J-fa201.06.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.201 OF 2006
Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Pusad, District Yavatmal. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. Ravindra Bapurao Nimat,
Aged about 22 years,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. Warud, Tq. Ralegaon,
District : Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Benefitted Zone, Yavatmal. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
None for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
st DATE : 31 OCTOBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal questions legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 19th September, 2005, rendered in Land ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:47:12 ::: J-fa201.06.odt 2/4 Acquisition Case No.260/2002, by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawada (Kelapur), District Yavatmal. By this judgment and award, compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquired land bearing Gat No.56/2-C, situated at mouza Warud, Taluka Ralegaon, District Yavatmal at the rate of Rs.21,500/- per hectare has been enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.37,500/- per hectare. Not being satisfied with the same, the acquiring body has preferred the present appeal.
2. I have heard Shri A.B. Patil learned counsel for the appellant and Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 though duly served on merits. I have also gone through the record of the case.
3. Now, the only point which arises for my consideration is :
Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper ?
4. On going through the impugned award, I find that rate of Rs.37,500/- per hectare has been determined by the Reference Court by taking recourse to income capitalization method as well as method of relevant judgment comparison and rightly so. The Reference Court, by considering the evidence of the original claimant, which disclosed that he was taking such crops as cotton from his non-irrigated land, found that ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:47:12 ::: J-fa201.06.odt 3/4 the annual income that the original claimant must have earned would be in the range of Rs.3,458/- to Rs.3,952/- per hectare. The Reference Court then adopting multiplier of '10' determined the market value of the acquired land to be between Rs.34,580/- and Rs.39,520/- per hectare at the time of Section 4(1) of the Land acquisition Act Notification. In other connected matters such as L.A.C. Nos.96/97, 97/97 and 98/97, in which acquired lands were Gat Nos.55/4 and 55/2 from the same village covered under the same Notification, the Reference Court found market value of each of these lands to be at Rs.37,500/- per hectare. The Reference Court also noticed that all these lands were comparable with the land acquired in the present case, they being of the same quality, fertility and potentiality. Thus, by combining the income capitalization method with the judgment comparison method, the Reference Court found that the true market value of the acquired land in the present case was of Rs.37,500/- per hectare and accordingly it awarded the compensation to the original claimant.
5. On going through the evidence available on record, I find that these conclusions drawn by the Reference Court are based upon the evidence available in the present case and are not the result of non-consideration of the relevant evidence or consideration of some extraneous material. These conclusions are also seen to be arising logically from the evidence available on record. Therefore, I am of the ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:47:12 ::: J-fa201.06.odt 4/4 view that the market value of the acquired land determined by the Reference Court is its true market value at the relevant time and, therefore, no interference with the findings recorded by the Reference Court is called for. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.
6. The appeal stands dismissed.
7. The parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2017 01:47:12 :::