Navanath & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra

3. The Government of Maharashtra intended to undertake construction of a medium irrigation project on the Uthala River at Patoda Taluka in the District of Beed commonly known as "Uthala Irrigation Project". For the said purpose, lands situated at village Tagadgao were acquired. The total land sought to be acquired measured 182 Hectares and belonged to 274 individual land owners. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued on 6.10.1988. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 6.7.1989. An award was published on 29.06.1990.

4. The acquired lands were classified in two categories; (1) Bagayat lands (irrigated lands); and (2) Jirayat lands (non-irrigated lands but are otherwise cultivable).

Relying on the 7/12 extract entered in the revenue record for the last three years, it was held that though the lands had been shown as wetlands but they are in fact seasonally irrigated, and hence cannot be treated as bagayat lands. The valuation of the said lands, therefore, was made 4 treating them as Jirayat lands. Statutory allowance at the rate of 30% over the amount of compensation was also granted as provided by Section 23 (2) of the Act. Additional compensation at the rate of 12 per centum per annum of the market value from the date of publication of notification i.e., 28.10.1998 till the date of award, i.e., 27.7.1990, was also granted.

7. Reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act was made by the Collector at the instance of appellants herein to the Reference Court.

The State on its behalf examined Ramkrishna Ganpatrao Chaudhari, Horticulture Inspector working in the Office of the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Sangli and Kisan Amrutrao Widekar, sub- Divisional Engineer in the office of Executive Engineer, Aurangabad Irrigation Division on its behalf.

8. The Reference Judge examined all the matters referred to him on a case by case basis. Indisputably, out of 182 reference cases, in 108 matters witnesses were examined and documents were proved. However, 5 in 74 matters neither any witness was examined nor any document was proved.

As regards Bagayat and Jirayat lands, the learned judge held the sale instance dated 25.4.1985 having been executed three years prior to the date of publication may also be taken into consideration in terms whereof the Bagayat land was sold at Rs.1200/- per Are. Similarly, sale 7 instances dated 3.9.1983 executed three to five years prior to the date of publication was also taken into account whereby Bagayat Land was sold at Rs.750/- per Are. Considering the above two sale instances, the learned Reference Court awarded Rs.1000/- per Are for Bagayat Land. The post sale instances dated 18.8.1990 and 1.4.1993 were moreover taken into account for fixing the market value for Jirayat Lands, in terms whereof said lands were sold at the rate of Rs.1375/- per Are and Rs.1562/- per Are. The learned Reference Judge fixed the market value for Jirayat Lands at the rate of Rs.750/- per Are. It was also noticed that the possession was taken on 1.8.1990.

On the basis of the aforementioned sub-classification, the market value was determined at (i) for perennially irrigated land at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare; (ii) for dry land at Rs.50,000/- per hectare, (iii) for land under seasonal irrigation at Rs.75,000/- per hectare and (iv) for Pot-Kharab land at Rs.10,000/- per hectare.

30. It is of some significance to notice that the `Horticulturist' examined on behalf of the State itself had referred to the table which is 26 considered to be an authority for the purpose of determining the compensation payable in respect of the fruit bearing trees.

The manner, in which the High Court has dealt with the issue, in our opinion, cannot be appreciated.

37. A court of law must base its decision on appreciation of evidence brought on record by applying the correct legal principles. Surmises and conjectures alone cannot form the basis of a judgment. 30

38. We, for the foregoing reasons, are not in a position to agree with the judgment of the High Court. It is set aside accordingly and that of the Reference Court restored. The Appeals are allowed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.

April 15, 2009