Bombay High Court
V.I.D.C. Through Its Exe. ... vs Sahebrao Narayanrao Sote & 2 Ors on 28 July, 2017
fa J 460-06.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.460 OF 2006
Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,
Upper Wardha Canal Division No.2,
Now Upper Wardha Canal
Division No.1,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Sahebrao Narayanrao Sote
Aged about 65 years
R/o Dharwada, Post. Anjansingi,
Tah. Tiosa, District-Amravati
2] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Amravati
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
No.4, Upper Wardha Project,
Amravati, having its office
at Collectorate camp- Amravati .....RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B. T. Patil, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
none for respondent No.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 00:07:01 :::
fa J 460-06.doc
2
CORAM : SMT. DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 28 th
JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the acquiring body, challenging the judgment and award dated 22.4.2002 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No. 30-A/1996. 2] Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:-
By virtue of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and published on 14.10.1991, land admeasuring 56 R out of lands from survey Nos. 7/2 and 7/5 situated at Shidwadi, Tah. Diwasa came to be acquired for the Upper Wardha Project for construction of the canal. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), vide his award dated 8.7.1994, fixed the market rate of acquired land at Rs.19,000/- per Hectare and granted compensation of Rs.10,640/- to respondent No.1.
3] Being not satisfied with the meager amount of compensation awarded by the SLAO, respondent No.1 approached the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4] In support of his petition, respondent No.1 examined himself and two more witnesses by name Sahebrao Sote and Vijay Bhure, who ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 00:07:01 ::: fa J 460-06.doc 3 were the adjoining owners of the acquired land. As against it, on behalf of Appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer- Shri. Khan Mujib was examined.
5] On appreciation of this oral and other documentary evidence relied upon by respondent No.1, the learned Reference Court was pleased to grant additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent no.1 by its impugned judgment and order. 6] While challenging this judgment and order of the Reference Court, submission of learned counsel for appellant is that the Reference Court has without giving any reason or without appreciating even the evidence led on record by the parties, in one paragraph itself disposed of the matter and awarded of additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, according to learned counsel for appellant, the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is without having any basis in evidence and without giving justification for the same. It is also exorbitant one, as it awards the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,91,000/- per Hectare, whereas SLAO has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per hectare and thus, there is multifold enhancement awarded by the Reference Court. Hence it is his submission that the impugned judgment of the Reference Court needs to ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 00:07:01 ::: fa J 460-06.doc 4 be quashed and set aside by allowing this appeal. 7] I have heard learned counsel for appellant. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has supported the submissions advanced by learned counsel for Appellant. Respondent No.1 remained absent, though duly served with notice. 8] Hence, the only point which arises for my determination in this appeal is whether the Reference Court was justified in granting the additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent No.1 and whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is exorbitant, excessive and needs to be modified? 9] In this case, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for appellant, the Reference Court has not at all discussed the evidence produced on record by the parties nor assigned any reason for granting such enhancement in the amount of compensation, awarded by the SLAO. Therefore, this court now has to do the job of Reference Court, of assessing the evidence on record and to find out whether the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is justified. 10] In this case, admittedly, the respondent no.1 has not only led his evidence but also led the evidence of two adjacent occupants. The evidence of respondent No.1 clearly goes to prove that his whole land ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 00:07:01 ::: fa J 460-06.doc 5 was irrigated, having facility of well water. It was irrigated through out the year as there was surplus irrigation. His evidence further goes to show that he was taking crops like Tur, Jawar, Chilly etc. He has stated the income which he was getting from cotton as Rs.1,000/-, Tur Rs.3,000/- Chilly R.10,000/- and Jawar Rs.2,500/- He has placed on record receipts of the sale of cotton at Exh.33 to Exh.35 at Dhamangaon Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti. He has also produced on record the Green Cards at Exh.40, Exh.30, Exh. 38 and Exh.39. His evidence is also supported with the relevant entries of the crops in the 7/12 extracts produced on record at Exh.41 and Exh.42. He has further produced on record the certificate of Talathi to that effect at Exh.43. According to his evidence he was getting total income of Rs.27,000/- to Rs.28,000/-per year per acre. He was required to spend Rs.12,000/- to Rs.12,500/-as expenditure and thus after deducting the expenses, he was getting net income of Rs.15,000/- per year per acre. It is his evidence that if he has deposited Rs.1,50,000/- in the bank, he could have got Rs.15,000/- as interest and therefore, he has demanded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.
11] This evidence of respondent No.1 is supported from the evidence of the adjacent occupant Chhatrapati Sote who has also deposed that respondent No.1 is having well since last 30 years in his ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 00:07:01 ::: fa J 460-06.doc 6 acquired land and he has also cultivated some orange trees. According to him, his land is also irrigated and he gets Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- p.a. and, therefore, respondent No.1 is also getting income in the same range. In his cross-examination he has stated that at the time of acquisition of land, there were no orange trees on the land actually acquired.
12] Further there is evidence of Vijay Bhure, who is having his field in between two fields of respondent No.1 and he has also deposed about the quality of the land of respondent No.1, and about the fact that respondent No.1 was taking the various crops like cotton, tur, jawar and earning the income therefrom.
13] Thus, there is sufficient evidence produced on record by respondent No.1 to prove that his land was irrigated one and he was earning the income of Rs.15,000/- per acre per year. As respondent No.1 is relying upon the capitalization income method, no sale instances are relied upon by respondent No.1 to prove the market rate of acquired land.
14] Though the SLAO, Khan Mujib has deposed that he considered the sale instance of survey No. 18/1 dated 11.2.1992, he has admitted that the said land was at a long distance from the acquired land. Therefore, he has taken into consideration the sale instance of ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 00:07:01 ::: fa J 460-06.doc 7 survey No. 4/4 and fixed the market price at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per hectare.
15] However, in my considered opinion, having regard to the evidence produced on record by respondent No.1 of the income which he was receiving from acquired land, it is necessary to apply the capitalization income method for assessing the market value of the acquired land. His income from the total land in his possession is thus needs to be considered as Rs.15,000/- per acre per annum. It also needs to be kept in mind that the area admeasuring 55R only out of the said land was acquired. However, as a result of acquisition of that area, his land now stands divided into four parts, as deposed by him. Therefore, there are incidental and consequential damages which are required to be taken into consideration in granting the amount of compensation. In my considered opinion, taking his income as Rs.15,000/- per acre per year and applying the multiplier of '8', the just, fair and reasonable amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare. Thus, respondent No.1 becomes entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare.
16] As a result, the instant appeal needs to be allowed and is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 00:07:01 :::
fa J 460-06.doc 8 17] The impugned judgment and order passed by Reference Court is set aside.
18] Respondent no.1 is entitled to get compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare along with all statutory benefits.
19] Appellant is entitled to withdraw the excess amount of compensation deposited in the Court.
JUDGE RGIngole ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 00:07:01 :::