Full Judgment Text
1 jfa74of06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2006
Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through Executive Engineer,
Medium project Division, Pusad,
Dist. Dist. Yavatmal ... APPELLANT
….. VERSUS …..
1 Jayant Umakant Karideo,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ. Agriculturust,
R/o. Darwha,
Tq. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal
2 The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Yavatmal,
3 The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal ... RESPONDENTS
======================
Mr.Amit Chutke, AGP for Appellant
Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No. 1
======================
CORAM :DR.SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKARJOSHI, J.
DATE : JULY 3, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
2 jfa74of06.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 The judgment and decree dated 2.4.2005 passed by
Civil Judge Senior Division, Darwha in L.A.C. No. 1268 of
2004 is the subject matter of this appeal. By the said
judgment and decree, the Reference Court has awarded
enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,28,000/ to the respondent
claimant. Being aggrieved by this enhancement awarded
by the Reference Court, this appeal is preferred by the
acquiring body – Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation.
2 Brief facts of the case can be stated as follows:
The land belonging to the respondent no.1, bearing
Gut No. 155, admeasuring 3H situate at village
Kumbharkinhi came to be acquired by the Government for
Kumbharkinhi dam, in pursuance of the notification issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per
the Award declared by LAO on 30.6.1999, the amount of
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
3 jfa74of06.odt
compensation granted to respondent no. 1 was @
Rs.28,000/ per hector. No separate compensation was
awarded towards trees standing in the said land.
3 Being aggrieved by the meager amount of
compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer,
respondent no.1 approached the Reference Court u/s 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act contending interalia that his land
was fertile and having high crop yielding potentiality; he
was fetching income of Rs. 20,000/ per hector; despite
that LAO has recorded compensation at a very low rate
ignoring the sale instances of similar lands situate in
adjacent villages. It was further submitted that his land was
situated on Darwha to Kurhad road and nearer to the
residential area of village Kumbharkinhi. The facilities of
electricity, water supply, school, Gram Panchayat etc were
available in that area which has resulted in rising the prices
of the lands. LAO has not considered these factors and
awarded the compensation at highly inadequate rate.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
4 jfa74of06.odt
4 It was further submitted that there were four mango
trees which were about 25 years old and fetching income of
Rs. 1,000/ per year per tree. There were also 48 ber trees
fetching the income of Rs. 400/ per year per tree. It was
urged that LAO has awarded compensation for the trees
also at very low rate and hence, compensation @ Rs.
2000/ per tree be awarded.
5 Respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein resisted the said
reference vide written statement at exh. 10, denying
fertility and income fetching potentiality of the acquired
land. It was submitted that LAO has considered all the
important factors and awarded compensation at proper rate
prevailing at the time of notification and therefore, no
interference is warranted in the award passed by LAO.
6 The present Appellant by filing separate written
statement at exh. 19 adopted the same contentions which
were raised by respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein. It was
submitted that LAO has given proper opportunity to the
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
5 jfa74of06.odt
claimant to establish his claim and after considering all the
submissions and the material produced before it, awarded
just amount of compensation, therefore, reference has no
merits.
7 On these respective pleadings of the parties, the
Reference Court framed necessary issues for its
consideration. In support of his claim, the cliamant has
examined himself and three more witnesses namely, the
valuer Vishnu Shakar Paradkar and Namdeo Dive to prove
the sale instances. All these witnesses were cross examined
on behalf of the appellant and other respondents. Now
even they have not preferred to lead any documentary
evidence.
8 In the light of this evidence on record, the Reference
court considered the sale instances and also the report of
valuer and fixed market value of the land @ Rs. 90,000/
per hector and the value of mango tree @ Rs. 9000/
whereas of berry trees @ Rs. 1000/ per tree.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
6 jfa74of06.odt
9 While challenging the impugned judgment and
award of the learned Reference Court, the submission of
learned counsel for the appellant is that the Reference
Court has not considered the sale instances of the lands
having similar potentiality or the similar quality. It is urged
that the Reference Court ought to have considered that the
lands covered under the sale instances of Ehx. 30 and 31
were situate away, at the far distance of 5 to 6 kilometer
from the acquired land whereas sale instance at Exh. 32
was not of the same village. It is urged that Reference
Court has given undue importance to the evidence of expert
valuer and relying solely on his testimony, has enhanced
the valuation of the trees and hence, the said valuation is
not justified, therefore, needs to be interfered with.
