(Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 451/2010
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division,
Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1] Husen S/o Vithu Pradhan,
Aged 60 years, Occu: Cultivator,
2] Bisen S/o Vithu Pradhan,
Aged 56 years, Occu: Cultivator,
Both R/o. Thalegaon, Post - Dighi,
Tq. Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal.
3] The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
4] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work No.1 Division,
Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.B. Patil, counsel for appellant.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for respondent no..3 and 4.
CORAM: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 11/04/2008, rendered by ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:48 ::: (Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 2/6 the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 80/1997.
2] The land belonging to the respondent nos.1 and 2 bearing Gut No.76, admeasuring 0.49 HR, situated at village Thalegaon, Taluka - Babhulgaon, District - Yavatmal, was acquired for the purposes of Bembla Project. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, "L.A. