fa578.91.odt 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.578/1991
APPELLANTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra, through Collector,
Buldana.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Medium Project at Khamgaon,
Distt. Buldana.
(Original Appellants on R.A.).
ig ...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENT:- Nathu Namdeo Sontakke
(Original Respondent on R.A.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Shri A.S. Sonare, AGP for appellants]
[None for respondent though served]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED :- 08.12.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 6.12.1990 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Buldhana awarding enhanced compensation @ Rs.16,000/- per hectare the State of Maharashtra has preferred the present appeal.
2. In support of the appeal, learned A.G.P. for appellants -
State of Maharashtra argued that the reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation almost to double that of the award ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:10 ::: fa578.91.odt 2/2 made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the reliance placed on sale-deed (Exh.19) 16.4.1980 was misplaced.
3. None appeared for the respondent though served.
4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award.
The learned reference Court placed reliance on Exh.19 in which the rate of land was Rs.10,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.25,000/- per hectare. As a matter of fact notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 10.2.1983 i.e. three years after the said sale-deed (Exh.19). In other words, looking to the fact that the rate of land even in the year 1980 under Exh.19 was Rs.25,000/- per hectare three years thereafter the rate could not be less than that. At any rate the reference Court has not awarded anything more than Rs.16,000/- per hectare and therefore, I do not find that the reference Court committed any error in relying upon sale instance (Exh.19) which is three years prior to notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the result, finding no error with the reference Court's conclusion, I find no merit in the present first appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE ssw ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:10 :::