1 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 93 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT VERSUS 1] Somnath Ganesh Kulkarni 2] Suresh G.Kulkarni 3] Sudhakar G.Kulkarni 4] Bhimabai G.Kulkarni All R/o Chinchol Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3819 OF 1996 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 93 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ...APPLCANT VERSUS 1] Somnath Ganesh Kulkarni 2] Suresh G.Kulkarni 3] Sudhakar G.Kulkarni 4] Bhimabai G.Kulkarni All R/o Chinchol Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS 2 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 92 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT VERSUS 1] Shri Baburao Madhav Patil 2] Shri Bajirao Madhav Patil 3] Rajaram Madhav Patil All R/o Mehun Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3820 OF 1996 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 92 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ...APPELCANT VERSUS 1] Shri Baburao Madhav Patil 2] Shri Bajirao Madhav Patil 3] Rajaram Madhav Patil All R/o Mehun Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon ...RESPONDENTS 3 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 94 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Narayan Totaram Patil,R/o Mehun Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3821 OF 1996 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 94 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Shri Narayan Totaram Patil,R/o Mehun Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon ...RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 110 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Vithal Shivram Patil,R/o Mehun Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon ....RESPONDENT 4 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3814 OF 1996 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 110 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ...APPELCANT VERSUS Vithal Shivram Patil,R/o Mehun Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon ....RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 138 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Muktabai Deosthan Trusti- Dasrath Jivram Chaudhary, Vithal Dorao Choudhary R/o Mehun Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon. RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3813 OF 1996 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 138 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ..APPLICANT 5 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 VERSUS Shri Muktabai Deosthan Trusti- Dasrath Jivram Chaudhary, Vithal Dorao Choudhary R/o Mehun Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon. ..RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 139 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Sitaram Suraji Patil (Deceased) Legal Heirs : 1] Trimbak Sitaram Patil 2] Pralhad Sitaram Patil 3] Mathurabai Madan Patil 4] Gopabai Sitaram Patil All R/o Mehun Chinchol Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTs WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3815 OF 1996 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 139 OF 1995 State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT 6 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 VERSUS Sitaram Suraji Patil (Deceased) Legal Heirs : 1] Trimbak Sitaram Patil 2] Pralhad Sitaram Patil 3] Mathurabai Madan Patil 4] Gopabai Sitaram Patil All R/o Mehun Chinchol Ta. Edlabad, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTs Mrs. V.A.More,A.G.P. for Appellant-Applicant Mr. Anil Kasliwal and Mr.G.V.Wani,Advocates for respondents. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 19th JANUARY, 2010 ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1] All these appeals can be decided by this common Judgment, because they arise from one Land Acquisition Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon for Hatnoor project. . All the claimants are resident of village Mehun. Various pieces of their lands of village Mehun were acquired for the project, which is known as “Hatnoor Project”. The notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 3rd April, 1986. The impugned Award was passed on 15th December, 1988. On perusal of Award, it is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer divided the lands into two categories 7 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 namely (1)Bagayat Land and (2) Jirayat Land. He also classified the lands into seven groups depending on the land revenue amount. He then took into account the sale instances which were produced before him by the Acquiring Body and come to the conclusion that on an average the Jirayat lands of the appellants in various groups have market value between 14,500/- to Rs.20,000/- per hectare. He also come to the conclusion that the Bagayat lands would have market value between Rs. 30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- Per Hectare. . Being aggrieved by the Award passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer the Respondents/claimants approached the Collector, for sending References to the Court, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly references come to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Jalgaon, who after recording the evidence of the parties come to the conclusion that the market value of Jirayat lands of respondents/claimants would be to the tune of Rs. 72,000/- per hectare. He then held that Bagayat land belonging to the respondents/claimants would fetch market value at Rs.1,44,826/- per hectare. He further held that the respondents/claimants were entitled to Rs.3,000/- per hectare for their Pot Kharab land, which went into acquisition. Accordingly, all the claims were partly allowed. 2] The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by 8 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 the Judgments and Award passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Jalgaon came in this First Appeal. Having gone through the judgments, record and after hearing the learned counsels, following points arise for my consideration in this appeals. 1] Whether learned Judge of the lower Court erred in placing reliance on a one sale instance of land Survey No.586 of adjoining village Changdev? 2] If answer to the above point is in affirmative, whether the cases deserve to be remanded back to the Lower Court ? 