{"id":93687,"date":"2010-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-09T04:13:48","modified_gmt":"2015-05-08T22:43:48","slug":"general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: F.M. Reis<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n                           FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.\n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n                              NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                               First Appeal No.361\/2001\n\n         General Manager, \n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n         Western Coalfields Ltd.\n         Wani Area, Tadali, \n         Dist. Chandrapur.                         ..Appellant (Ori. Respondent\n                                                     no.4 on R.A.)\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n           ..VERSUS..     \n    1.   Smt. Suman Wd\/o Nanaji Balki,\n         Aged about 55 Yrs., Occu. Household.\n                         \n    2.   Prakash S\/o Nanaji Balki,\n         Aged about 38 Yrs., Occu. Cultivator. \n\n    3.   Smt. Kusum W\/o  Digamber Thakare,\n      \n\n\n         Aged about 35 Yrs., Occu. Household,\n         R\/o Chandrapur, Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur.\n   \n\n\n\n    4.   Ravindra S\/o Nanaji Balki,\n         Aged about 30 Yrs., Occu. Service.\n\n\n\n\n\n    5.   Smt. Kalpana W\/o Haridas Bobade,\n         Aged about 25 Yrs., Occu. Household,\n         R\/o Unshala, Tq. Warora, Dist. Chandrapur.\n\n    6.   Ku. Sunita D\/o Nanaji Balki,\n         Aged about 20 Yrs., Occu. Household.\n\n\n\n\n\n    7.   Smt. Sadhana W\/o Divekar Yergude,\n         Aged about 28 Yrs., Occu. Household.\n         R\/o Chandrapur, Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur.\n\n         Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6 r\/o Ukani, Tq. Wani,\n         Dist. Yavatmal.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::\n                                                      2\n\n         8.   State of Maharashtra,\n              through the Collector,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                      \n              Yavatmal.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n         9.   Special Land Acquisition Officer,\n              Minor Irrigation Works No.II,\n              Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.\n\n         10. Union of India, through the Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n             Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhawan,\n             New Delhi.                           Respondents  (Original petitioners &\n                                                  respondents 1 to 3 on R.A.) \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
                          Mr. S.C. & A.S. Mehadia, counsel for appellant.
\n                          Mr. M.V. Samarth, counsel for respondent nos.1 to 7.\n<\/p>\n
                          Mr. T.R. Kankale, A.G.P. for respondent nos.8 and 9.\n<\/p>\n
                ———————————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                                           with
\n                                   First Appeal No.359\/2001<\/p>\n
              General Manager,
\n              Western Coalfields Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
              Wani Area, Tadali,
\n              Dist. Chandrapur.                                     ..Appellant (Ori. Respondent<\/p>\n
                                                                      no.4 on R.A.)<\/p>\n
                 ..VERSUS..\n<\/p>\n
         1.   Smt. Chandrakala Wd\/o Dadaji Lode,
\n              Aged about 44 Yrs., Occu. Household.\n<\/p>\n
         2.   Prashant Dadaji Lode,<\/p>\n
              Aged about 22 Yrs., Occu. Cultivator.\n<\/p>\n
         3.   Pramod  Dadaji Lode,
\n              Aged about 21 Yrs., Occu. Student.\n<\/p>\n
         4.   Pravin Dadaji Lode,
\n              Aged about 19 Yrs., Occu. Student.\n<\/p>\n
              All 1 to 4 r\/o Ukani, Tq. Wani,
\n              Dist. Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
        5.   Sau. Asha Kishor Astokar,
\n             Aged about 25 Yrs., Occu. Household,<\/p>\n
             R\/o Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   State of Maharashtra,
\n             through the Collector,
\n             Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Special Land Acquisition Officer,
\n             Minor Irrigation Works No.II,
\n             Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   Union of India, through the Secretary,
\n             Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhawan,
\n             New Delhi.                           Respondents  (Original petitioners &<\/p>\n
                                                  respondents 1 to 3 on R.A.)        <\/p>\n
              ———————————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                         Mr. S.C. & A.S. Mehadia, counsel for appellant.
\n                         Mr. M.V. Samarth, counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5.
