1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No.197 of 1993 Kanhu Tukaram Gholap, (since deceased) by Legal representatives as under:- 1. Gangaram Kanhu Gholap, age 27 years, occup. Agril. r/of Shahapur, Taluka Nagar. 2. Sarubai Raybhan Mhase, age 42 years, occup.household r/o Limbodi, Taluka Pathardi, 3. Babaa Mahadu Waman, age 40 yrs.occup. household, R/of Devgaon, Taluka Nagar. 4. Chabubai Kanhu Gholap, age 62 years, occup. Agril. ..Appellants/LRs and household r/of Shahapur, of deceased Taluka Nagar. Kanhu Tukaram brought on record in the Lower Court. versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent 2 WITH First Appeal No. 199 of 1993 1. Shri Sunil Keru Berad, age 15 years, 2. Ganesh Machindra Berad, age 12 years, both agriculturist, r/o Shahapur, Taluka Nagar, Dist.Ahmednagar,. G.A.L. Keru Natah Berad, age 45. ... Appellants/ ori.applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH First Appeal No. 198 of 1993 Shri Natha Laxman Berad age 70 years, occup. Agril. r/o Shahapur, post Nimburdi, ... Appellant/ Taluka Nagar,Dist.Ahmednagar. ori. applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent/ ori.opponent 3 WITH First Appeal No. 200 of 1993 Shri Baban Ananda Natak age 40 years, occup.agril. ..Appellant r/of Shahapur,post Nimburdi original Tal.Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. applicant versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent original opponent ----- Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri D.V. Tele, AGP, for the Respondent-State. Coram: P.R.Borkar, J. Date : July 7, 2009. Oral Judgment 01. These four first appeals arise out of common judgment and awards passed by Reference Court i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in four Land Acquisition References bearing Nos. 410, 411, 412 and 413 of 1988 decided on 25.8.1991. Sale instances are considered and 4 main evidence is led in L.A.R No. 413 of 1988 against which the claimants have filed First Appeal No.197 of 1993. 2. It is no more in dispute that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is issued in respect of the lands in this group of four appeals on the same day i.e. 15.1.1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer ("SLAO" for brevity's sake) passed awards on 26.8.1986. All these lands are acquired for a percolation tank situated at village Shahapur. The SLAO awarded rate of Rs.5,000/= to Rs.12,000/= per hectare. The claimants in all these appeals have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/= per hectare. According to them, the lands were irrigated, so far as L.A.R. Nos. 411 and 413 of 1988 are concerned. As mentioned in paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Reference Court, it is specifically admitted that so far as lands involved in LAR Nos. 410 and 412 of 1988 are concerned, those were dry lands. 3. As regards compensation for trees, the Reference Court has accepted the report of Dr. Gaikwad, Horticulturists, examined by appellants and as such, there is no dispute regarding valuation of the trees. The only questions those arise for our consideration are whether the land block No.50 involved in LAR No. 411 of 1988 was 5 dry land, or it was seasonally irrigated land. Secondly, in LAR no.413 of 1988, question is whether block nos.48 and 49 were perennially irrigated lands or seasonally irrigated lands. Thirdly, though Reference Court awarded Rs. 15,000/= per hectare for dry land and Rs.22,500/= per hectare for seasonally irrigated land; but according to the appellants, they are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/= per hectare. 4. In LAR Nos.410 and 412 of 1988, compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/= is awarded, treating those lands as dry lands. In order to show that lands block Nos. 48 and 49 involved in LAR No.413 of 1988 (First Appeal No. 197 of 1993) are irrigated land, there is evidence of claimant Gajaram Gholap at Exhibit 20. He deposed that the lands are irrigated by well water and he was taking vegetables and crops like jowar. However, on perusal of V.F.7x12 extracts at Exhibits 11 and 12, the trial court held that it did not appear that the lands were perennially irrigated as claimed by the appellants. V.F. 7x12 extracts at Exhs. 11 and 12 are for the year 1981-82 to 1986-87. In the years 1981-82, 1982-83 it is shown that in block No.49/2 crops such as, jawar karad were taken. Only one crop i.e Rubbi crop was taken. In land block No.48/2 also, only one crop (Rabbi crop) was taken during the period 6 1981-82 to 1986-87. It is thus clear that for all these periods, only one crop was taken every year and it does not appear that more than one crop was taken to show that the lands were perennially irrigated land. If lands were perennially irrigated, then there would have been more than one crop in the year. So, in my considered opinion, conclusion drawn by the learned Reference Court cannot be said to be wrong. 