1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.115 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra. ..Appellant Versus Mahadeo Waman Patil, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Nimbol, Tal. Raver, District Jalgaon. .. Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.341 OF 1995 Madhao Waman Patil, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agril., (Through L.R.) Ashok Madhao Patil. Gopabai Madhao Patil. Vimalbai Madhao Patil. Anil Madhao Patil. Sunil Madhao Patil. Sao. Ashabai Rajendra Patil. All residents of Nimbol, Tal. Raver. DisT.Jalgaon. .. Appellants. Versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent ... Mr. M.L. Dharashive, A.G.P. for appellant in F.A. No. 115/1995 and for respondent in F.A. No. 341/1995. Mr. P.N. Kutti, Advocate ,for respondent in F.A. No.115/1995.(Absent). Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate,for appellants in F.A. No.341/1995.(Absent). ... 2 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.116 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Versus 1. Vishwanath Waman Patil, Age : 58 years, Occ: Agril., 2. Gopal Kashinath Patil, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agril., Both R/o. Nimbol, Tal. Raver, District Jalgaon. .. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.342 OF 1995 1. Vishwanath Waman Patil, Age : 58 years, Occ: Agril., 2. Gopal Kashinath Patil, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agril., Both R/o. Nimbol, Tal. Raver, District Jalgaon. .. Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent ... Mr. M.L. Dharashive, A.G.P. for appellant in F.A. No.116/1995 and for respondent in F.A. No. 342/1995. Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in F.A. No.116/1995 and for appellants in F.A. No. 342/1995 (Absent). ... 3 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.343 OF 1995 Madho Waman Patil, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agril., (Through L.R.) Ashok Madhao Patil. Gopabai Madhao Patil. Vimalbai Madhao Patil. Anil Madhao Patil. Sunil Madhao Patil. Sao. Ashabai Rajendra Patil. All Major. R/o. Nimbol, Tal. Raver, District Jalgaon. .. Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent ... Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for appellants (Absent). Mr. M.L. Dharashive, A.G.P. for respondent. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. All these first appeals can be disposed of by common judgment as notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the S.L.A.O. is common, award passed by the L.A.O. is also common and the Reference Court decided 4 all References by common judgment. Not only that, the claimants relied on same sale deed dated 11-12-1982 in all these five appeals. 2. Few facts of the above mentioned appeals are as under. The First Appeal No. 115/1995 filed by the State of Maharashtra in L.A.R. No. 5/1991 challenging the enhanced compensation whereas the claimants filed Cross Appeal No. 341/1995 for enhanced compensation. The First Appeal No. 116/1995 filed by the State of Maharashtra in L.A.R. No.6/1991 challenging the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court, whereas the Cross Appeal filed by the claimant being First Appeal No. 342/1995 for enhancement of compensation. First Appeal No. 343/1995 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. When the matters were called out for final hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the claimants. 5 3. The S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 15-09-1983 for acquiring original claimants' House No.143, House No. 278, and Gobar Gas Plant and open space for Hatnur Dam Project. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the said Act came to be issued on 26-04-1984. After following due process of law, the S.L.A.O. passed award dated 22-09-1986 and awarded compensation in respect of the acquired property at the rate of Rs. 9/- per square meter. 4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the S.L.A.O., original claimants preferred Reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation. In First Appeal No. 341/1995 arising out of the judgment and award in L.A.R. No. 5/1991 State of Maharashtra acquired House No. 143, in F.A. No.342/1995 arising out of the judgment and award in L.A.R. No. 6/1995 State of Maharashtra acquired House. 278 and in F.A. No. 6 343/1995 arising out of the judgment and award in L.A.R. No. 7/1991 State of Maharashtra acquired Gobar Gas Plant and open space. 5. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra is not able to make a statement whether State of Maharashtra preferred appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 7/1991 i. e. Cross Appeal in First Appeal No. 343/1995 filed by the claimants. 6. In First Appeal No.341/1995 the S.L.A.O. awarded total compensation of Rs. 38,864-15 ps. Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the S.L.A.O. original claimants preferred Reference under Section 18 of the said Act dated 11-011-1986 claiming enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.46,302-34 ps. In First Appeal No. 342/1995 the S.L.A.O. awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.21,030-74 ps. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants preferred 7 Reference under Section 18 of the said Act dated 11-11-1986 and claimed enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.9376-67 ps. In First Appeal No. 343/1995 the S.L.A.L. awarded total compensation of Rs.2428-02 ps. Being aggrieved by the said award, original claimants preferred Reference under Section 18 of the said Act dated 11-11-1986 and claimed enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 48,219-50 ps. Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon by judgment and award dated 13-04-1994 allowed L.A.Rs. preferred by the original claimants and awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired property i. e. @ Rs.225/- per square meter for open space and Rs. 1200/- per square meter for construction of structure. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, State of Maharashtra preferred First Appeal Nos. 115/1995 and 116/1995. