1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.456 OF 1996 Raghunath Lahanu Sanap, died, through L Rs._ 01. Bhagwan Raghunath Sanap age 45 years, occupation agriculture 02. Chandrabhan Raghunath Sanap age 43 years, occupation agriculture 03. Bhamabai Bajirao Gite, age 40 years, occupation household 04. Gayabai Bhanudas Shirsath age 38 years, occupation household 05. Kusum Babdya Nangare age 35 years, occupation household. (Nos.1,2,4 and 5 residents of Shirsathwadi, Taluka Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar Respondent No.3 resident of Dharwadi, Taluka Pathardi District Ahmednagar. .. Appellants versus 01. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent\ 2 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 457 OF 1996 01. Radhakishan Mhatardeo Shirsath 02. Pralhad Mhatardeo Shirsath 03. Shahudeo Mhatardeo Shirsath, All are residents of Shirsath- wadi, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. .. appellants versus The State of Maharashtra .. respondent FIRST APPEAL NO.458 OF 1996 01. Saheba Dagadu Shirsath .. appellant age 40 years, occupation agriculture, resident of Shirsathwadi, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. versus The State of Maharashtra .. respondent FIRST APPEAL NO. 459 OF 1996 01. Dhondiba Mahadu Sanap age 48 years, occup.agril. r/o Shirsathwadi Tq.Pathardi District Ahmednagar. .. appellant versus The State of Maharashtra .. respondent FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 OF 1996 01. Rambhabai Sitaram Karhad age 55 years, occupation agriculture, r/of Shirsath wadi, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. 3 02. Jijabai Bhaguji Karhad, died, through L.Rs:- Sitaram Bhaguji Karhad age 55 years, occupation agriculture, r/o as above .. appellants versus The State of Maharashtra .. respondent FIRST APPEAL NO.476 OF 1996 01. Dashrath Kesu Shirsath, age 65 years, occupation agriculture r/of Shrisathwadi Tq.Pathardi Dist.Ahmednagar. .. appellant versus The State of Maharashtra .. respondent ------------------------------------------------------ Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocate for appellants. Smt. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State in all matters. ------------------------------------------------------ Coram : P.R. Borkar, J. Date : March 31, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 01. This group of first appeals by the original claimants arise out of common judgment and awards passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in L.A.R. Nos.224 of 1991 and connected L.A.Rs. decided on 7.4.1995. 4 02. Appellants-claimants are aggrieved as, according to them, compensation paid to them was not as per the market value, but it was inadequate. Admittedly, the lands belonging to the respective appellants-claimants were acquired for construction of a percolation tank at village Shirsathwadi, Taluka Pathardi. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 27.2.1986. The awards were declared by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.3.1989. Being dissatisfied with the awards, the claimants filed Land Acquisition References. 03. In the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, evidence was led in L.A.R. No. 221 of 1991 (corresponding Appeal being First Appeal No.460 of 1996). In all, seven witnesses were examined and five sale instances were relied upon, besides the judgment in a group of Land Acquisition References. Considering those sale instances and evidence on record, the Reference Court awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/= per hector. It is the case of the appellants that compensation compensation at least at the rate of Rs.50,000/= per hector ought to have been awarded. 04. Heard Shri V.S.Bedre, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. R.K.Ladda, learned A.G.P. for Respondent-State. Together, both have taken me through the 5 judgment and record of the trial court. 05. The trial court came to the conclusion that the lands acquired were jirayat lands and we find discussion to that effect in paragraph 6 of the judgment. Though in one land, there is entry of well, the court observed that V.F. 7x12 extracts for the period 1969-77 and 1976-1992 produced on record, clearly indicate that crops like, bajara, Hulga, jawar and Math were taken in the lands. It is observed that water may not be available in the well. There was nothing on record to show that the claimants ever raised bagayat crops. So, the evidence of PW-1 Waman Karad, who has also deposed for other claimants on the basis of power of attorney in his favour, was disbelieved when he deposed that irrigated crops like vegetable, sugarcane, chilly etc. were taken in the said lands. No documentary evidence in support of such statement was produced. The reason to disbelieve version of the witness is based on the evidence and material on record. It has also come in the cross examination of PW-1 Waman that the Land Acquisition Officer had visited and inspected the land and appellants-original claimants did not file any complaint to the Land Acquisition Officer for treating the lands to be jiryat lands. 