\n                         Mr. T.R. Kankale, A.G.P. for respondent nos.6 to 8.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               ———————————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                                          with<\/p>\n
                                  First Appeal No.357\/2001<\/p>\n
             General Manager,
\n             Western Coalfields Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
             Wani Area, Tadali,
\n             Dist. Chandrapur.                                     ..Appellant (Ori. Respondent
\n                                                                     no.4 on R.A.)<\/p>\n
                ..VERSUS..\n<\/p>\n
        1.   Smt. Lahanubai Wd\/o Dharmaji Khapne,
\n             Aged about 75 Yrs., Occu. Household.  (Deleted)<\/p>\n
        2.   Sau. Sakhubai W\/o Shamrao Parkhi,
\n             Aged about 35 Yrs., Occu. Household.\n<\/p>\n
             Both R\/o Ukani, Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
        3.   State of Maharashtra,
\n             through the Collector,<\/p>\n
             Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   Special Land Acquisition Officer,
\n             Minor Irrigation Works No.II,
\n             Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Union of India, through the Secretary,<\/p>\n
             Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhawan,
\n             New Delhi.                                   Respondents  (Original petitioners &
\n                                                          respondents 1 to 3 on R.A.)\n<\/p>\n
                ———————————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                         Mr. S.C. & A.S. Mehadia, counsel for appellant.
\n                         Mr. M.V. Samarth, counsel for respondent no.2.
\n                         Mr. T.R. Kankale, A.G.P. for respondent nos.3 and 4.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               ———————————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                                CORAM  : F.M. REIS J.<\/p>\n
\n                                               th\n                                DATE      : 19\n                                                  JANUARY, \n                                                            2010.\n                                                                  \n          \n\n                ORAL JUDGMENT \n       \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                1.              The above appeals have been filed by the acquiring body
\n                against the common award dated 10th of October 2000 passed by the
\n                2nd  Joint   Civil   Judge   (Senior   Division),   Yavatmal   whereby   the <\/p>\n
                reference sought by the respondent nos.1 and 2 was partly allowed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                The parties shall be referred in the manner as they so appear in the
\n                cause title of the impugned judgment.  The appeals are disposed of <\/p>\n
                by common judgment as the references were also disposed of by the
\n                Reference Court by common judgment dated 10th of October 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                2.              The   lands   of   the   petitioners     were   acquired   by   the
\n                respondent no.2  for the respondent  no.4 for the purpose of Ninja
\n                Open   Cast   Mining   Development   Project   in   the   village   Ukani,   Tq.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
     Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.     The portion which has been acquired were <\/p>\n
     with regard to First Appeal No.361\/2001 an area of 3.95 Hectors
\n     belonging to the petitioners from the property Survey under No.274 <\/p>\n
     was intended to be acquired.    The portion acquired in First Appeal
\n     No.357\/2001 was 2.78 Hectors from  the Survey No.504 belonging
\n     to the petitioners  therein. With regard to First Appeal No.359\/2001 <\/p>\n
     an area of 3 Hector was intended to be  acquired by the respondent
\n     no.2 in respect of the property Survey No.126\/1.   All the said lands
\n     were   acquired   by   the   same   notification.   The   notification   under <\/p>\n
     section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the official
\n     gazette   on   10\/12\/1987   and   the   award   was   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
     respondent no.2 on 8\/8\/1990 in respect of the acquisition of the
\n     properties   of   the   petitioners.     By   the   award   passed   by   the   Land <\/p>\n
     Acquisition   Officer   the   compensation   to   the   petitioners     was
\n     awarded   at   the   rate   of   Rs.20,500\/-   per   hector.     The   petitioners
\n     sought a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for <\/p>\n
     enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000\/- per hector.\n<\/p>\n
     The   Reference   Court  after   recording   of   evidence  and   hearing   the
\n     parties,   awarded   the   compensation   by   the   impugned   judgment
