road Project, Z.P. Yeotmal. ..... Appellants.
:: VERSUS ::
Mahadeo Sheshrao Patre,
Age about 58 years, Agriculturist,
R/o Malmahsola, Post Arjuna,
Taluka and District Yeotmal.
(His LRs are as under)
1. Ganesh Mahadao Patre,
Aged about 29 years.
2. Bhaskar Mahadao Patre,
Aged about 25 years.
3. Sau. Sunanda w/o Arun Barde,
Aged about 31 years.
Nos.1 to 3 R/o Mal-Masola,
Post Arjuna.
4. Sau. Sunita w/o Shankar Bhagat,
Aged about 23 years, R/o Digras, Taluka Digras,
District Yeotmal.
5. Smt. Sindhubai wd/o Mahadao Patre,
Aged about 50 years.
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 01:27:24 :::
Judgment
fa37.04 44
2
6. Smt. Anusuya wd/o Sheshrao Patre (Dead)
Age about 85 years.
Nos.5 and 6 R/o Mal-Mahsola,
Post Arjuna, District Yeotmal.
LRs of respondent No.6 is given as under
i. Kouslayabai Ramrao Mangulkar, Aged about 65 years
(Daughter), r/o Galwha, Taluka Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal.
ii. Leelabai Raghunath Barde, aged about 63 years
(Daughter), R/o Madghasola, Post Arjuna,
Taluka and District Yavatmal.
Appln. Abated iii. Kamlabai Shamrao Bhagat, Aged about 60 years
against R-6(iii) vide
Registrar's order
(Daughter), R/o Gandhi Nagar, Digras, Taluka Digras,
dt.3.4.12. District Yavatmal.
iv. Sulochanabai Kisanrao Dhotre, aged about 58 years,
(Daughter), R/o Kalgaon, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal.
v. Sindhubai Mahadeo Patre, aged about 59 years
(Daughter in law),
(a) Ganesh Mahadeo Patre, aged about 37 years (Grandson),
(b) Bhaskar Mahadeo Patre, aged about 35 years (Grandson),
(c) Sunanda Arun Barde, aged about 32 years
(Grand Daughter).
All resident of Madghasola, Post Arjuna, Taluka and District
Yavatmal.
(d) Sunita Shankar Bhagat, aged about 30 years
(Grand Daughter),
R/o Gandhi Nagar, Digras, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal.
LRs of respondent No.6(iii) Kamlabai Shyamrao Bhagat (Dead) are
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 01:27:24 :::
Judgment
fa37.04 44
3
as under:
1. Vijay Shyam Bhagat, aged about 44 years (Son)
R/o Gandhi Nagar, Digras, District Yavatmal.
2. Shankar Shyam Bhagat, aged about 39 years (Son)
FA is dismissed
R/o Gandhi Nagar, Digras, District Yavatmal.
against L.R. Nos.1 to 4
of R.No.6(iii) 3. Rajendra Shyam Bhagat, aged about 34 years (Son)
vide Registrar's
Order dt. 15.1.13. R/o 161, Hazaripahad, Near Swami Vivekanand Hall,
Nagpur.
4. Smt. Vandana Jayantrao Dahapute, aged about 32 years,
(Daughter), R/o Shikshak Colony, Aditya Nagar,
Darwha, District Yavatmal. ..... Respondents.
========================================================
Shri M.A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for the
Appellants/State.
Shri S.U. Nemade, Counsel for the Respondents/Claimants.
========================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : AUGUST 16, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By the present appeal, the appellants/State challenges judgment and decree dated 16.11.1998 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal in LAC No.28/1995 whereby learned Judge of the Reference Court partly allowed the reference filed on behalf of the respondents/claimants.
2. Compulsory acquisition was done by the appellants/State in .....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 01:27:24 ::: Judgment fa37.04 44 4 respect of an agricultural land owned by the respondents/claimants bearing survey No.18/2 situated at mouja Mahsola, tahsil and district Yavatmal. Out of the said total holding, 2H 29R land was compulsorily acquired by the appellants/State for Mahsola Percolation Tank. Section 4 Notification was issued on 5.11.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 22.4.1992 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.8100/- per hectare. The land holders were dissatisfied with the said compensation and, therefore, reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was preferred. The said was contested. The land holders entered into the witness box to prove the case. Nobody entered into the witness box on behalf of the appellants/State. Learned Judge of the Reference Court, after appreciating evidence, documents, and pleadings found that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded inadequate compensation and, therefore, he partly allowed the reference and granted compensation at rate of Rs.15000/- per hectare. At the same time, he also granted compensation for 68 teak trees to the tune of Rs.12200/-.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri M.A. Kadu for the appellants/State vehemently submitted that learned Judge of the Reference court ought not to have enhanced the compensation. He .....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 01:27:24 ::: Judgment fa37.04 44 5 submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer was right in determining the amount of compensation on the basis of material available before him. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Shri S.U. Nemade for the respondents/claimants submitted that the judgment and decree passed by learned Judge of the Reference Court is just and proper. He also submitted that even first appeal bearing No.429/1999 was also preferred by the respondents/claimants for enhancement before this Court. However, the said was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, he submitted that he has instructions to make a statement before this Court that the respondents/claimants are not interested in claiming more compensation than the compensation awarded in their favour by learned Judge of the Reference Court.
The statement made by learned counsel Shri S.U. Nemade is hereby accepted.
5. Having heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri M.A. Kadu for the appellants/State and learned counsel Shri S.U. Nemade for the respondents/claimants, following points arise for my determination :
.....6/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 01:27:24 ::: Judgment fa37.04 44 6
(i) whether the compensation as awarded by learned Judge of the Reference Court is just and proper? (ii) what order?
6. While granting the enhanced compensation, learned Judge of the Reference Court adopted method of income capitalization. He supplemented reasons as to why other method, regarding comparison of sale instance, cannot be accepted in the case and rightly, in my view, turned down the claim of the respondents/claimants for enhanced compensation on the basis of Exhibits 35 and 36, the sale instances from other villages.
7. The respondents/claimants filed 7/12 extracts (Exhibits 29, 30, and 41) which show that the land holders were taking crops like Jawar and Tur etc.. There is unchallenged evidence of the land holders that the acquired land is situated on the bank of big stream having perennial water source meaning thereby that the land is an irrigated land. No doubt true that yearly income of Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- from the agricultural field was not accepted by learned Judge of the Reference Court since the said was only on the basis of memory of the land holders but at the same time, in my view, the Court below correctly recorded finding that there cannot be .....7/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 01:27:24 ::: Judgment fa37.04 44 7 income of Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per acre. The crops statement shows that the land holders were growing various crops. The said determination to the extent of Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per acre cannot be termed on the excessive side. The Court below rightly applied multiplier of 15 and granted the compensation.
8. Exhibit 42 is a letter issued by the Tahsildar to the Divisional Forests Officer wherein it was found about 36 teak trees and other trees and the Forest Officer was requested to cut down the said trees. No compensation was granted in that behalf by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the compensation granted in that behalf by learned Judge of the Reference Court is also just and proper.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in interfering the judgment and decree passed by learned Judge of the Reference Court. Consequently, the first appeal fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 01:27:24 :::