1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 43 of 2004
Appellants : 1) The State of Maharashtra
2) Collector, Yavatmal
3) Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer,
Darwha, District Yavatmal
versus
Respondent: Syd. Farook Syd. Karim, aged about 43 years, resident
of Inamdarpura, Ward No. 1, Darwha, District Yavatmal Shri Nitin Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants None appears for respondent Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 29th November 2016 Oral Judgment
1. By this appeal, legality and correctness of the judgment and ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:46:30 ::: 2 order dated 31.1.2003 delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 24 of 1992 has been questioned.
2. The respondent, whose land admeasuring 95 R from and out of field survey number 140 of village Mahuli, Tahsil Darwha, District Yavatmal, was acquired for extension of Gaothan of village Mahuli, had made a Reference for granting enhancement in the compensation received by him from the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded him compensation of Rs. 33,972/- and the respondent desired that more compensation be given to him. Section 4 Notification was published on 21.1.1995 and the Award was passed on 27.1.1997.
3. In the Reference Application, the respondent adduced the evidence and heavily relied upon the sale instances to prove his contention that the land which was acquired, deserved compensation @ Rs. 50/- per square foot, it being situated within hardly 3 and half kilometers away from Darwha town and bordering Yavatmal-Akola State Highway.
4. Upon considering the evidence available on record and arguments of rival parties, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division partly ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:46:30 ::: 3 allowed the Reference Application by enhancing the compensation @ Rs.
16/- per square foot by the impugned judgment and order. The appellants, being aggrieved thereby, are now before this Court in the present appeal.
5. I have heard Shri Nitin Rode, learned Assistant Government Pleader for appellants. None appears for respondent though served. I have carefully gone through the record of the case as also impugned judgment and order.
6. The only point that falls for determination is -
"Whether the compensation rate determined to be at Rs. 16/-
per square foot is reasonable, warranting no interference in the impugned judgment and order ?"
7. The evidence available on record shows that sale deed at exhibit 47 was the relevant sale instance for demonstrating the market value of the land acquired in the instant case and it has been rightly considered to be so by the Reference Court. Shri Nitin Rode, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that this sale instance being post- notification transaction, the Reference Court ought not to have considered the same. He submits that this sale instance was not even ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:46:30 ::: 4 within the proximate period of time to Section 4 Notification published on 21.1.1995. So the submission that no sale instance falling beyond the proximate period of time of the issuance of Section 4 Notification can be taken into account for determining the value, is to be considered.
8. Perusal of the impugned judgment, however, shows that this sale instance has been considered by the Reference Court not as it is, but only as a reference point for appropriately determining the market price of the acquired land in the year 1995. Learned Reference Court has rightly observed that there were no sale instances of higher or lesser price during the proximate period and it was just and proper to consider the sale instance (exhibit 47) to determine market value in the present case.
Learned Reference Court has properly calculated annual increase of 10% and made 1/3rd price reduction considering size of the land in question and thereby determining price of the land at Rs. 16/- per square foot.
Learned Reference Court by applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. LAO (AIR 1988 SC 1652) has computed 75% of acquired land for granting compensation, sparing 25% of land for development purposes.
9. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has not granted any ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:46:30 ::: 5 compensation for trees and claim of respondent in that regard was rejected and rightly so.
10. In the circumstances, I find that neither any illegality nor incorrectness in appreciating the evidence or applying the law has been committed by the Reference Court. It has correctly determined the compensation rate to be at Rs. 16/- per square foot. The point is answered accordingly. Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. In the result, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:46:30 :::