J-fa445.05.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.445 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Amravti,
Distt. Amravati. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
Indirabai w/o. Bhauraoji Keche,
Amendment carried R/o. Bhappi, Taq. Warud,
out as per Court's Distt. Amravati.
order dt.23.7.2002.
Legal Heirs of Respondent :
1. Shri Bhaurao Atmaramji Keche,
Deleted as per Court's R/o. Bhapki, Post Haturna,
order dt.3.9.2004.
Th. Warud, Distt. Amravati. (Husband).
2. Sau. Nirmala w/o. Jeewanrao Kadam,
R/o. Warda Road, Kaasaba D.K. Saheb's Wada,
Tah. Arvi, Distt. Amravati (Daughter).
3. Sau. Pushpa w/o. Kiranrao Kadam,
R/o. Khapri Kone, Post, Parsinga,
Th. Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur (Daughter).
4. Sau. Usha w/o. Rajendra Bhonge,
R/o. Dhamangaon Railway,
Th. Dhamangaon Railway,
Distt. Amravati (Daughter).
5. Sau. Durga w/o. Balasaheb Ghogre,
R/o. Wardha, Post Brahmanwada,
Tah. & Distt. Amravati (Daughter).
6. Sau. Vandana w/o. Prabhakar Vighe,
R/o. Mu. Post Dapori, Th. Morshi,
Distt. Amravti (Daughter).
7. Shri Nilkanth s/o. Bhauraoji Koche,
R/o. Bhapki, Post Haturna, Th. Warud,
Distt. Amravati (Son). : RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:16:55 :::
J-fa445.05.odt 2/5
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri S.B. Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant.
Shri Jaideep Chandurkar, Advocate for the Legal heirs of Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th DATE : 10 JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 6th January, 1996, rendered in Land Acquisition Case No.1/1985 by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati.
2. I have heard Shri S.B. Bissa, learned A.G.P. for the appellant and Shri Jaideep Chandurkar, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the respondent.
3. I have gone through the record of the case and the impugned judgment and order.
4. The only point that arises for my consideration is :
Whether the impugned judgment and order are illegal and perverse so as to warrant interference with the same ?
5. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that there is no warrant for this Court to make any interference with the impugned judgment and order.
6. A small portion of the agricultural land, a dry crop land, out ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:16:55 ::: J-fa445.05.odt 3/5 of Survey No.76/1, situated at village Bhapki has been compulsorily acquired by the State for the extension of village gavthan and the compensation that was given by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated 13.6.1983 was at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per hectare. Since the claimant was not satisfied with the market value of the land determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, he preferred an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was referred to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal for appropriate adjudication. Upon merits of the case, learned Civil Judge found that the market value of the acquired land was of Rs.19,000/- per hectare as of 2nd May 1983, the date on which Section 4 Notification was issued and accordingly enhanced the compensation payable to the claimant.
7. Shri S.B. Bissa, learned A.G.P. submits that the reference Court, without there being any evidence on record, added Rs.1,000/- to the market value of about Rs.18,000/- per hectare determined by him and thus wrongly evaluated the final market value of the acquired land at Rs.19,000/- per hectare as of 2nd May 1983.
8. Shri Jaideep Chandurkar, learned counsel for the claimant submits that considering the building construction potentiality and proximity factor, such addition based on the guesswork of the reference Court can be said to be reasonable.
9. I think, learned counsel for the claimant is right in his ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:16:55 ::: J-fa445.05.odt 4/5 submission. Of course, the evidence available on record shows that the village Bhapki had a small population of 412 persons and that there are no major institutions situated in the village. But, the fact remains that in the year 1981, a similar land was evaluated for its market value by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per hectare and, therefore, after a period of about two years, there was bound to be rise in the market value of the similarly situated adjoining land. The land previously acquired in the year 1981 was also determined to be having building construction potentiality and it was adjacent to the gavthan area. Same is the position about the land acquired in the instant case and, therefore, the addition of amount of Rs.1,000/- to the market value of Rs.18,000/- per hectare done by the reference Court can be said to be the product of reasonable estimation and not some caprice nurtured by the reference Court. Therefore, I find no merit in the submission of the learned A.G.P. in this regard.
10. Learned A.G.P. has also pointed out to me from the impugned award that the interest has been awarded on the final compensation payable to the appellant twice. He has invited my attention to the details of the calculations made by the reference Court in this regard. They appear in paragraph 14, page 9 of the impugned judgment and order, at clauses (G) & (H).
11. On considering these clauses, I find that the interest has been ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:16:55 ::: J-fa445.05.odt 5/5 awarded by the reference Court not twice but under two separate and distinct heads, one under Section 34 and the other under Section 28 and this has been done by the reference Court completely in consonance with the spirit of these two Sections. Therefore, I see no substance in the argument of learned A.G.P. made in this behalf.
12. In the result, there is no ground for making any interference with the impugned judgment and award and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.
13. The appeal stands dismissed.
14. The parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:16:55 :::