1 HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1038 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1038 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1038 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus Jayram Ghulam Shirsat and Ors. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1039 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1039 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1039 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus Shri. Ratanlal Lalchand Bora ... Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1040 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1040 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1040 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus Vithoba S. Ghule and Ors. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1041 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1041 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1041 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus S.K. Gangurde ... Respondent ALONGWTH ALONGWTH ALONGWTH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1042 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1042 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1042 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus Arvind P. Gaikwad ... Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus Popat Sadu Ghadge ... Respondent ALOGNWITH ALOGNWITH ALOGNWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus G.N. Shirsat ... Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 1999 2 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus Smt.Satyabhamabai Shirdhar Kakad and Ors. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus Khandu Fakira Hire and Ors. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1047 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO.1047 OF 1999 FIRST APPEAL NO.1047 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus K.K. Ahire ... Respondent Mr. A.R. Patil, A.G.P. for the Appellant. Mr.P.N. Joshi for Respondents. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 DATED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 DATED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The above stated 10 appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 21.4.1997 pronounced by the Joint District judge, Nashik. As the common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The undisputed facts are that the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 12.2.1989 intending to acquire the lands from village Vani, Taluka Dindori, District Nashik for the public purpose namely 3 project of Punegaon Canal. The concerned S.L.A.O. was duly authorised to exercise the powers of the Collector under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act after following the prescribed procedure under the Act. Thereafter Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 27th December, 1989. The S.L.A.O. passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 30.10.1990. The Collector by dividing the lands into three different grades awarded the following compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their respective lands. Grade I : Rs.6,000/- Grade II : Rs.7,500/- Grade III : Rs.8,000/- Rs.200/- P.H. for Pot Kharaba. 3. The claimants obviously being dissatisfied by the award of the Collector filed Reference under Section 18 of the Act which in turn were referred by the S.L.A.O. to the Reference Court. The Reference Court vide its award dated 21.4.1997 enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.30,300/- per hectare for ‘jirayat’ land and Rs.45,600/- per hectare for ‘bagayat’ land. Though the claimants in their petition under Section 18 have claimed compensation 4 at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The State being aggrieved from the judgment of the Reference Court, challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Reference Court in the present appeals. 4. The main contention raised before us on behalf of the State Government while impugning the judgment is that awarding of the compensation is not based on proper evidence and that no separate compensation could have been awarded for the trees etc. in addition to the compensation awarded in the land. 5. We find no substance in either of the contentions raised on behalf of the State. Firstly the learned Reference Court has relied upon sale deed Exh. 24 which was proved by statement of C.W. No. 2 examined at Exh. 23. In terms of the sale deed the land admeasuring about 1 hectare was sold for the sum of Rs.37,500/- on 14.7.1986. The land subject matter of the sale deed was from the revenue estate of the same village. The other sale instance proved by the claimant was Exh. 26 vide which 40R of land was sold for Rs.15,500/- as on 28.12.1997 thus giving the rate of only Rs.38,750/- per hectare. The State led no evidence before the Reference Court and no sale instances were proved on record which could reflect that the value of the 5 land in question was less than what was indicated in these two sale instances. The land Reference Court primarily relied upon Exh. 24 and after giving increase in the said price of the land, awarded compensation to the claimants. Exh. 24 relates to sale of 1 hectare which is ‘jirayat’ land. Thus after giving increase for the intervening period of 2 years and 9 months, i.e. from 14.7.1986 to 12.12.1989, the value determined would be that of ‘jirayat’ and not of the ‘bagayat’ land as indicated by the Reference Court. Even if some element of deduction was to be effected, the same was not justified in the facts of the present case as the sale instances relates to reasonably large piece of land i.e. 1 hectare, still the compensation determined by the Reference Court would be compensation payable for the ‘jirayat’ land which then ought to have been increased by 1.5 times at least to determine the market value of the ‘bagayat’ land. Furthermore there is no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the State that there was no increasing trend. Exh. 24 and 26 itself shows that there was increasing trend in the sale price of the lands. This fact firstly has been duly reflected in the evidence produced on record and even otherwise, it is a well known and accepted fact that the prices of the land has been increasing all over. 6 6. Thus we find no merit in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the State. The State in fact could have hardly justify filing of the present appeals. 7. Coming to the last contention raised on behalf of the State that the compensation for trees ought not to have been granted. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Versus Gurcharan Singh and another, AIR of Haryana Versus Gurcharan Singh and another, AIR of Haryana Versus Gurcharan Singh and another, AIR 1996 SC 106 1996 SC 106 1996 SC 106 wherein it was held that for grown up trees, separate compensation cannot be awarded particularly when the land was primarily used for agricultural purpose and has been acquired. Those are not the facts applicable to the present case. In the present case as noted in the judgment of the Reference Court, there were grape plants and fruit trees in the fields in question. We find no error in the approach adopted by the Reference Court in awarding the compensation considering the quality of land seeking existence of grape garden over period of time and sale available as was reflected in the evidence. It was not the case where the court had awarded compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. The compensation awarded was for the bare land which was agricultural land and existence of fruit bearing trees is not considered as a factor to value of the 7 land. Thus compensation awarded is on the basis of bare land as per sale deed Exh. 24. No additional compensation has been given for expenditure incurred in establishing horticulture garden of the grapes. Even expert evidence produced by the claimants along with their own statements was not rebutted by the State. We see no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. Appeals dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. All Civil Applications dismissed. CHIEF CHIEF CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J.