STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs BALIRAM GIRDHAR PATIL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(Bom) 1066

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(S.B. Deshmukh, J.)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and another - Appellant
V.

BALIRAM GIRDHAR PATIL - Respondent
In all the appeals:
For appellants : V.H. Dighe, A.G.P.
For respondents : V. T. Choudhary

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23 - Acquisition of agricultural land for public purpose - Determination of market value of acquired land - Basis. - Broadly speaking, the market price of the agricultural lands can be considered on the basis of nature of the land whether an irrigated land or non-irrigated land/dry crop/jirayat land and its productivity. So far as the irrigation is concerned, it may be seasonal or perennial source of water to the land concerned. Apart from these two categories/classes of lands, potkharaba land/non-cultivable land can be considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while determining the market value of the land concerned. For classification, the quality, fertility with other factors of jirayat land can be considered. However, it does not stand to reason as to how the assessment of land can be made a basis for grouping of the agricultural lands. Here one more aspect requires consideration. Use of the manure, chemical or otherwise, is the order of the day. Such use of the manure undoubtedly improves the fertility of the agricultural land. Therefore, grouping of lands made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of assessment and accepted by the Reference Court is not legal, proper and in accordance with the provisions of law.
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23 - Market price of dry crop land and irrigated land - If the market price of dry crop land is worked out, for working out the market price of irrigated land, in absence of any other evidence on record, double the market rate of jirayat land has to be awarded.
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23(1-A) and 11 - Award under Section 11 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer on November 22, 1982 after introduction of Bill 68 of 1984 i.e. after 30.4.1982 - Claimants held entitled to seek 12% component as per Section 23(1-A).
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 34 and 28 - Interest on solatium - Interest at the rate of 9 per cent is payable from the date of taking possession till realization - If payment is deposited after the period of one year of taking over the possession, the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, is also payable in favour of the claimants after the period of one year till realization of the entire amount as per Section 28 of the Act of 1894. 2001 (7) SCC 211 - Relied on.

ORAL JUDGMENT : - These First Appeals arise out of two common judgments delivered by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in o groups of Land Acquisition References. First group was consisting of Land Acquisition References No. 206/84, filed by Mr. Baliram Girdhar Patil, No. 208/84 filed by Mr. Manohar Dhansingh Patil, No. 209/84 filed by Mr. Shriram Atmaram Patil, and No. 210/84 filed by Ramkrishna Dhansingh Patil. In this group of Land Acquisition References, common judgment is delivered in Land Acquisition Reference No. 206 of 1984. In second group, Land Acquisition references No. 211/84 filed by Pandurang Chintaman Patil, No. 212/84 filed by Mr. Digamber Vithal Patil, No. 213/84 filed by Mr. Shankar Bhaurao Patil, were considered. In the second group, common judgment was delivered in Land Acquisition Reference No. 211 of 1984. Both these judgments were, however, livered on one and the same date. Common evidence was recorded in only one and Acquisition Reference i.e. Land Acquisition Reference No. 206 of 1984. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants admit that there is no special or specific reason for delivering two common judgments. All these Land Acquisition References, noted above, gave rise to various appeals.

2. First Appeal No. 68 of 1991 is arising out of the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 206 of 1984, filed by the State. First Appeal No. 70 of 1991 is arising out of judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference No.211 of 1984, filed by the State. First Appeal No. 71 of 1991 is arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 212 of 1984. First Appeal No. 72 of 1991 is arising out of judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 213 of 984 filed by the State. First Appeal No. 73 of 1991 is arising out of judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference .No. 201 of 1984, filed by the State. First Appeal No. 74 of 1991 is arising out of judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 209 of 1984, filed by the State. First Appeal No. 76 of 991 is arising out of judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 10 of 1984. Thus, these seven First Appeals are filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed in the respective Land Acquisition References by the trial Court, as noted have.

3. Respondents, in some of the appeals have filed cross -objections by various Civil Applications. In First Appeal No. 68 of 1991, the respondent has led Cross -objection Stamp No. 13653 of 1990. In First Appeal No. 70 of 1991, the respondent has filed Cross -objection Stamp No. 12178 of 1990. In First Appeal No. 71 of 1991, the respondent has filed Cross -objection Stamp No. 8241 of 1990. In First Appeal No. 72 of 1991, the respondent has filed Cross -objection tamp No. 8239 of 1990. In First Appeal No. 73 of 1991, the respondent has filed Cross -objection Stamp No. 12182 of 1990. In First Appeal No. 76 of 1991, the respondent has filed Cross -objection Stamp No. 8244 of 1990. It is thus clear that in only one First Appeal No. 74 of 1991, there is no Cross -objection filed on behalf of the respondents Baliram Girdhar Patil and Manohar Atmaram Patil Undisputably, Civil Applications filed by various respondents, as noted above were entertained by this Court and delay, after hearing the parties, was condoned. The Cross -objections can be considered along with the respective appeals. By these Cross -objections, respondents therein are claiming enhancement in the amount of compensation and additional benefits, which are not awarded to the respondents, in accordance with the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1984.

4. There is no dispute regarding the character of the acquired lands as irrigated and/or dry crop lands. It is also admitted fact that the subject -matter of land to the extent of 30 R. in First Appeal No. 73 of 1991

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(Bom) 1066

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(S.B. Deshmukh, J.) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and another - AppellantV. BALIRAM GIRDHAR PATIL - Respondent In all the appeals: For appellants : V.H. Dighe, A.G.P.For respondents : V. T. Choudhary

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(S.B. Deshmukh, J.)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and another - Appellant
V.

BALIRAM GIRDHAR PATIL - Respondent
In all the appeals:
For appellants : V.H. Dighe, A.G.P.
For respondents : V. T. Choudhary