State Of Maharashtra & Ors. vs Sahebrao Maichand Sabale

Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1972, the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

By the present appeals, the Appellant-State/acquiring body is aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 30.04.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in LAR Nos. 198/2000, 269/2000, 209/2000, 203/2000, 196/2000, 199/2000, 205/2000, 201/2000, 202/2000, 216/2000, 204/2000, 219/2000, 217/2000, 218/2000, 206/2000, 210/2000, 200/2000, 221/2000, 220/2000, 207/2000 and 222/2000, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation in favour of the Claimants towards the land, as well as the fruit-bearing trees, teakwood trees and other trees. The Claimants have also filed cross-objections seeking higher compensation.

Brief facts of the present cases are as follows:-

The land admeasuring 50 hectares 19 R was acquired for the purpose of the Ravala Minor Irrigation Project, Taluka Soyegaon, District Aurangabad.

On 13.06.1996, the possession was taken and to that effect, the possession receipt below Exhibit-15 was issued. The landowners were paid crop compensation on 31.03.1997.

On 18.09.1997, the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published in the Government Gazette.

The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 14.01.1999. The notices under Sections 9(3) and 9(4) of the Act were issued on 27.02.1999 and on 28.02.2000, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the SLAO”) declared an award under Section 11 of the Act.

On 02.06.1997, the joint measurement of the acquired lands was carried out.

The notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were served upon the landowners on 03.05.2000 and the SLAO granted compensation @ of Rs.299 to Rs.362 per R. The details of References are as follows:-

Sabale (P.K.) 3 860/2005 199/2000 46/2024 Bajesing 54 5 H 96 R 11,12,155.94 Bhalji Sable 4 852/2005 200/2000 5246/20 Jagram 65p 0 H 67 R 71,905.70 09 Fakira Rathod 5 863/2005 201/2000 34/2024 Shivsing 55p 3 H 20 R 5,22,254.43 Sahabar 10 P.K. Sable 6 862/2005 202/2000 37/2024 Baghu 64 1 H 17 R 1,99,872.65 Fakira 66 0 H 3 R Rathod P.K. 7 859/2005 203/2000 41/2024 Kashiram 62 0 H 90 R 2,93,470.88 Kalana Naik 8 856/2005 204/2000 53/2024 Dashrath 70p 0 H 50 R 2,25,911.50 Harchand Chavan 9 857/2005 205/2000 35/2024 Kamalbai 69p 0 H 71 R 1,60,638.75 Ramsing Rabale 10 846/2005 206/2000 42/2024 Ramu 59 3 H 26 R 73,625 Shamu Chaudhary 11 858/2005 207/2000 51/2024 Devidas 55 3 H 80 R 6,52,279.25 Hardas 05 R Sable (P.K.)

Before the learned Reference Court, the Claimants led evidence below the following Exhibits, which read as under:-Sr. F.A. No. LAR No. Name of Claimant Exh. No of No. Deposition of Claimant before Ld. Ref. Court.

After considering the evidence led by both the parties, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation and, therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the State/acquiring body has filed the appeals and the Original Claimants have also filed cross-objections and sought further enhancement of the amount.

Mr. S. G. Sangle, learned Advocate for the Appellants/ acquiring body submits that the SLAO granted compensation for the acquired land as well as the trees, which are mentioned in the valuation report at Exhibit-126. He submits that whatever trees were shown at the time of the acquisition by the authorities, the Claimants have received the correct market value for the land and the acquired trees.

The Claimants have themselves mentioned in the claim petition that possession was taken on 13.06.1996. In the reference proceeding, an amendment application was filed on 04.02.2003, showing an excess number of trees. He submits that when the claim petition was filed, whatever number of trees were mentioned therein was on the basis of the award passed by the SLAO, but subsequently, in the year 2003, an application was filed for incorporating a larger number of trees and seeking further compensation accordingly. Though the said application was contested, the said claim was amended vide order dated 24.06.2003.

Both the expert witnesses i.e. CW3 and CW4 visited the spot on 05.02.1998 and 02.03.1998 respectively and submitted the reports on 15.08.2000. The said reports by CW3 and CW4 are at Exhibits-31, 72 and 73.

On the point of discrepancy between the dates of taking possession and the reports, Mr. Sangle, learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that when the Claimants themselves have stated that the possession was taken on 13.06.1996, the averment regarding availability of report of experts ought to have been raised at the time of passing award by the SLAO or atleast at the time of filing reference before the learned Reference Court. Thus, he submits that the said reports were prepared subsequently after filing of respective references only with a view to get higher compensation for the trees which were not existing in reality. There were no tree existing on the acquired land as claimed by the Claimants apart from the trees mentioned in the SLAO award for which Claimants have already received the compensation.