10 The perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court
and the evidence adduced before it, reveals that the
Reference Court has considered all the sale instances, the
certified copies of which were produced before it. It has
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
7 jfa74of06.odt
considered that the sale instance produced at exh. 28
which was pertaining to the land situated in the same
village. Under the said sale instance, Shri Vilas Kale had
purchased the land @ Rs. 45,000/ per acre on 8.12.1994.
It was also noticed by the Reference Court that the said
land was only at the distance of ½ kilometer from the
acquired land and quality of both the lands was more or
less similar. The reference Court has mainly relied on this
sale instance.
11 No doubt, Reference Court has also taken into
consideration the other sale instances, one of them pertains
to the land situate at village Mankinhi which was only at
the distance of 1 kilometer from the acquired land and
under the said sale instance exh. 29 also the land at village
Kankhini was sold for consideration of Rs. 40,000/ per
acre on 6.12.1994. The Reference Court has in this respect
also considered evidence on record showing that both the
lands were of the similar quality.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
8 jfa74of06.odt
12 Then, Reference Court has considered the sale
instance of village Mahuli exh. 30. Under the said sale
instance one Shri Premkuwar Kothar has purchased land on
30.3.1998 @ Rs. 1,23,000/ per hector. The Reference
Court found that the distance between village Mahuli and
Kumbharkinhi was about 3 to 4 kilometer. Further,
Reference Court considered one more sale instance of
Darwha which was for consideration of Rs. 1,06,600/ per
hector vide saledeed executed on 22.5.1995. The said land
was at the distance of 7 to 8 kilometer from the acquired
land.
13 Reference Court has also relied upon certified copy of
the judgment in another Land Reference Case produced at
Ehx. 34, in respect of the land situated in the same village
Kumbharkinhi and acquired for the same project of
Kumbharkinhi dam. It was land of Smt. Undaribai Rathod
for which the learned court has awarded compensation at
the rate of Rs. 90,000/ per hector. The Reference Court
found that the said land was having similar potentiality.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
9 jfa74of06.odt
14 In para no. 19 of judgment learned Reference Court
has considered the submissions advanced before it and
found that though the sale instances produced at Exhs. 29
to 31 where of the lands situate in different villages but
they was adjacent to the land acquired and except for sale
instance ehx. 28, no other sale instance were available from
the same village Kumbharkinhi. The learned Reference
Court has also considered that these sale instances were
prior to the date of notification within the range of 1 to 4
years and the lands covered under the said instances are
more or less same quality and adjacent to the acquired
land.
15 The learned Reference Court also considered the
evidence of the expert Shri Paradkar who has stated that
having regard to the quality, fertility and location the land
of the claimant and also having regard to the sale instances
of the adjacant lands, the market value of the acquired land
can be in the range of Rs. 1 lac per hector.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
10 jfa74of06.odt
16 After considering the detailed reasoning given by the
learned Reference Court and also the grounds which it has
taken into consideration incluidng the sale instance of even
adjacent land, no fault can be found in the impugned
judgment and order of the learned Reference fixing the
market value of the respondent's land @ Rs. 90,000/ per
hector. Even for the sake of argument only, the sale
instance of the same village in which acquired land is
situated that of Kumbharkinhi is taken into consideration
which is at Exh. 28, it can be seen that in the year 1994, the
land in the same village was sold for Rs. 1,12,500/ per
hector. The notification us/ 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
was issued in this case in the year 1996 and therefore, even
if said sale instance and the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court for the land acquired for the same purpose
and from the same village is considered, which was Rs.
90,000/ per hector, then the Reference Court has rightly
held that in respect of the acquired land of claimant also,
the same rate of compensation needs to be awarded.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
11 jfa74of06.odt
Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court to the acquired land @ Rs. 90,000/ per hector being
just, reasonable, fair and adequate, no interference is
warranted therein in this appeal.
17 Even as regards the compensation for the mango and
berry trees, the Reference Court has considered the
evidence of the claimant, that those mango trees were of 25
year old and each tree was giving income of Rs. 1000/ per
year. Having regard, thereafter to the evidence of the
Expert Shri Karadkar, the Reference Court has fixed
compensation for four mango trees @ Rs. 9000/ per tree
and for 22 berry tree Rs. 1000/ per tree. Thus, after
properly considering the evidence adduced on record as the
Reference Court has fixed market value of the mango and
berry trees, no interference is warranted in the finding of
the Reference Court in that aspect also. The total amount
of compensation awarded by the Reference Court to the
claimant @ Rs 3,28,000/ as enhanced compensation, being
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
12 jfa74of06.odt
thus just and correct, the appeal holds no merits, hence,
stands dismissed.
