The State of Maharashtra vs Harchand Rajaram Chambhar

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned

counsel for the parties submits that these three appeals

can be disposed of by common Judgment and order, since

the facts and issues, which arise are common.

The challenge in these appeals is to the common

Judgment and award dated 17.4.2000 made by the Reference

Court in L.A.R. Nos.1173 of 1998, 1174 of 1998 and 1175

of 1998. Therefore, it will be appropriate that these

appeals be disposed of by a common Judgment and order.

Mr.B.V.Virde learned AGP for the appellant submits

that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court by

relying upon the sale instance at Exh.15 is not proper

because the sale instance was admittedly not in respect

of land from the same village i.e. Umale from which the

lands of respondents/claimants came to be acquired. He

submits that in absence of any evidence as to

comparability, the Reference Court was not justified in

relying upon the sale instance at Exh.15 and on such

basis award any enhancement.

Mr.P.A.Bhosale, the learned counsel for respondent

in First Appeal No.850 of 2002 submits that the enhanced

compensation in the present case is well within the

limits specified in the Government Resolution dated

3.11.2016, which incorporates a policy decision of the

State Government not to pursue appeals of such nature.

Besides, he pointed out that Sale-Deed at Exh.15 was from

village Devhari, which share common boundary with village

Umale. He points out that there were no sale instances

from village Umale available and the appellant State

also did not produce any such sale instance, if at all

they were indeed available. In these circumstances,

Mr.Bhosale learned counsel submits that there can be no

infirmity whatsoever in the approach of the Reference

Court in ordering the enhancement by relying upon sale

instance at Exh.15. He points out that the sale instance

was duly proved by examining PW-2 Mr.Uttam Suka Patil,

the vendor. For all these reasons, Mr.Bhosale learned

counsel submits that there is no infirmity in the

impugned Judgment and award and therefore, the appeals

instituted by the State are liable to be dismissed.

Mr.G.B.Rajale learned counsel for the

respondent/claimant in First Appeal No.848 of 2002 also

submits that there is absolutely no infirmity in the

reasoning of the Reference Court and therefore, these

appeals are liable to be dismissed.

In these appeals, it is quite clear that the

enhancement granted by the Reference Court is well within

the limits specified in the Government Resolution dated

3.11.2016. This Government Resolution relates to a

policy decision of the State Government not to pursue

appeals where the enhancement granted by the Reference

Court is less than four times of the Ready Reckoner Rate

prevalent on the date of issuance of Section 4

Notification. However, since there were no written

instructions to withdraw these appeals, the learned AGP

made his submissions on the merits of the matter.

Respondents/claimants apart from their own

deposition through one of the claimants, who hold Power

of Attorney on behalf of other claimants, have also

examined the vendor Mr.Uttam Suka Patil as PW-2 in

respect of sale instance at Exh.15. This sale instance

indicates that by Sale-Deed dated 11.5.1992 land ad-

measuring 3 Hectare 35 Are was sold for consideration of

Rs.75,000/- to Dr.Bhulchand Chimandas Takwani. In terms

of this Sale-Deed, the rate comes to Rs.22,388/- per

Hectare. The Sale-Deed was executed on 11.5.1992 and the

acquisition was in pursuance of Section 4 Notification

dated 2.5.1993. The Reference Court has therefore quite

correctly considered the escalation of 10% and on such

basis determined rate as Rs.24,626/- per Hectare.

There is evidence on record that the village Umale

and village Devhari share common boundary. The Reference

Court has also noted that there were no sale transactions

from village Umale. As correctly pointed out by

Mr.P.A.Bhosale learned counsel, even the State has

produced no evidence of sale instance from village Umale

assuming that there were sale instances from village

Umale. In this case, Sale-Deed is related to Jirayat

land and acquired lands are also classified as Jirayat

lands. Further, the Reference Court taking into

consideration that the sale instance is from neighbouring

village has reduced the rate from Rs.24,626/- per Hectare

to Rs.22,000/- per Hectare. There is really no legal

infirmity in the reasoning or the approach of the

Reference Court

Upon cumulative consideration of the aforesaid,

there is no case made out to interfere in the impugned

Judgment and award. These appeals are therefore,

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.