Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1554 (BOM)

Bayaji Tatya Kalunge v. State of Maharashtra

2006-09-27

V.G.MUNSHI

body2006
JUDGMENT:- First Appeal (No.264/1992) is directed by the appellant (original claimant) in Land Acquisition Reference No.95/1985, feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, on 30-6-1989, thereby enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmednagar. 2. The important facts of the petition may briefly be stated as under: The lands from Gat Nos.41212, 412/3, 412/4 were of the ownership of the appellant (claimant). These lands were acquired by the respondent-State, for the purposes of construction of Minor Irrigation Tank, in village Ratnapur. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, called "Act of 1894") was published on 24-91981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmednagar, followed the due procedure and passed the award under Section 11 of the Act on 13-6-1989 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,700/- to Rs.8,500/- per Hectare for Jirayat land and, at Rs.5,050/- to Rs.12,750/ - per Hectare, in respect of Bagayat land. The appellant (claimant) felt aggrieved by the said order and, therefore, made reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 to the Civil Court, Ahmednagar. The learned Judge of the Reference Court decided this reference and awarded compensation of Rs.13,000/- per Hectare, in case of Jirayat land and, Rs.19,500/ - per Hectare in case of Bagayat land and thus, allowed the Reference. 3. Even then, the appellant (claimant) felt himself aggrieved by the said order passed by the Reference Court and preferred appeal mainly on the grounds that, firstly, the learned Judge of the Reference Court did not properly consider oral and documentary evidence adduced on record and, arrived at wrong conclusion. Secondly, the learned Judge was wrong in not accepting the award passed by the Reference Court earlier in Land Acquisition Reference No.10l/1985. Thirdly, the order passed by the learned Judge is not only contrary to the principles of law but, against the facts and circumstances brought on record. 4. It was argued by Shri. Pallod, learned Counsel for the appellant and, grounds are also taken in the appeal memo that, the learned Judge of the Reference Court should have awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per Hectare in case of Bagayat land and, at the rate of Rs.17,500/- per Hectare in case of Jirayat land on the basis of the award passed by the Reference Court earlier in Land Acquisition Reference No.101/1985. It was pointed out by Shri. Pallod, learned Counsel, the lands, which were acquired and, which were the subject matter of Land Acquisition Reference Nos.95/1985, 97/1985 and 101/1985, were acquired by the respondent State under the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, published on 24-9-1981. All these lands are situated in the same village and, all these lands were acquired for the same purpose. There cannot be any difference of opinion that all these lands are situated in same village, they were acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. In such circumstances, we have to accept the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel Shri. Pallod. Therefore, in respect of these lands, the rate of compensation should have been same in respect of Jirayat and Bagayat lands. It was further argued by the learned Counsel, the learned Judge of the Reference Court was, therefore, wrong in not relying on the award passed by the Reference Court earlier in Land Acquisition Reference No.101/1985. In other words, according to the learned Counsel, when such judgment was passed by a competent Court, it was not even necessary for the learned Judge to consider the sale instances, etc. and should have completely relied on such award and, in support of his contention, relied on the decision given by the Apex Court, reported in 2003 AIR SCW 5188 (Bhim Singh and others, etc.etc. V s. State of Haryana and another). In such circumstances, the learned Judge of the Reference Court was wrong in not relying on the award passed by the Reference Court earlier in L.A.R. No.101/1985. 5. In this group matter, one appeal came to be filed (First Appeal No.50/1993) against the order passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No.97/1985. This Court (Coram: D. S. Zoting, J.) held that, the claimants, in that appeal, were entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/ - per Hectare, in case of Bagayat land and, at the rate of Rs.17,500/- per Hectare in case of Jirayat land on the basis of the award passed by the Reference Court earlier in L.A.R. No. 101/1985. In the present case before us also, as all these lands are situated in the same village and, were acquired for the same purpose, under the same notification, the appellants (claimants) are entitled to compensation at same rate, as it was awarded in L.A.R. No. 101/1985, on the ground of parity. Learned Judge was wrong in not awarding compensation to the appellants (claimants), at this rate. Therefore, it is necessary to interfere with the findings and the order recorded by the learned Judge. In the result, the appeal must partly succeed. First Appeal No.264/1992 is partly allowed, the judgment and order passed by the second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar on 30-6-1989, in L.A.R. No.95/1985 is modified, now, the respondent State do pay compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per Hectare, in case of Bagayat land and, at the rate of Rs.17,500/- per Hectare, in case of Jirayat land, along with all the statutory benefits, which are available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appeal is partly allowed accordingly. In appeal, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.