06. Various sale instances are relied upon by the claimants. PW-2 Kousabai examined at Exh.46 proved the sale 6 deed at Exh.42. She stated that she purchased 6 3 Are land out of survey No.527/1 situated at village Shirsathwadi from one Dagadu Shirsath for Rs.32,000/= on 2.11.1981. It is admitted by this witness in her cross examination that there were two lemon trees in the land. It is also admitted by her at the end of her cross examination that she purchased the land as bagayat. So, the sale instance show that the price paid was for irrigated land. 07. PW-3 Sitaram Waman Shirsath examined at Exh.47 proved the sale deed dated 4.3.1985 at Exh.17. He deposed that along with other purchasers, he purchased 58 Are land bearing Survey N.242/2+7 from one Rambhau Shirsath for Rs. 20,000/=. So, the rate comes to about Rs.350/=- per Are. In cross examination, Sitaram admitted that there were two mango trees in the land purchased by him. He also purchased share in the well under the sale deed. So, what was purchased is not only the land, but also share in the well. The witness, however, denied that he was using the well water for irrigating even another land. 08. PW-4 Bhagwan Pongi examined at Exh.48 stated that he purchased 1/4th share from survey No.208/1 admeasuring 68 Are+3 Are (Pot Kharab) of village Shirsathwadi from one Gangubai for consideration of Rs. 6000/=. The sale deed is dated 2.11.1981 at Exhibit 44. So, he purchased about 17 to 18 Are land. It was suggested to 7 him that the said land was adjacent to his land and, therefore, advantageous to him. The rate comes to Rs.350/= per Are. 09. PW-5 Dashrath Shirsath examined at Exh.49 proved the sale instance Exhibit 18. He stated that he purchased Gat No.11/2 admeasuring 29 Are of village Shirsathwadi, from one Karbhari Baburao Shirsath for Rs.11,000/=. He referred to the well situated in the land, but stated that there was no water in the well. Rate comes to Rs.380/= per Are. It was suggested to him that he falsely stated that there was no water in the well situated in the land purchased by him and that it was a jiryat land. He also stated that there were tamarind trees in the land purchased by him, but according to him, they were small plants. 10. PW-6 Asruba Bansi Ghodke examined at Exhibit 50 has proved the sale deed at Exhibit 43 dated 14.5.1984. He stated that under the said sale deed, his mother purchased land survey No.49/4 admeasuring 44 Hector + 2 Are as pot Kharab situated at village Ranjani from one Dnyandeo Narayan Ghodke. The witness stated that the land was purchased for Rs.18,000/=, but the consideration shown in the sale deed was Rs.9,000/=. Such oral word of interested person cannot be accepted. When the sale deed is indicative of purchase price at Rs.9,000/=, unsupported oral word that amount of Rs.18,000/= was paid as price for land is 8 unbelievable. Therefore this sale instance will have to be ignored. 11. The last sale instance Exhibit 40 is proved by PW-7 Madhukar Bhagwat. The sale deed is dated 21.6.1984. The witness stated that 8 gunthas land was purchased by him for Rs.8000/=. It was in Gram Panchayat area of Pathardi. Right of share in the well was also sold under the sale deed. He specifically admitted that it was irrigated land within jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat. So, it cannot be said to be a comparable sale instance. 12. Besides above sale instances, the claimants have also produced judgment in L.A.R No.32 of 1987 at Exhibit 53. In the said case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14.1.1982. Reference Court held that the land involved was irrigated land and price paid was Rs.40,000/= per hector. In this behalf, I refer to paragraph 9 of the said judgment. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon two judgments i.e. State of Maharashtra vs. Prashram Aute 2007 (5) Mh.L.J. 403 and S.L.A.O. vs. Babu Datta 2006 (1)Mh.L.J. 433. However, even bearing in mind ratio laid down therein, in the facts and circumstances involved in this case I agree with conclusion drawn in the judgment of the Reference Court. In the present case, the Reference 9 Court has come to the conclusion that proper rate to be awarded is Rs.30,000/= per hector. 14. In the circumstances, all first appeals deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. pnd/fa456.96 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)