IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.
Prabhakar s/o Dhondiba Dhanpalwar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
First Appeal No. 276, 278 - 280, 283, 286-288, 290 OF 2002, Civil Application No.9654, 9691, 9689, 9693 OF 2018, 9554 of 2017, 13018 of 2019
Decided on : 01-04-2022
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, 12, 18, 54, 6, 9, 23(2), 28 and 34 - Land - Compensation - Appellants/original claimants are resident of village - Their lands came to be acquired for major irrigation dam known as ‘Lendi Project’ - Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to pass award under section 12 of Act in respect of above referred acquired lands - Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to claimants – Held, Lastly, coming to intervention application vide Civil Application moved by applicants/ inervenors who happened to be real brothers and legal heirs of deceased i.e. brother of deceased - According to Mr A.R. Tapse, learned counsel for intervenors/applicants, they are necessary party to appeal and they are entitled to get their share in compensation amount - It is rightly pointed out by learned AGP and learned counsel for acquiring body that these two applicants/intervenors were not party to proceedings of reference filed under section 18 of Act, 1894 - Both of them have rightly pointed out that legal interest of applicants/intervenors is in dispute - As such, their prayer to intervene in appeal cannot be entertained – Court found merit in submissions of learned AGP and learned counsel for acquiring body - Admittedly, applicants/intervenors were not party to reference proceedings under section 18 of Act - They were aware about their land acquisition proceedings as well as reference under section 18 of Act - They did not put forth their legal right if any before Reference Court - After decision of Reference under section 18 of Act, and that too at appeal proceedings of year, they have filed this intervention application - Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This batch of appeals can be disposed of by common Judgment.
2. The dispute in narrow compass is as under :-
| Sr. No. | First Appeal Number | Land Acquisition Reference Number | Survey Number | Acquired Area | Compensation granted by S.L.A.O | Compensation claimed | Category of lands made by claimants | Category of lands made by SLAO on basis of revenue assessment |
| 1 | FA/276/2002 | 42/1994 | 42/A/3 | 1H. 17 R
| Rs.32500/- P.H. | 75,000/- | Dry Land | C |
| 2 | FA/278/2002 | 46/1994 | 42/A/1 | 0.44 R | Rs.32500/- P.H | 75,000/- | Dry Land | C |
| 3. | FA/279/2002 | 53/1994 | 44/B/2 | 3H. 69 R | Rs.38000/- P.H. | 1,50,000/- | Irrigated Land | D |
| 4 | FA/280/2002 | 54/1994 | 41/A/1 | 1H. 63 R | Rs.33000/- P.H | 75,000/- | Dry Land | D |
| 5 | FA/283/2002 | 55/1994 | 44/A/4 | 1H. | Rs.35650/- P.H. | 1,50,000/- | Irrigated Land | D |
| 6. | FA/284/2002 | 47/1994 | 44/A/2 | 1H. | Rs.35650/- P.H. | 1,50,000/- | Irrigated Land | D |
| 7. | FA/285/200 | 43/1994 | 44/A/3 | 1H. | Rs.35650/- P.H. | 87,000/- | Dry Land | D |
| 8. | FA/287/2002 | 48/1994 | 42/A/2 | 1H. 16R | Rs.32500/- P.H | 87,000/- | Dry Land | C |
| 9 | FA/288/2002 | 52/1994 | 42/C | 0.89 R | Rs.32000/- P.H. | 75,000/- | Dry Land | C |
| 10 | FA/290/2002 | 51/1994 | 44/A/4 | 1H. | Rs.35650/- P.H. | 1,50,000/- | Irrigated Land | D |
| 11 | FA/286/2002 | 45/1994 | 42/B | 1H.55R | Rs.32,000 P.H | Rs.75,000/- | Dry Land | C |
(i) Rs. 32,000/- P.H. for category B - treated as dry land
(ii) Rs. 32,500/- for category C - treated as dry and,
(iii) Rs. 33,000/- for category D - treated as Bagayat land
(c) The claimants produced their oral evidence in support of their claim. In addition to oral evidence, they have produced copies of sale instances vide Exh. 20 to 22 in LAR Nos. 54/1992 from village Gonegaon and sale instances vide Exh. 23 and 24 from village Ravangaon.
(d) The Reference Court was pleased to discard sale instances vide Exh. 23 and 24 on the ground that they are post notification under section 4 of the Act. The sale instance vide Exh. 21 dated 23.04.1992 was not relied upon by the Reference Court on the ground that it is in respect of 4 R land. The sale instances vide Exh. 20 and 22 are also not accepted by the Reference Court since though sale instances are before notification under section 4 of the Act, no satisfactory evidence is produced by the respective claimants in order to show the distance between the acquired lands and their lands under sale deeds vide Exh. 20 and 22.
(e) The Reference Court was pleased to dismiss all the claims filed by the respective claimants under section 18 of the Act under common Judgment and award dated 23.11.1995.
(f) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned common Judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the claimants have preferred these appeals before this Court by taking aid of section 54 of the Act on various grounds.
3. Heard Mr M.D. Narwadkar, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, Mr B.V. Virdhe, learned AGP for the State/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr S.P. Sonpawale, learned counsel for respondent No.3/acquiring body and Mr A.R. Tapse, learned counsel for the interveno
Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Cement Corporation of India Vs. Purya and Others reported in 2004 AIR (SC) 4830
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.)
Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SC 3452
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2005 SC 2214
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.