3] The record of the lower Court shows that the respondents/claimants produced only one sale instance as evidence for proving the market value of the suit lands. They also did not take pains to record deposition of either the vendor or purchaser of the land of the sale instance. They simply stated in their depositions that they would file Certified Copy of the sale deed on record and that one Kashinath had sold said land of village Changdev admeasuring 29 R for Rs.21,000/- to one Ramchandra on 7th May,1979. They stated that the land was Jirayat land. They stated that land of village Changdeo is situated at a distance of 3 to 4 K.M. from lands in question. In the cross examination, they admitted that there are two rivers flowing near the village Changdev and so the lands near the rivers are more fertile and that there is more competition to purchase such 9 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 lands at higher rate. The respondent claimants did not give any reason as to why they did not furnish on record other sale instance/s in support of their case. It is clear from the Land Acquisition Award that number of sale instances were available at the relevant period and in respect of the lands of village Mehun and adjoining villages. Despite of this, the respondents/claimants did not file on record such sale instance/s. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant rightly pointed out that the sale instance which is of land of village Changdeo appears to be isolated case and probably was not comparable to the lands in question. She further pointed out that the land which was sold under sale instance measured only 29 R. It means that was a small piece of land, which was not even having area of 1 Acre or 1 Hectare. She further pointed out that the learned Judge of the Lower court rather hastily accepted this dubious evidence and used it for drawing his conclusion. 4] In my view, the sale instance on which the learned Judge placed reliance was not comparable to the suit lands and should not have been used to determine the market value of the suit lands. Having said that there is possibility of allowing these appeals and dismissing the land References of the respondents, but I am not inclined to do so. The legal Advisor of the respondents, it seems, committed error in placing on record only one isolated case of sale instance of village 10 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 Changdeo. Even he did not think it necessary that he should record the deposition of either vendor or purchaser. He further did not think it necessary to put on record the other sale instance/s of the adjoining land of village Mehun and thereby took unnecessary risk. I think the legal advisor of the respondents/claimants committed serious error while presenting the case before the Reference Court. But, I would not dismiss the references for the error committed by their advocate/legal Advisor. In my view, the appeals should be allowed but references should be sent back to the reference Court for fresh hearing giving fresh opportunity to both the parties to lead further evidence. 5] There is one strong reason for drawing this conclusion besides the error committed by the Legal Advisor. It so happen in this case that after References were filed, the Land Acquisition Officer disbursed some additional amount to number of farmers whose lands were similarly acquired under this project. It has come on record that the additional amounts were given because the lands were Bagayat land. I think this could not be only reason why additional compensation was disbursed. The letter Exh.21 (in Appeal No.138 of 1995) informed the Reference Court that the Land Acquisition Officer disbursed various amounts to various farmers. Why this additional amount were disbursed has not been specifically mentioned in 11 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 this letter. As said above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration the fact that some of the land which went under acquisition were used as Bagayat land and so the market value/compensation of the suit lands was held to be almost 100% more than Jiryat Lands. In other words, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had already paid additional compensation to Bagayat lands. In view of this, if at all the Special Land Acquisition Officer had paid some additional compensation to the holders of Bagayat lands only, logically he should have disbursed similar additional amounts to even the holders of Jirayat Lands. So there is possibility that on remand of the case this aspect would be discussed. 6] I think both the parties did not adduce proper evidence to throw more light on this aspect of the case while recording the evidence. Even the appellant did not handle the cases in the lower court properly. They simply examined Revenue Circle Inspector in support of their case, but did not bring on record the sale instance of the land, which the Land Acquisition Officer had perused while passing his award. Such cases are required to be conducted seriously because valuable lands are compulsorily acquired from the land Holders, who in most cases are farmers and their livelihood depend on such lands. In such circumstances, I am inclined to set aside impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court, but I remand the 12 F.A.NO.93.1995+5 references back to the Lower Court and the parties would have liberty to lead their evidence and Reference Court would have an opportunity to decide the case afresh. ORDER 1] The Appeals are allowed. 2] The impugned judgment and Awards are set aside. 3] The land references are remanded back to the reference Court. 4] Both the parties shall have liberty to lead evidence. The reference Court shall decide the reference as early and as far as possible within one year from the receipt of record and proceedings. 5] The Civil Application No. 3819 of 1996 in First Appeal No.93 of 1995, Civil Application No. 3820 of 1996 in First Appeal No.92 of 1995, Civil Application No. 3821 of 1996 in First Appeal No.94 of 1995, Civil Application No. 3814 of 1996 in First Appeal No.110 of 1995, Civil Application No. 3813 of 1996 in First Appeal No.138 of 1995, Civil Application No. 3815 of 1996 in First Appeal No.139 of 1995 stand disposed of. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ok