J-fa1141.10.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.1141 OF 2010
Tulsidas s/o. Shamrao Gaikwad,
Aged about --- years,
Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Kotha Fattepur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Distt. Yavatmal. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Yavatmal.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bembla Project, Yavatmal,
having its office in the New
Administrative Bldg., Collectorate,
Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project, Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation,
Awdhutwadi, Yavatmal,
Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Smt. Vijaya Thakare , Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th DATE : 14 DECEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal questions the legality and correctness of the ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:04:08 ::: J-fa1141.10.odt 2/6 judgment and order dated 13th February, 2009 rendered in Land Acquisition Case No.42/2005 by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal. The appeal has been filed on the ground that the compensation granted by the Reference Court is inadequate.
2. I have heard Smt. Vijaya Thakre, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3. I have gone through the record of the case including the impugned judgment and order.
3. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is :
Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper ?
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant whose two pieces of lands bearing survey No.19/2 and 19/3, situated at Village Rustampur were acquired for submergence of Bembla project vide Section 4 notification published on 4.2.1999, that the compensation though enhanced by the Reference Court was inadequate. It must be noted here that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.59,072/- per hectare which was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare by the Reference Court while deciding the application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court did not properly appreciate the evidence of similarity of the lands involved in the ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:04:08 ::: J-fa1141.10.odt 3/6 sale instance vide Exh.-53 as well as sale instance dated 19.4.1994. She submits that the sale instance vide Exh.-53 was of village Kopra and the sale instance dated 19.4.1994 (unexhibited document) was from village Kolhi which village was also adjacent to village Rustampur. She submits that both these sale instances disclosed the value of the lands in the vicinity to be at Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare. She submits that this value of the lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired land has been accepted by this Court in the group of appeals starting with first Appeal No.1263/2009 Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Manohar s/o. Nanaji Mate and others, decided on 26.7.2012 as correct. Therefore, according to her even the lands involved in this appeal deserves to be assessed at the same rate.
5. Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3 however disagrees. He submits that there are dissimilarities between the land involved in this appeal and the lands involved in the sale instances relied upon by the appellant. So, he submits that no interference with the findings recorded by the Reference Court is called for.
6. Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Asstt. Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 makes a similar submission as Shri P.B. Patil learned counsel for respondent No.3.
7. I would have accepted the submission of learned counsel for the appellant had there been a proved fact that the distance between the acquired land in the present case and the land involved in the sale ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:04:08 ::: J-fa1141.10.odt 4/6 instances vide Exh.-53 and the one which is dated 19.4.1994 was less than 1 Km. I would have also accepted those submissions if it was shown by the appellant that the acquired land which is from village Rustampur is adjacent to the lands involved in the aforestated sale instances which are respectively from the villages Kopra and Kolhi. The case of the appellant, as seen from the evidence available on record, that the distance between these two lands was about ½ Km. has been specifically denied by the respondent No.3. Therefore, the burden was cast upon the appellant to have proved this fact by bringing on record cogent evidence. The appellant in fact adduced in evidence two maps vide Exhs.-39 and 47 in order to prove the assertion that all these lands were adjacent to each other and that the distance between them was also not much. But, a careful perusal of both these maps would show that such is not the truth. The distance between the acquired land and the land involved in the sale instance dated 19.4.1994 appears to be great and in any case village Kolhi where that land was situated was not adjacent to the land acquired in the present case. These maps show that it were village Fattepur which was adjacent to the acquired land. These maps also do not show that village Kopra was adjacent to the acquired land. There is no other evidence adduced by the appellant to either prove the distance or proximity or any other similarity of the acquired land with the lands involved in the sale instance vide Exh.-53 or the sale-deed dated 19.4.1994. Therefore, both these sale instances would not be of much ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:04:08 ::: J-fa1141.10.odt 5/6 relevance in order to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in the present case. This is what has been held by the Reference Court and rightly so.
8. After having held so, the Reference Court proceeded to determine the market value of the acquired land by taking into consideration all the sale-deeds adduced in evidence, which were both pre-notification and post notification and then adopting the method of guesswork, the Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land to be at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. The guesswork so done by the Reference Court is certainly not beyond permissible limits and it is rooted in the assessment made on the basis of the sale instances of various lands in the vicinity and the distances between the acquired land and those lands. Therefore, I find that determination of the market value of the acquired land in the present case made by the Reference Court is just and proper and it is representative of the true market value.
9. As regards the judgment dated 26.7.2012 delivered by this Court in the group of appeals starting with First Appeal No.1263/2009, I must say that this judgment decides no case involving lands situated at village Rastumpur and therefore, this judgment would be of no use to the appellant.
10. In the result, I find that the compensation granted by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare is just and proper. No interference with the impugned judgment and order is called ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:04:08 ::: J-fa1141.10.odt 6/6 for. The point is answered accordingly.
11. The appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:04:08 :::