← Library
Bombay High CourtFA/723/2015dismissed

The State Of Maharashtra And Another v. Vithal S/O. Babarao Devakatte

2024-04-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade6 pages

2024:BHC-AUG:8161 FA-722, 723-2015.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2015 1.

The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Latur 2.

The Executive Engineer (Local Sector), Dist. Latur ... Appellants [Ori. Respondents]

Versus

Madhav s/o Gunwantrao Patil Age: 42 years, Occu. Agril., R/o. Dongargaon, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur ... Respondent [Original Claimant] WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 723 OF 2015 1.

The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Latur 2.

The Executive Engineer (Local Sector), Dist. Latur ... Appellants [Ori. Respondents]

Versus

Vithal s/o Babarao Devakatte Age: 60 years, Occu. Agril., R/o. Dongargaon, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur ... Respondent [Original Claimant] ....

Mr. S. V. Hange, AGP for appellants Mr. H. B. Nandgavale, Advocate h/f Mr. V. G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondents ....

(( 2 )) CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

DATE : 16th APRIL 2024 O R D E R :- 1.

Heard at length Mr. Bhange, the learned AGP for the appellants and Mr. Nandgavale, the learned Counsel holding for Mr. Sakolkar, the learned Counsel for respondents. 2.

In both present appeal, the Acquiring Body is challenging the Judgment and Award dated 11.12.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udgir in L.A.R. No.379 of 2010 (Old No.329 of 2003) and L.A.R. No.380 of 2010 (Old No.330 of 2003). 3.

The learned AGP canvassed that on 03.05.2001, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, were published for acquisition of land bearing Survey Nos. 15/3 and 92 of village Dongargaon, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur, for construction of percolation tank. However, the Acquiring Body/present appellants taken possession of the lands of both the occupant on 20.11.1997, prior to publication of notice by private negotiations on assurance of payment of compensation to the respondents. The Special Land

(( 3 )) Acquisition Officer passed an award on 07.10.2002 and determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.390/- and 429/- per R. Since inadequate compensation granted, hence the Respondents/Claimants made reference before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The learned AGP further canvassed that while enhancing the compensation, the learned reference Court has considered the sale-deed Exh. 15 to show the market value of the land of village Malhipparga at the rate Rs.7111/- per R and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2300/- per Guntha, equivalent to Rs.96,000/- per Acre for the acquired lands of the present claimants/respondents. 4.

Needless to say that on 07.10.2002, the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award holding that the market value of the lands of the present respondents/original claimants is Rs.390/- and Rs.429/- per R, as the acquired lands were not fertile. However, the respondents/original claimants made reference and claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- per Acre and prayed for enhancement of compensation as their lands are much fertile and deep black cotton soil.

(( 4 )) 5.

The present appellants/original respondents filed their say in both L.A.R. proceeding at Exh.6 and thereby admitted about acquisition of the respondents'/original claimants' land for the purpose of percolation tank at village Dongargaon. The appellants/Acquiring Body contended that the acquired lands were medium quality and were located in interior area. After considering the potentiality of the acquired lands as well as sale transactions of other lands in the said village, the Special Land Acquisition Officer granted proper compensation as per the market value of the lands. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of the compensation.

6.

On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned reference Court framed the issues. In order to prove the market value of the acquired lands, the claimants have examined themselves, so also produced various documentary evidence on record including saledeed dated 29.11.1999 Exh. 17, sale instances as well as the certified copies of the Judgment and Award in similar proceeding in L.A.R. No.430 of 2007 dated 22.02.2008 at Exh.18 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar camp at Udgir Award dated 07.10.2002 Exh.15.

(( 5 )) 7.

After hearing both the sides and considering oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned reference Court has passed the impugned Judgment and Award dated 11.12.2012 and thereby granted enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.2300/- per Guntha equivalent to Rs.96,000/- per Acre for the acquired lands of the respondents/original claimants. So also, the claimants are held entitled for 30% solatium on enhanced compensation under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, and statutory benefits i.e. 12% increase with effect from 26.05.2001 to 25.09.2002 for 16 months under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation and 9% interest p. a. with effect from 20.11.1997 to 19.11.1998 and thereafter granted interest at the rate 15% p. a. from 20.11.1998 till realization of the compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

8.

On perusal of both the impugned Judgment and Award, it appear that the respondents/original claimants have proved sale-deed Exh. 19 dated 29.11.1999 and copy of award dated 07.10.2002 Exh. 15, which proves the market prices of lands of the village Malhipparga and after considering the same, the learned reference

(( 6 )) Court has granted enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.2300/- per Guntha equivalent to Rs.96,000/- per Acre for the acquired lands, which does not appears exorbitant, illegal and bad in law. The Claimants have filed Pursis stating that, the acquiring body deposited entire compensation amount before the reference court long back and said amount already withdrawn by them. Hence award already been satisfied. In view of above discussion I do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned reference Court. 9.

In view of above discussion, both the First Appeals are dismissed. No Order as to Cost.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] SMS