5. So far as land block No.50 involved in LAR No. 411 OF 1988 (First Appeal No.199 of 1993) is concerned, the Reference Court considered the same in paragraph 12 of its judgment and observed that as per the evidence of petitioner at Exh.11, he was irrigating block No.50 by bringing water from the well in block No.48 in which he had half share. However, V.F. 7x12 extracts at Exh.8 shows that jirayat crops were taken. V.F. 7x12 extracts at Exh.8 are for the years 1981-82 to 1986-87 and only one crop was taken every year. In 1981-82, 82-83, jawar crop was taken and in 1983-84 land was fallow and in 1985-86 crops, such as jowar, bajara, karad, were taken. So, crops do not show that those were requiring irrigation. To prove availability of water, the agreement at Exh.12 is produced on record. However, besides evidence of claimant's father Keru, no one else is examined. Learned Reference Court observed that so far as the agreement (Exh.12) is concerned, it is a 7 document of suspicious nature. It is said to have been executed on 15.1.1980. However, the stamp paper, on which agreement was written, was purchased on 16.4.1974 and that too in the name of one A.D. Berad. It is not explained who is that A.D. Berad and why he had purchased the stamp paper about six years prior to agreement. No other witness is examined. It is not a registered document. So, learned Reference Court has come to a conclusion that this document was created for the purpose of showing that land block No.50 was perennially irrigated land. The document shows that the claimant was given half share for user and Rs.2,000/= were paid. It is mentioned that such user could be made only for 12 months and then the words "----------" (12 months) are scored and there is no initial/signature below the scoring. The person, who is said to have produced the document, put thumb impression. The court observed that the document was in custody of the claimant but he did not show or produce the same before the SLAO in support of the claim. Considering the 7x12 extracts and evidence on record, the trial court does not seem to have committed any error in treating land block No.50 as dry land. The trial court has held that only lands out of acquired lands, namely, the lands involved in LAR No.413/1988 (First Appeal No.197 of 1993) are seasonally irrigated lands and rest of the lands are dry lands. There is no sufficient 8 reason to take a view different than the view taken by the Reference Court. 6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the trial court has awarded Rs.15,000/= for dry land and Rs.22500 per hectare for seasonally irrigated lands. To show that the market price of the lands was Rs.25,000/= per hectare, some sale instances are relied upon. The first sale transaction is at Exh.16 under which 16 R. land out of block No.128 of village Madadgaon was sold for Rs.8,000/= on 2.12.1982. This sale instance is subsequent to notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the present case, Section 4 notification was issued on 15.1.1981 and as such the sale instance is post notification. The sale deed relied upon was executed two years after the said notification and it is not of the same village. It has come in the evidence of witness Shrikrushna at Exh.15 that Madadgaon is 2 kilometers away from village Shahapur. It is observed by learned Reference Court in paragraph 13 of its judgment that no sale instance from village Shahapur is produced on record and the cross examination of the petitioner in LAR No.413 of 1988 showed that Shahapur was having population of 1000 and main occupation of the villagers is agriculture. Shahapur is situated on Ahmednagar-Pathardi road. Weekly market of village is at Bhingar. There was no 9 industrial development at village and main occupation, therefore, was agriculture. The acquired lands were 1 kilometer away from gaothan of village Shahapur and had no potentiality other than agriculture. 7. The second sale instance relied upon by claimants is the purchase of 64 R land out of survey No.3/3A/5 of village Wadarwadi in village Bhingar, for Rs.40,000/=. It is observed by trial court that Wadarwadi, where the land under sale instance is situated, was a part of village Bhingar which is a big locality adjacent to Ahmednagar cantonment area and the transaction was of 1981. However, this instance is also subsequent to Section 4 notification. The distance of the land from Shahapur was 5 kilometers. Villagers of Shahapur come to Bhingar for weekly market. So, the Reference Court did not find both the sale instances to be of lands comparable with the lands acquired. 8. After carefully considering both the sale instances, in my opinion, the view taken by the learned Reference Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjust. It is borne out by evidence. There is nothing on record to indicate that no sale instance from village Shahapur was available. 10 9. In the facts and circumstances, all these four appeals have no merits and the same deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. pnd/fa193.90 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)