Pralhad Annasaheb Nirwal vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Jalna & Ors.

. First Appeal No.2270 Of 2021 is removed from board. First Appeal No.2269 of 2021 is not on board. After mentioning, taken on board.

Heard both sides finally at the admission stage with their consent.

The appellants, who are original claimants, have preferred these First Appeals for enhancement, being dissatisfied with the fact that the enhancement has not been granted by the Reference Court by applying annual escalations. The issue is already covered by earlier judgments. The facts and circumstances of all the appeals are identical substantially, hence I propose to decide the appeals by common judgment.

The acquisition in question is in respect of the ‘Nimnna Dudhana’ project. The lands which are under acquisition are from village Mapegaon, Taluka Partur, District Jalna. Those are being classified into dry land, seasonal irrigated land, irrigated land and pot kharab land. Interestingly, the classification made by the Reference Court as well as rate awarded for the land have not been disputed by both parties to the present appeals. The learned counsels appearing for the appellants have made candid statement that the rate awarded by Reference Court of Rs.2500/- per Are for dry land, Rs.3750/- per Are for seasonal irrigated land, Rs.5000/-per Are for irrigated land and Rs.1250/-per Are for pot kharab land are not under challenge.

Following material particulars are useful for deciding the controversy :

In all the appeals, notification under Section 4 was issued on 11.07.2002. The Award under Section 11 was passed on 11.02.2006. The Reference Court by impugned judgment and award in each appeal awarded rate of Rs.2500/- per Are for dry land, Rs.3750/-per Are for seasonal irrigated land, Rs.5000/-per Are for irrigated land and Rs.1250/-per Are for pot kharab land.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Reference Court committed patent illegality in depriving the appellants from annual escalation. The rule of annual escalation laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Huchanagouda vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. ought to have been followed. The reliance is placed on following judgments :

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-acquiring body and learned AGP vehemently contest the matter. It is submitted that the appellants have failed to prove that the acquired lands are identically situated for claiming the enhancement. The ground of parity cannot be pressed into service blindly. It is further submitted that the escalation by cumulative effect cannot be permitted to be applied. It is submitted that no case in made out for enhancement by applying belting system. The reliance is also placed on the village map to show that the locations of the village from which lands are acquired and the difference in geographical situations. The reliance is placed on following judgments :

It is relevant to note that the acquiring body has not preferred any appeal challenging impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. The appellants have no grievance for the rate of Rs.2500/- per Are awarded for the dry land and consequential rates considering type of land.

When the lands were acquired from village Satona, the notification was published on 31.03.1996. The Reference Court vide judgment dated 15.04.2009 in LAR No.59 of 2002 fixed the rate of Rs.2500/- per Are for dry land and consequently Rs.1250/- per Are for Pot Kharab land. First Appeal Stamp No.17242 of 2014 which was preferred by the acquiring body was withdrawn. On the basis of the rate fixed for the lands from village Satona, the claimants whose lands were acquired from Village Deola and Raniwahegaon and who had been given compensation at a lesser rate, approached the Supreme Court in the matter of Vishvanath s/o Narayan Late (supra). The matter was remanded to High Court vide order dated 11.09.2018 considering the disparity in the rates.

The coordinate bench in First Appeal No.1958 of 2018 while deciding the appeals in respect of the lands from village Raniwahegaon and Deola acquired for selfsame project, approved the rate of Rs.2400/- per Are which was accepted in other matters before Lok Adalat. Thereafter, by common judgment dated 07.02.2023, the claimants whose lands from village Deola were acquired had approached the High Court and First Appeal No.1351 of 2009 and connected matters were decided, awarding rate of Rs.2400/- per Are for dry land relying on the rates fixed in earlier litigation. In First Appeal No.2939 of 2021, the High Court allowed the First Appeal by approving the rate of Rs.2250/- per Are for dry land. A deduction of 10% was considered in the matter and the lands were from village Hondegaon.

The judgment referred above passed in First Appeal No.2939 of 2021 and connected matters was challenged in the Supreme Court by the acquiring body and Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed on 20.10.2023. Lastly, this Court had the occasion to consider the rate in respect of acquisition of the land from village Mapegaon. Considering the previous judgments as well as the selfsame submissions made by the counsels of the acquiring body, the rate of Rs.2500/- per Are which was fixed for lands from village Satona was approved in First Appeal No.2259 of 2021. The geographical position considering the map was also dealt with.

In view of the above history of litigation, it is evident that a consistent view has been taken by the Courts in awarding rate of Rs.2500/- per Are for dry land. Appellants have rightly relied on the judgment of Ali Mohammad Beigh and Ors (Supra). It is apposite to refer to Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 which as follows :

This Court is bound by law laid down by the Supreme Court. If the lands identical in nature but situated in different villages would fetch same rates if they are acquired for selfsame project and the villages form a cluster.

In Case of Huchanagouda (Supra), it is laid down by the Supreme Court that annual escalation by cumulative effect is permissible. In the present matters, the difference is more than six years from 31.03.1996 to 11.07.2002. Appellants are entitled to have escalation of 10% per annum for six years. I find no merit in the objection raised by acquiring body in respect of escalation as well as cumulative effect.

The respondents did not lead any evidence before the Reference Court. They did not challenge the impugned judgment and award. Considering peculiar geographical situation and the village map, I find no substance in the submission of the respondent that belting system has not been applied for fixing the rate. It cannot be overlooked that the lands under acquisition are interior rural lands. No National Highway, State Highway or road is seen in the vicinity. The objection regarding belting system was not taken by acquiring body before the Reference Court. Judgment of Bhule Ram vs. Union of India (supra) will not help respondents.

For the reasons stated above, I find that all the appeals deserve to be allowed partly. Appellants are entitled to have the following rates, considering the escalation for six years with cumulative effect :

I, therefore, pass the following order :