Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 443 (BOM)

VITTHAL LAKADAJI GAWANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2010-03-19

F.M.REIS

body2010
JUDGMENT :- This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 19-9-1992 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pus ad in L.A.C. No. 25/1992 whereby the compensation for the land acquired of the appellant was determined at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per hector. 2. A portion of the land of the appellant admeasuring an area 1.87 H.R. was acquired pursuant to the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was published on 28th June 1985. The said land was located in the Property Survey No. 3/4 of village Bori which was acquired for submergence of Arunawati Project. After the forn1alities under the Land Acquisition Act were complied with an award was passed by the respondent No.3 dated 8-2-1988 whereby the compensation was fixed to Rs. 12,500/- per hector. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellants preferred a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per hector, claiming it is an irrigated land. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pusad after framing the issues and recording the evidence, partly allowed the reference and awarded the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 25,500/- per hector besides statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 19th September 1992 passed by the Reference Court, the appellants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,500/- per hector. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Reference Court was not justified to award the compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per hector when there was ample evidence on record before the Reference Court to held that the market value of the land as on the date of section 4 notification was Rs. 37,500/-per hector. He further submitted that in support of their claim the appellants have adduced evidence by producing a sale deed of the field of Deorao Gawande situated at Mokh whereby an area of 4 acres and 30 gunthas were sold for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- in the year 1977 by a registered sale deed. He further submitted that the land which was subject-matter of the sale deed was also dry crop land as is the case of land acquired as held by the Reference Court in the present case. 40,000/- in the year 1977 by a registered sale deed. He further submitted that the land which was subject-matter of the sale deed was also dry crop land as is the case of land acquired as held by the Reference Court in the present case. He further submitted that the respondents have failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was fair and just as on the date of section 4 notification. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court in First Appeal No. 135/1993 has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 37,500/- for the acquired land. He further submitted that the notification in the present case as well as the notification in the said case which were subject matter of First Appeal No. 135/1993 was the same. 4. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents has supported the judgment passed by the Reference Court and submitted that there is no justification for interference by this Court in the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. She further submitted that the Reference Court after minutely examining the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the market value as on the date of section 4 notification was Rs. 25,000/- per hector. However, the learned A.G.P. did not dispute after perusing the records that in fact the notification under section 4 of the Act in the present case and in the First Appeal No. 135/1993 was the same. She further did not dispute that nature of the land in the present case as well as in the said case was same being dry-crop land and similar in nature. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents the following points arise for determination- Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per hector? 6. On perusal of record, I find that the Reference Court after examining the evidence adduced by the appellants came to the conclusion that the market value of the land acquired as on the date of section 4 notification was Rs. 25,000/- per hector. The Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the land which was the subject-matter of the present appeal bearing Survey No. 3/4 was dry crop land and not irrigated land as claimed by the appellant. 25,000/- per hector. The Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the land which was the subject-matter of the present appeal bearing Survey No. 3/4 was dry crop land and not irrigated land as claimed by the appellant. The Reference Court after relying upon the awards in other cases, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per hector. 7. This Court in First Appeal No. 135/1993 on the basis of the judgment passed by this Court dated 13th February 2009 in First Appeal No. 93/1994 has fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per hector for dry crop land being just and proper. There is no dispute that the land acquired in the present case and the land which was the subject-matter of First Appeal No. 135/1993 is similar in nature both being dry crop lands. There is no dispute that both the lands were notified under the same notification and for the same project. It is now well settled legal position that awards relating to the same project and . nature being the same, the quality and potentiality of the land of such awards offer a comparable base for determining the compensation. In absence of any tangible material brought on record, to show any differentiation between the quality of land in the present case and the quality of land in First Appeal No. 135/1993, there is no justification for awarding any compensation to the appellant which is less than the one awarded by this Court in the First Appeal No. 135/1993. The land value having been fixed by this Court in First Appeal No. 135/1993 at the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per hector, there is no reason not to adopt the same value of the land which is acquired in the present appeal. In 2010(2) MhLJ (SC) 162 = 2009 (9) SCC 289 in the case of Attar Singh and another vs. Union of India and another the Apex Court has held at para 17 as under- "17. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of The High Court based its decision on its earlier common judgment arising out of the same notification. The lead judgment was delivered in Jia Ram v. Union of India. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of The High Court based its decision on its earlier common judgment arising out of the same notification. The lead judgment was delivered in Jia Ram v. Union of India. We have not been informed whether any appeal has been preferred against that judgment and if so, what was the result thereof In the absence of that information, we are of the opinion that the appellants should not be treated differently from Jia Ram who might not have preferred any appeal and have accepted the judgment of the High Court". As such considering the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per hector for the land acquired. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 19th September 1992 is modified by fixing the compensation payable to the appellant to Rs. 37,500/-per hector for the land acquired. Needless to say that the appellants are entitled for statutory benefits in accordance with law. There shall be no orders as to costs. Decree be drawn accordingly. Appeal allowed.