He further submits that even the report prepared by TILR does not reveal presence of Teakwood trees. Even the joint measurement carried out which was placed on record at Exhibits-122, 123 and 124 does not reveal existence of trees apart from those mentioned in the SLAO award.

On the point of mutation entry, he submits that the Claimants had filed an application before the concerned Talathi on 24.11.1996 for incorporating the number of trees in the 7/12 extract which was allowed and Mutation Entry No.196/1 was effected thereby inserting number of trees. He submits that such application was filed with an ulterior motive of claiming compensation for non-existing trees.

Therefore, he submits that the private valuers' reports were prepared subsequently only to get more amount for the trees and, in fact, as per the valuers' reports, no such trees were acquired. Whatever trees were acquired, the payment was already made and that was a proper determination on the basis of the Government valuer's report. He submits that, as per the original record of the award prepared by the TLR, there was no presence of teakwood and, more particularly, when the joint measurement was prepared at the time of the panchnama.

He submits that when the report of experts were available in the year 2000 itself, the Claimants have not explained the inordinate delay in filing the same before the learned Reference Court, when the respective references were filed in the year 2003. There has been a delay of 3 years in filing the said reports. Thus he submits that such reports were prepared subsequently as an afterthought which are not genuine and safe to rely upon. Even the expert witnesses have deposed that they are not Government recognised valuers having license or authority. Therefore, he submits that such reports ought not to have been relied upon by the learned Reference Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-

Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer Reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751;

LAO, Eluru Vs Jasti Rohini 1995(1) SCC 717;

M.V.K. Gunderao Vs Revenue Divisional Officer(LAO) Narasraopet, reported in 1996(3)SCC 129;

Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Vs K.S. Gangadharappa & another 2009 (11) SCC 164 (3 J);

Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs M.K. Rafiq Saheb Reported in (2011) 7 SCC 714;

Sharad Manikrao Burghate Vs Exeutive Engineer (VIDC) Reported in 2025(3) Bom C.R 160;

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs Dnyaneshwar Sadashive Nagpure in F.A. No 285/ 2022;

State of H.P. Vs Jai Lal & others (1999)7 SCC page 280;

Executive Engineer M.I. Works, Jalgaon Vs Vitthal Damodhar Patil reported in (2019) 7 SCC 225;

State of Maharashtra VS Bhimdeo Rattu Rathod & others reported in 2022(4) Mh.L.J 96;

State of Maharashtra Vs Kailash Shiva Rangari 2016(3) Mh.L.J.457.

He further submits that, as far as the acquired land is concerned, all the Claimants have admitted in their evidence that their acquired land is jirayat land and even the sale instance on which the Claimants relied, i.e. the sale instance below Exhibit-18 dated 02.07.1997, though the learned Reference Court observed that the rate as per the sale instance was just and proper, still the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court for the land is also exorbitant. Therefore, on that basis, he prays to allow the appeals filed by the acquiring body and dismiss the cross-objections filed by the Claimants.

Mr. Dande, learned AGP for the State supports the contention raised by Mr. Sangle and submits that the learned Reference Court has committed an error while granting compensation for the trees. He, therefore, prays to allow the appeals filed by the State and dismiss the cross-objections.

Per contra, Mr. A. B. Kale, learned Advocate for the Claimants submits that the date of taking over the possession is disputed. He submits that the possession was not taken on 13.06.1996. He submits that the land was measured on 22.09.1999 and even the spot verification was also done by the LAO on 18.05.1999, and the joint measurement of Gat No.58 was carried out. The acquiring agency asked for re-measurement of the land in Gat Nos.69, 74 and 77, which was additionally acquired for the said purpose. This fact itself depicts that the possession was with the Claimants till passing of the award.

He submits that all the Claimants are from the tribal area and they were not having knowledge about the proceedings. Due to there lack of knowledge, they answered the question regarding date of taking possession in affirmative that the same was taken on 13.06.1996. Though the reports by private valuers were available in the year 2000 itself, the Claimants could not provide the same to the SLAO or their Advocates due to their inadvertence. Resultantly, the date of taking possession was mistakenly mentioned as 13.06.1996 and such fault is not attributable to the Claimants. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being a beneficial social legislation, the Claimants must not suffer from their inadvertence or lack of knowledge.

He submits that, in fact, all these acquired trees ought to have been mentioned in the award, but there is a fault on the part of the acquiring authority. More particularly, the spot inspection, i.e., Third Pahni Ahwal reveals that there were trees existing on the acquired land which were not incorporated in the award by the SLAO.