\n     dated   10\/10\/2000   at   the   rate   of   Rs.45,000\/-   per   hector.     The <\/p>\n
     respondent   no.4   who   is  the   acquiring   body   preferred   the   present
\n     appeals   challenging   the   impugned   judgment   passed   by   the
\n     Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
     3.            The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4
\n     submitted   that   the   evidence   on   record   does   not   justify   that   the
\n     market value of land as on the date of section   4 notification was
\n     Rs.45,000\/-   per   hector.     It   is   further   his   submission   that   the
\n     Reference   Court  has  not  appreciated   the   evidence  on  record  in  a
\n     proper   perspective   and   consequently   came   to   an   erroneous <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
     conclusion   that   the   compensation   payable   to   the   petitioners   was <\/p>\n
     Rs.45,000\/ per hector.    It is further his submission that the reliefs
\n     granted by the Reference Court is on the basis of the sale deed at <\/p>\n
     Exh.59 which is  a sale deed pertaining to village Belora and not at
\n     village Ukani where the land acquired was located.   He has further
\n     submitted that the petitioners themselves had produced a copy of <\/p>\n
     judgment dated 31\/12\/1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Yavatmal in
\n     Land   Acquisition   Case   Nos.144\/1992,   148\/1992   and   150\/1992
\n     (Exh.50)   wherein   the   compensation   was   awarded   at   the   rate   of <\/p>\n
     Rs.28,000\/- per  hector.   It is further his submission that the sale
\n     deed at Exh.51 which is located at village Ukani was at the rate of <\/p>\n
     Rs.24,000\/-   per   hector   and   as   such   there   was   no   justification   to
\n     award the compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000\/- per hector.  The <\/p>\n
     learned counsel further submitted that the land of the petitioners
\n     had no appreciable value as the said lands were in the vicinity of the
\n     mines.  It is further submitted that there was no justification for the <\/p>\n
     learned Judge to rely upon the sale instances in respect of village <\/p>\n
     Belora when there were sale instances of the village Ukani where
\n     the land acquired was located.   The learned counsel has submitted
\n     that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     4.            On  the  other  hand, the  learned  counsel  appearing  for
\n     the petitioners submitted that there is no infirmity committed by the
\n     Reference   Court   while   passing   the   impugned   judgment   as   the <\/p>\n
     provisions of law for the purpose of determining the compensation
\n     have been duly complied with.  It is further his contention that the
\n     village  Belora  is adjoining to  the  village  Ukani having  a common
\n     boundary and the facilities which are available in the acquired land
\n     are also available in Belora and as such there cannot be justification
\n     for the appellants to contend that the learned Judge erred in relying <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
          on the sale instances of the village Belora.  He further submitted that <\/p>\n
          in any event the sale deed at Exh.51 shows that the   value of the
\n          land was at the rate of Rs.48,000\/- per hector and not Rs.24,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
          per   hector   as   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
\n          appellant\/respondent   no.4   and   as   such   the   compensation   as
\n          determined   by   the   Reference   Court   cannot   be   faulted.       He   has <\/p>\n
          further   submitted   that   considering   the   sale   deed   at   Exh.51,   the
\n          Reference Court has correctly determined the compensation at the
\n          rate   of   Rs.45,000\/-   per   hector.       The   learned   counsel   further <\/p>\n
          submitted that the judgments produced by the applicant cannot be
\n          considered     as  the   value   therein   was  determined   on   the   basis  of <\/p>\n
          Capitalization Method of the agricultural produce  as admittedly in
\n          the   present   case   comparable   sale   deeds   were   produced   by   the <\/p>\n
          petitioners.   The learned counsel submitted that there is no merit in
\n          the present appeals and as such the same deserve to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
          5.             Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on <\/p>\n
          perusal   of   impugned   judgment   the   following   point   arise   for
\n          determination  in the present appeals –\n<\/p>\n
                 Whether   the   Reference   Court   was   justified   to   fix   the  <\/p>\n
                 compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000\/- per hector ?\n<\/p>\n
     6.        Dealing   with   the   said   point   for   determination,   the
\n     Reference Court while determining the compensation discarded <\/p>\n
     the judgment dated 31\/12\/1998 at Exh.55 as the value of land
\n     was determined on the basis of Income Capitalization Method.