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of 8 the State of Maharashtra urged that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired property. He further submitted that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of open space @ Rs. 225/- per square meter and construction area @ Rs. 1200/- square meter on the basis of sale deed dated 11-12-1982 at Exhibit - 15. He urged that the sale deed was not proved by the original claimants either calling purchaser or seller. He further submitted that the Reference Court erred in relying on the deposition of Valuer Kashinath Khadse who prepared valuation report and placed on record for enhancing market value of the acquired land. 8. Point for consideration arises in the present appeals are that : 9 (a) whether claimants are entitled to the additional compensation in respect of acquired land? (b) whether State proved that Reference Court erred in awarding additional compensation over and above awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer? 9. With the assistance of learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the sate of Maharashtra, I have gone through Record and Proceedings. The Reference Court after taking into consideration oral as well as documentary evidence granted enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired property @ Rs. 225/- per square meter for open space and Rs. 1200/- per square meter for construction. The Reference Court relying on the sale instance and oral evidence of Expert enhanced said compensation. According to the learned A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra, Reference Court awarded exorbitant compensation to the claimants. 10 10. It is clear from the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court that the Reference Court mainly relied on the sale instance dated 11-12-1982 at Exhibit - 15 for coming to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land. It is to be noted that the sale deed dated 11-12-1982 produced by the Valuer Kashinath Khadse. Neither vendor or vendee was examined to prove the contents of the said sale deed. The Reference Court further relied on deposition of Valuer Kashinath Khase and report submitted by him. The Reference Court failed to appreciate that P.W. 2 failed to produce any material on record on the basis of which he prepared valuation report. In any case, it is not necessary to examine the evidence on record in detail, because Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23rd September 2003 decided the connected First Appeal Nos. 133/1995, 134/1995, 338/1995, 339/1995, and 340/1995. 11 11. In these First Appeals also, house property from village Nimbol, Taluka Raver District Jalgaon acquired for the same project i. e. Hatnur Dam Project. In all these first appeals, the S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 15-09-1983 and passed award dated 22-09-1986 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs. 9/- per square meter. In Reference under Section 18 of the said Act, in these first appeals, the claimants relied on sale deed dated 11-12-1982 and also examined the Valuer Kashinath Khadse. In the present case in hand also, notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 15-09-1983, award dated 22-09-1986, house property acquired from the village Nimbol, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon, claimants relied on sale deed dated 11-12-1982 and deposition of Valuer Kashinath Khadse. 12. Considering these facts, I do not find any substance to go in detail to examine the 12 evidence brought on record by the claimants as well as by Government, because if the land situated in the same village acquired for the same purpose under same notification then claimants are entitled to compensation at the same rate on the ground of parity. Division Bench in their decision dated 23rd September 2003 held that the claimants are not entitled to get enhanced compensation @ Rs.1200/- per square meter for the structures. It is further held by Division Bench that the amount of compensation awarded by L.A.O. so far as the structures are concerned is fair and reasonable. Para 5 and 17 of the judgment dated 23rd September 2003 reads as under. "5. The properties referred above were acquired for the purpose of Hatnoor Project. The Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 15-09-1983. Subsequent Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 24-05-1984. After following due procedure of law, the Land Acquisition Officer passed 13 award on 22-09-1986. The possession of the properties were taken from the original claimants on 18-10-1986. 17. In Land Reference No. 2 of 1991, the Reference Court has awarded Rs. 66,496-23 ps. for structure (H. Nos. 136/1 and 136/2). In Land Reference No. 4 of 1991, the Reference Court has awarded Rs. 4,35,589-08 ps. for structures (H. Nos. 267 and 268). The Reference Court has, however, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per sq. mtr. This part of the award passed by the Reference Court is liable to be modified. The claimants are not entitled to get enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per sq. mtr. for the structures. The amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, so far as structures are concerned, is fair and reasonable. The claimants, therefore, can not retain the excess amount granted / received by them, on the basis of award passed by the Reference Court together with the amount of additional benefits such as solatium, interest etc." 13. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I hold that the claimants are 14 not entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs. 1,200/- per square meter for the structures. Therefore, First Appeal Nos. 115/1995 and 116/1995 preferred by the State of Maharashtra are partly allowed. The award passed by the Reference Court to the extent of payment of enhanced compensation @ Rs.1,200/- per square meter for structures is quashed and set aside. In view of the partly allowing appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra, Cross Appeals preferred by the claimants i. e. First Appeal Nos. 341/1995 and 342/1995 are dismissed. The appellants are entitled to recover excess amount granted /received by the claimants together with additional benefits such as solatium, and interest etc. on the amount of enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court to the extent of structures. To this extent, award of Reference Court is modified. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, appeal preferred by the claimants being First Appeal No. 343/1995 is dismissed, as the claimants have 15 failed to prove that they are entitled to get further hike. 14. No order as to costs. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/JUL09/fa115.95