JUDGE
belkhede, PA
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2006
Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through Executive Engineer,
Medium project Division, Pusad,
Dist. Dist. Yavatmal ... APPELLANT
….. VERSUS …..
1 Jayant Umakant Karideo,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ. Agriculturust,
R/o. Darwha,
Tq. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal
2 The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Yavatmal,
3 The Executive Engineer,
Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal ... RESPONDENTS
======================
Mr.Amit Chutke, AGP for Appellant
Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No. 1
======================
CORAM :DR.SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKARJOSHI, J.
DATE : JULY 3, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
2 jfa74of06.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 The judgment and decree dated 2.4.2005 passed by
Civil Judge Senior Division, Darwha in L.A.C. No. 1268 of
2004 is the subject matter of this appeal. By the said
judgment and decree, the Reference Court has awarded
enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,28,000/ to the respondent
claimant. Being aggrieved by this enhancement awarded
by the Reference Court, this appeal is preferred by the
acquiring body – Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation.
2 Brief facts of the case can be stated as follows:
The land belonging to the respondent no.1, bearing
Gut No. 155, admeasuring 3H situate at village
Kumbharkinhi came to be acquired by the Government for
Kumbharkinhi dam, in pursuance of the notification issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per
the Award declared by LAO on 30.6.1999, the amount of
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
3 jfa74of06.odt
compensation granted to respondent no. 1 was @
Rs.28,000/ per hector. No separate compensation was
awarded towards trees standing in the said land.
3 Being aggrieved by the meager amount of
compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer,
respondent no.1 approached the Reference Court u/s 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act contending interalia that his land
was fertile and having high crop yielding potentiality; he
was fetching income of Rs. 20,000/ per hector; despite
that LAO has recorded compensation at a very low rate
ignoring the sale instances of similar lands situate in
adjacent villages. It was further submitted that his land was
situated on Darwha to Kurhad road and nearer to the
residential area of village Kumbharkinhi. The facilities of
electricity, water supply, school, Gram Panchayat etc were
available in that area which has resulted in rising the prices
of the lands. LAO has not considered these factors and
awarded the compensation at highly inadequate rate.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
4 jfa74of06.odt
4 It was further submitted that there were four mango
trees which were about 25 years old and fetching income of
Rs. 1,000/ per year per tree. There were also 48 ber trees
fetching the income of Rs. 400/ per year per tree. It was
urged that LAO has awarded compensation for the trees
also at very low rate and hence, compensation @ Rs.
2000/ per tree be awarded.
5 Respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein resisted the said
reference vide written statement at exh. 10, denying
fertility and income fetching potentiality of the acquired
land. It was submitted that LAO has considered all the
important factors and awarded compensation at proper rate
prevailing at the time of notification and therefore, no
interference is warranted in the award passed by LAO.
6 The present Appellant by filing separate written
statement at exh. 19 adopted the same contentions which
were raised by respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein. It was
submitted that LAO has given proper opportunity to the
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
5 jfa74of06.odt
claimant to establish his claim and after considering all the
submissions and the material produced before it, awarded
just amount of compensation, therefore, reference has no
merits.
7 On these respective pleadings of the parties, the
Reference Court framed necessary issues for its
consideration. In support of his claim, the cliamant has
examined himself and three more witnesses namely, the
valuer Vishnu Shakar Paradkar and Namdeo Dive to prove
the sale instances. All these witnesses were cross examined
on behalf of the appellant and other respondents. Now
even they have not preferred to lead any documentary
evidence.
8 In the light of this evidence on record, the Reference
court considered the sale instances and also the report of
valuer and fixed market value of the land @ Rs. 90,000/
per hector and the value of mango tree @ Rs. 9000/
whereas of berry trees @ Rs. 1000/ per tree.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
6 jfa74of06.odt
9 While challenging the impugned judgment and
award of the learned Reference Court, the submission of
learned counsel for the appellant is that the Reference
Court has not considered the sale instances of the lands
having similar potentiality or the similar quality. It is urged
that the Reference Court ought to have considered that the
lands covered under the sale instances of Ehx. 30 and 31
were situate away, at the far distance of 5 to 6 kilometer
from the acquired land whereas sale instance at Exh. 32
was not of the same village. It is urged that Reference
Court has given undue importance to the evidence of expert
valuer and relying solely on his testimony, has enhanced
the valuation of the trees and hence, the said valuation is
not justified, therefore, needs to be interfered with.