\n     It   is   well   settled   that   Income   Capitalization   Method   is   to   be
\n     applied in case comparable sale instances are not available.   In
\n     the   present   cases,   I   find   that   there   were   comparable   sale
\n     instances     produced   by   the   petitioners   for   determining   the <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
     compensation   and   as   such   the   question   of   determining   the <\/p>\n
     compensation   on   the   basis   of   Income   Capitalization   Method
\n     does not arise at all.   As such the Reference Court was justified <\/p>\n
     in   discarding   the   judgment   at   Exh.55.       The   claim   of   the
\n     petitioners for the purpose of valuing the land on the basis of
\n     Income Capitalization Method derived from the land acquired <\/p>\n
     has   also   been   rejected   by   the   Reference   Court   for   justifiable
\n     reasons.   The petitioners had failed to produce any records for
\n     the purpose of disclosing the income derived from the acquired <\/p>\n
     lands.   In absence of such material, the question of arriving at
\n     any decision on the basis of Capitalization Method does not arise <\/p>\n
     at all.   As such the Reference Court was justified in refusing to
\n     determine   the   compensation   on   the   basis   of   Capitalization <\/p>\n
     Method.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    The reference Court while determining the compensation <\/p>\n
     has relied upon the sale deed at Exh.59   wherein an area 1.01 <\/p>\n
     Hector was purchased for a sum of Rs.48,000\/-. The said sale
\n     deed is dated 14\/1\/1986 and the notification in the present case
\n     was published on 10\/12\/1986. The Reference Court considering <\/p>\n
     that   the   said   sale   deed   was   comparable   awarded   the
\n     compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000\/- per hector.     It is well
\n     settled that merely because the land in sale deed at Exh.59 is
\n     pertaining to the village Belora, it cannot be said that the same <\/p>\n
     cannot   be   considered   for   the   purpose   of   determining   the
\n     compensation in adjoining village provided that all the facilities
\n     available at village  Belora    are also  available  at village  Ukani
\n     and the nature of the land   being similar.   The Apex Court in
\n     2001   Supreme   Court   2424   (Thakarsibhai   Devjibhai   and   others
\n     V\/s. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another)  held that when the <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
     qualities   and   the   similarities   of   the   land   as   well   as   the <\/p>\n
     potentialities   thereof   are   similar   merely   because   such   similar
\n     situated lands is about 5 kilometers is not at all relevant for the <\/p>\n
     purpose of determining market value of the land.  The petitioner
\n     has stated in his deposition that the land at Belora pertaining to
\n     the sale deed at Exh.59 and the land acquired is similar and that <\/p>\n
     the distance is between 1 and 1 \u00bd k.m. from the village Ukani.
\n     The   purchaser   of   the   said   sale   deed   Shri   Bharat   was   also
\n     examined who stated that both the lands were dry crop lands <\/p>\n
     and similar in quality.         In the present case the respondents
\n     have failed  to adduce any evidence to disclose that the lands at <\/p>\n
     Belora are not similarly situated as the lands which have been
\n     acquired   in   the   present   proceedings.     As   such   the   Reference <\/p>\n
     Court   was   justified   in   relying   the   sale   deed   at   Exh.59   but
\n     however, the sale deed at Exh.58 being of village Ukani could
\n     also   be   considered   for   the   purpose   of   determining   the <\/p>\n
     compensation in the present cases.    When the sale deeds of the <\/p>\n
     same   village   are   available,   such   sale   deeds   will   have   more
\n     evidentiary   value   than   the   sale   deeds   of   adjoining   village.
\n     Though   the   sale   deeds   of   adjoining   village   can   also   be <\/p>\n
     considered   for   the   purpose  of   arriving   at  compensation   along
\n     with   the   sale   deeds   of   the   villages   where   the   land   has   been
\n     acquired.\n<\/p>\n
     8.            Dealing   with   the   factors   for   the   purpose   of
\n     determining the compensation on the basis of the comparable
\n     sale instances, I find that the sale deed at Exh.58 which is of
\n     village   Ukani   is   also   comparable   to   the   land   acquired.   The
\n     genuineness of the said sale deed has not been disputed by the
\n     respondents.   The sale deed which is dated 12\/4\/1988 is in the <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
     proximity   of   the   date   when     Section   4   notification   was <\/p>\n
     published.  Considering that there is no evidence adduced by the
\n     respondent to the extent that there was any appreciable increase <\/p>\n
     in the value of land in view of the intended acquisition, the said
\n     sale deed whereby one Kisan Nagoji Parshive had purchased an <\/p>\n
     area of 1.24   hectors can also be considered for the purpose of <\/p>\n
     determining   the   compensation   of   the   land   acquired   of   the
\n     petitioners.   By the said sale deed an area of 1.24 hectors was
\n     sold for Rs.60,000\/- which works out to Rs.48,387\/- per hector.\n<\/p>\n
     A.W.1   in his deposition has stated that the said land of Kisan <\/p>\n
     Nagoji Parshive is similar in quality to the acquired land and the
\n     same   is   located   at   the   distance   of   2   fields   away   from   the
\n     acquired land. The said contentions have not been disputed by <\/p>\n
     the respondents in the course of the cross examination of the
