1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 153 of 2006
Appellants : 1. State of Maharashtra
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
` Minor Irrigation Works, Buldhana
versus
Respondent : Draupadabai Namdeo Lokhande, aged
about 53 years, Occ: Farmer, resident Khardi, Tahsil and District Buldana Ms H. N. Jaipurkar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants None for respondent Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 29th November 2017 Oral Judgment
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:46:37 ::: 2 13.4.2004 rendered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana commonly in or about 81 matters and challenge raised in this appeal is to the market value of the land acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 150 of 1998 fixed by the Reference Court.
2. The land of the respondent bearing Gat No. 110, admeasuring 0.79 R situated at mouza Kardi, Tahsil and District Buldana together with all the lands in the vicinity, was acquired for the purpose of construction of a water tank. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government gazettee on 16.9.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer in his Award passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act granted compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 26,000/- per hectare. Acceptance of this rate by the claimant was under protest and so was followed by an application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking more compensation. The application on being referred to the Civil Court, was decided on merits on 13.4.2004, thereby granting enhanced compensation @ Rs. 75000/- per hectare for the acquired land. This has not been accepted by the appellants and hence, this appeal.
3. I have heard Ms H. N. Jaipurkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants. Nobody appears on behalf of the ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:46:37 ::: 3 respondent. I have gone through the record of the case including the impugned judgment and order.
4. Now, the only point that arises for my determination is :
Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper ?
5. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, the compensation is unjust and improper. She submits that the sale instances vide exhibits 24 and 26 respectively dated 28.3.1990 and 4.12.1984 were not comparable to the lands involved in the sale instances. She further submits that the lands involved in the sale instances were having advantage of irrigation facilities from the well situated in the adjoining land and, therefore, were the lands perched atop higher pedestal as compared to the acquired land which was admittedly a dry-crop land.
6. On going through the impugned judgment and order and record of the case, however, I do not find that this is a case wherein the argument of learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants can be accepted. It is seen from the impugned judgment and order that the rates reflected in the sale instances at exhibits 24 and 26 were of Rs. ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:46:37 ::: 4 1,50,000/- per hectare in the year 1990 and Rs. 75,000/- per hectare in the year 1984 and these were the lands which were not having any well or built-in irrigation facility, but were the lands having right to draw water in some minor percentage from the well situated in the adjacent land and, therefore, the Reference Court treated the lands involved in exhibits 24 and 26 as the lands not having built-in irrigation facility, but having irrigation facility in minor percentage from the adjoining land and as such, the Reference Court did not grant the same rate as reflected in the sale deeds for the various acquired lands as compensation. The Reference Court reduced the market value reflected by the sale instances considerably. For the lands which were inherently dry-crop lands, but were dependent upon well water from the adjoining land in minor percentage, the Reference Court fixed the market value @ Rs. 90,000/- per hectare at the time of Section 4 notification which was issued three to nine years after the sale deeds at exhibits 24 and 26 were executed. For the pure dry-crop lands with no irrigation facility from adjoining land, the Reference Court fixed the market value of such lands at Rs. 75,000/- per hectare. There were some other acquired lands which had built-in irrigation facility through the wells situated at the adjacent lands and the Reference Court fixed their rates at Rs. 90,000/- per hectare and also granted some additional compensation for the well and trees, if any.. Such an approach of the Reference Court cannot be faulted with and ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:46:37 ::: 5 there is no material available on record to term it as unjust or unreasonable or illogical or illegal.
7. In the present case, the acquired land was a dry-crop land and it has been considered to be having market value of Rs. 75000/- per hectare. This rate granted by the Reference Court, in view of the above discussion, will have to be considered as based upon just and proper evaluation of the market value of the land in question and as such, deserves to be confirmed by this Court. It is so confirmed. The point is answered accordingly.
8. In the result, this appeal needs to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:46:37 :::