fa100.04.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.100 OF 2004
Vikram son of Haribhau Suradkar,
Aged about 63 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Berala, Post Kolara, Tah. Deulgaon Raja,
District Buldana (dead) thr. LR's
1] Sahebrao s/o Vikram Suradkar
Aged about 62 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Berala, Post:Kolara, Tah. Chikhali,
Dist. Buldana.
2] Smt. Ajabkor w/o Shyamrao Ingale
Aged about 56 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Chandanpur, Tah. Chikhali,
Dist. Buldana.
3] Smt. Nilkor w/o Sukhdeo Pawar
Aged about 54 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Harni, Tah. Chikhali,
Dist. Buldana. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
The State of Maharashtra, through
the Collector, Buldana,
District Buldana. ....... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri M.A. Kadu, A.G.P. for Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE: 6 th
JUNE, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:05:02 :::
fa100.04.J.odt 2
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and
order dated 17.07.2003, delivered in Land Acquisition Case No.4 of 1997, by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana. 2] Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under:
The land admeausring 2 hectares 49 R., out of Gat No.125, situated at village Berala was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the purposes of construction of Bhalgaon Percolation Tank No.2. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 07.09.1995. The appellant has in response to the same notification requested and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre, but the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered his demand and granted him meagre compensation at the rate of Rs.26,000/- per hectare by his award dated 04.10.1996.
3] Being aggrieved therewith, the appellant approached the Reference Court. The learned Reference Court after appreciation of the evidence on record, was pleased to enhance the compensation amount partly to the extent of Rs.1,38,446/- ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:05:02 ::: fa100.04.J.odt 3 with proportionate costs and 12% component per annum on the enhanced compensation. The appellant is however, still not satisfied with the said judgment and decree and since he has preferred this appeal.
4] According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Reference Court has not properly considered the sale instances, which were produced by the appellant. It is submitted that the learned Reference Court has rejected those sale instances merely on the ground that those sale instances pertain to smaller portions of the land, whereas the land of the appellant, which was acquired, was comparatively of larger portion. It is submitted that the learned Reference Court has also not considered the enhancement of compensation in respect of standing fruit bearing trees and also the fact that the land is irrigated one. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the amount of compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court being not satisfactory, the appellant is entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare.
5] It is pertinent to note that the respondent-State also being not satisfied with the judgment and order of the Reference ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:05:02 ::: fa100.04.J.odt 4 Court, and hence preferred First Appeal No.57 of 2007. However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed on 28.11.20015, thereby upholding and confirming the findings arrived at by the Reference Court. According to the learned A.G.P. therefore, as the matter is already decided judicially, even at the appellate stage by this Court, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and decree of the Reference Court.
6] Having regard to the submissions advanced at bar, the only question which necessarily arise for my consideration is whether the enhancement of compensation, as made by the Reference Court is legal and valid or calls for any interference. 7] In this respect, perusal of the impugned judgment of the Reference Court, particularly contents of para No.9 clearly reveals that the Reference Court has considered both the sale instances, which were produced by the appellant at Exh.19 and
21. The learned Reference Court has also considered the oral evidence as adduced by the appellant and his witness Trimbak Mansingh Suradkar. On appreciation of their evidence the learned Reference Court held that these two sale instances pertain to the land admeasuring 4 gunthas and 15 gunthas only, respectively, ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:05:02 ::: fa100.04.J.odt 5 whereas the acquired field of the appellant is admeasuring 2 H 49 R. Thus as both the sale instances clearly pertain to small portion of the land, they cannot be considered for deciding the larger portion of land to determine the real price of the larger portion of land. The Reference Court has also considered the fact that the sale instance at Exh.19 was executed and registered on 15.12.1995, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in this case on 07.09.1995, and therefore, the sale instance at Exh.19 being post dated transaction cannot be relied upon. The perusal of para 9 of the impugned judgment also reveals that the Reference Court has considered the oral evidence in the case and also the fact that the land which was purchased by Trimbak Suradkar was at a distance of 5 to 7 acres from the acquired field, and thus the acquired field is not adjacent to the field under sale instance at Exh.20.
8] Thus it is apparent that the Reference Court has considered all the aspects of the case, properly appreciated the evidence adduced on record, and thereafter arrived at the finding that market price of the acquired land would be approximately Rs.15000/- per acre i.e. Rs.37,500/- per hectare at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:05:02 ::: fa100.04.J.odt 6 Acquisition Act. The learned Reference Court therefore, held that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.26,000/- per hectare needs to be enhanced to the compensation at the rate of Rs.37,500/- per hectare. 9] It is pertinent to note that those finding of the learned Reference Court were also considered and discussed at length by this Court in First Appeal No.57 of 2007, and it was held that the view taken by the Reference Court is based upon reasonable appreciation of the evidence available on record, and accordingly it was further held that the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court need not be disturbed as no error of fact or law was found in the impugned judgment and order.
10] Not only there is thus a judicial finding recorded by this Court on this factual aspect, but even otherwise also independently viewed, this Court does not find that any case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment and order, especially when the Reference Court has considered all the aspects, coupled with the settled legal position. The compensation enhanced and awarded to the appellant also cannot be called in any way as meagre so as to warrant interference therein. ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:05:02 ::: fa100.04.J.odt 7 The award is passed on the appreciation of evidence, which the appellant has adduced before the Reference Court. 11] Even as regards the amount of compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees and the income yielded there-from as there was absolutely no sufficient evidence on record, and hence the rejection of the claim of the appellant on that count is also upheld by the Court in its decision dated 20.11.2016 in the First Appeal No.57 of 2007. Hence, on that count no other view can be taken or is warranted.
12] As a result, the appeal stands disposed of as dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:05:02 :::