On the point of report by the Government Agricultural Valuer at Exhibit-126, he submits that the said report does not mention specific date, thus the same must not be believed. The expert private valuers on whose reports, the Claimants relied are having higher qualification and experience then the Government approved valuers and thus there is no reason to disbelieve their reports. Infact, he submits that the Claimants are entitled to compensation atleast at the rate of 80% of the market value stated in those reports. In support of his contention, he relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Chindha Fakira Patil (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 787.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record and proceedings. Here, in this case, the date of taking over possession is the crucial date. In the claim petition, the Claimants have mentioned in Clause No.6 that the acquiring body had taken possession on 13.06.1996. More particularly, Exhibit-15, i.e., the possession receipts (Taba Pavti), clearly show that the possession was taken on 13.06.1996. As per the possession receipts, 10 bore trees and one teakwood tree were shown on the acquired land of Ramu Shamu. 11 teakwood trees and one ber tree were shown in respect of Ashok Namdev and Supan Namdev. As regards Shantabai Ramu, 10 teakwood trees and one Aola tree were shown. In the case of Sudhakar Ramu, 8 teakwood trees and one ber tree were shown to have been acquired.

The said possession receipt dated 31.06.1996 was exhibited and on the basis of the receipt, it is revealed that the above-mentioned trees were acquired from all these Claimants. More particularly, all these receipts were submitted along with the list of documents by the Claimants themselves and the same is found in the record at Exhibit-

The said list of documents filed by the Claimants, at Exhibit-13, clearly reveals the fact that possession was taken on 13.06.1996. More particularly, in their depositions, the Claimants have admitted that possession of the acquired land was taken on 13.06.1996. Therefore, it needs to be taken into consideration as to how many trees were in existence at the time of taking over possession on 13.06.1996 and, accordingly, the possession receipts reveal that the said trees were acquired at the time of taking over possession.

The record further reveals that, though the possession was taken on 13.06.1996, the acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing the Section 4 Notification on 18.09.1997. After going through the record, it appears that, after passing of the award on 28.02.2000, the Claimants filed the reference under Section 18 of the Act and mentioned the number of trees which were in existence at the time of taking over possession. However, though the claim petition was filed in 2000, an application for amendment was filed on 04.02.2003. After going through the original pleadings, there was no reference to the valuer's reports and, more particularly, to the visits for inspection by both the valuers, i.e. CW3 and CW4. The said amendment application was allowed on 24.06.2003.

Considering the above, if there was any joint valuer's report and, in fact, if both the valuers had visited the site on 02.03.1998 and 05.02.1998, the Claimants could not have missed the same while filing the claim petition. Therefore, all these reports were prepared subsequently only to place them on record before the learned Reference Court by showing an excess number of trees so as to get a higher value for the trees. More particularly, whatever trees were in existence were clearly mentioned by the SLAO, along with the number of trees acquired. Therefore, whatever trees were acquired and shown in the award, compensation was paid for the same. The award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 28.02.2000.

One more interesting fact is that the record reveals that the Claimants filed an application on 24.11.1996 before Talathi for recording the trees in the 7/12 extract. Mutation Entry No.196/1 was effected in the other rights column. Surprisingly, the same number of trees is mentioned in the private valuer’s report dated 12.06.1998 and 24.07.1998. It is extremely difficult to comprehend that if the possession was already taken on 13.06.1996, how did the private valuers conducted spot inspection and prepared valuation report that too mentioning the same number of trees as are mentioned in the 7/12 extract upon mutation. Thus, it can be said that the Claimants have tried to create the record firstly by filing application before the concerned Talathi and secondly, by preparing bogus reports. Thus, in my considered view such reports are not genuine and ought not to have been relied upon by the learned Reference Court.

The private valuers themselves have admitted in cross-objections that they are not registered valuers, upon such admission, the learned Reference Court ought not to have relied upon their reports. If at all such reports were available with the Claimants, they were expected to raise the contention before the SLAO or atleast in their reference petitions before the learned Reference Court. In absence of such contention, it cannot be sufficiently held that the said reports were prepared prior to taking possession. No reason has been stated by the Claimants for withholding such reports for three years.

Ultimately, it can be said that the entire exercise was carried out only to get compensation for the trees which were not existing in reality causing unnecessary burden upon the public exchequer and such conduct cannot be overlooked.

Considering this, I am of the opinion that, the learned Reference Court has committed an error in relying upon the private valuers' report and, therefore, the impugned award to the extent of grant of compensation for the trees is liable to be set aside. However, as regards the amount awarded for the land, I find that the amount is not exorbitant and, therefore, to that extent, the order passed by the learned Reference Court, granting compensation towards the land, is maintained. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-

After deposit of such amount by the Claimants, the same be adjusted from the amount of compensation payable to them towards acquired land.