\n     said witnesses.   As such it can be safely assumed that the sale
\n     deed at Exh.58 of said Kisan can be considered for the purpose <\/p>\n
     of   valuing   the   land   of   the   petitioners.   Considering   the   well <\/p>\n
     settled principles as determined by the Apex Court referred is
\n     herein above the sale deed at Exh.58 is comparable sale deed for
\n     determining   the   compensation   in   the   present   case.     The <\/p>\n
     Reference Court was not justified in not considering the said sale
\n     deed and relying upon the sale deed at village Belora when the
\n     sale deed was available in respect of the land which was similar
\n     to  that of  the   acquired   land.    The  contentions of  the  learned <\/p>\n
     counsel for the appellants that the consideration works out to
\n     Rs.24,000\/- per hector cannot be accepted as on perusal of the
\n     said sale deed at Exh.58, I find that the calculation discloses that
\n     the subject matter of the land in the said sale deed was sold at
\n     the rate of Rs.48,387\/-   per hector.    Considering the said sale
\n     deed at Exh.58 and in view of the fact that the transaction has <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
     taken   place   about   four   months   after   the   notification   under <\/p>\n
     section   4   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act   was   published   in   the
\n     present case, I find that the market value of the land as on the <\/p>\n
     date of Section 4 notification was at the rate of Rs.45,000\/- per
\n     hector.  <\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n     9.               In\n                         Mahesh\n                                  Dattatraya   Tirthakar   V\/s.     State   of   \n<\/pre>\n
     Maharashtra 2009 AIR S.C.W. 2962 the Apex Court has held that
\n     the   burden   of   proving   the   true   market   value   of   the   acquired <\/p>\n
     property is on the State that has acquired it for the particular <\/p>\n
     purpose   when   the   land   owner   has   shown   by   testimony   and
\n     valuation report of the Expert and the amount of compensation
\n     awarded by Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate, onus shifts <\/p>\n
     on the State to adduce sufficient evidence to sustain the award.
\n     In   the   present   case   the   petitioners   have   established   that   the
\n     market value of the land as awarded by the Land Acquisition <\/p>\n
     Officer was inadequate in as much as the sale instances, referred <\/p>\n
     to herein above, disclose that the market value of the land was
\n     to   the   tune   of   Rs.45,000\/-   per   hector   when   the   Section   4
\n     notification   was   published.     The   respondents   have   failed   to <\/p>\n
     adduce any evidence to show that the compensation as awarded
\n     by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate.  Considering the
\n     above, it can be safely held that the market value of the land as
\n     on   the   date   of   Section   4   notification   was   at   the   rate   of <\/p>\n
     Rs.45,000\/- per hector.\n<\/p>\n
     10.           The   Reference   Court   while   determining   the
\n     compensation has not considered  the said sale deed  at Exh.58
\n     and   has   relied   upon   only   the   sale   deed   at   Exh.59   which   is
\n     pertaining to the village Belora wherein the market value was <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
     also at the rate of Rs.48,000\/- per hector about 1 and \u00bd years <\/p>\n
     before the Section 4 notification was published in the present
\n     case.     This   shows   that   in   any   event   the   compensation   as <\/p>\n
     determined by the Land Acquisition Officer  was inadequate and
\n     the   Reference   Court     as   such   was   justified   in   enhancing   the
\n     compensation.  Considering the above, I find that the Reference <\/p>\n
     Court was as such justified in coming to the conclusion that the
\n     market value of the acquired land as on the date of Section 4
\n     notification   was   at   the   rate   of   Rs.45,000\/-   per   hector.\n<\/p>\n
     Considering the above, said point for determination is answered
\n     accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
     11. In   view   of   the   above,   I   find   no   substance   in   the   above <\/p>\n
     appeals and as such the appeals stand dismissed with no order
\n     as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
       Tambaskar.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:38 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010 Bench: F.M. Reis 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No.361\/2001 General Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd. Wani Area, Tadali, Dist. Chandrapur. ..Appellant (Ori. Respondent no.4 on R.A.) ..VERSUS.. 1. Smt. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGeneral Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-08T22:43:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-08T22:43:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2679,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010\",\"name\":\"General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-08T22:43:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-08T22:43:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-08T22:43:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010"},"wordCount":2679,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010","name":"General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-08T22:43:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-smt-suman-w-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"General Manager vs Smt. Suman W on 19 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93687","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}