10 The perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court
and the evidence adduced before it, reveals that the
Reference Court has considered all the sale instances, the
certified copies of which were produced before it. It has
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
7 jfa74of06.odt
considered that the sale instance produced at exh. 28
which was pertaining to the land situated in the same
village. Under the said sale instance, Shri Vilas Kale had
purchased the land @ Rs. 45,000/ per acre on 8.12.1994.
It was also noticed by the Reference Court that the said
land was only at the distance of ½ kilometer from the
acquired land and quality of both the lands was more or
less similar. The reference Court has mainly relied on this
sale instance.
11 No doubt, Reference Court has also taken into
consideration the other sale instances, one of them pertains
to the land situate at village Mankinhi which was only at
the distance of 1 kilometer from the acquired land and
under the said sale instance exh. 29 also the land at village
Kankhini was sold for consideration of Rs. 40,000/ per
acre on 6.12.1994. The Reference Court has in this respect
also considered evidence on record showing that both the
lands were of the similar quality.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
8 jfa74of06.odt
12 Then, Reference Court has considered the sale
instance of village Mahuli exh. 30. Under the said sale
instance one Shri Premkuwar Kothar has purchased land on
30.3.1998 @ Rs. 1,23,000/ per hector. The Reference
Court found that the distance between village Mahuli and
Kumbharkinhi was about 3 to 4 kilometer. Further,
Reference Court considered one more sale instance of
Darwha which was for consideration of Rs. 1,06,600/ per
hector vide saledeed executed on 22.5.1995. The said land
was at the distance of 7 to 8 kilometer from the acquired
land.
13 Reference Court has also relied upon certified copy of
the judgment in another Land Reference Case produced at
Ehx. 34, in respect of the land situated in the same village
Kumbharkinhi and acquired for the same project of
Kumbharkinhi dam. It was land of Smt. Undaribai Rathod
for which the learned court has awarded compensation at
the rate of Rs. 90,000/ per hector. The Reference Court
found that the said land was having similar potentiality.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
9 jfa74of06.odt
14 In para no. 19 of judgment learned Reference Court
has considered the submissions advanced before it and
found that though the sale instances produced at Exhs. 29
to 31 where of the lands situate in different villages but
they was adjacent to the land acquired and except for sale
instance ehx. 28, no other sale instance were available from
the same village Kumbharkinhi. The learned Reference
Court has also considered that these sale instances were
prior to the date of notification within the range of 1 to 4
years and the lands covered under the said instances are
more or less same quality and adjacent to the acquired
land.
15 The learned Reference Court also considered the
evidence of the expert Shri Paradkar who has stated that
having regard to the quality, fertility and location the land
of the claimant and also having regard to the sale instances
of the adjacant lands, the market value of the acquired land
can be in the range of Rs. 1 lac per hector.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
10 jfa74of06.odt
16 After considering the detailed reasoning given by the
learned Reference Court and also the grounds which it has
taken into consideration incluidng the sale instance of even
adjacent land, no fault can be found in the impugned
judgment and order of the learned Reference fixing the
market value of the respondent's land @ Rs. 90,000/ per
hector. Even for the sake of argument only, the sale
instance of the same village in which acquired land is
situated that of Kumbharkinhi is taken into consideration
which is at Exh. 28, it can be seen that in the year 1994, the
land in the same village was sold for Rs. 1,12,500/ per
hector. The notification us/ 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
was issued in this case in the year 1996 and therefore, even
if said sale instance and the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court for the land acquired for the same purpose
and from the same village is considered, which was Rs.
90,000/ per hector, then the Reference Court has rightly
held that in respect of the acquired land of claimant also,
the same rate of compensation needs to be awarded.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
11 jfa74of06.odt
Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court to the acquired land @ Rs. 90,000/ per hector being
just, reasonable, fair and adequate, no interference is
warranted therein in this appeal.
17 Even as regards the compensation for the mango and
berry trees, the Reference Court has considered the
evidence of the claimant, that those mango trees were of 25
year old and each tree was giving income of Rs. 1000/ per
year. Having regard, thereafter to the evidence of the
Expert Shri Karadkar, the Reference Court has fixed
compensation for four mango trees @ Rs. 9000/ per tree
and for 22 berry tree Rs. 1000/ per tree. Thus, after
properly considering the evidence adduced on record as the
Reference Court has fixed market value of the mango and
berry trees, no interference is warranted in the finding of
the Reference Court in that aspect also. The total amount
of compensation awarded by the Reference Court to the
claimant @ Rs 3,28,000/ as enhanced compensation, being
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::
12 jfa74of06.odt
thus just and correct, the appeal holds no merits, hence,
stands dismissed.
JUDGE
belkhede, PA
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:10 :::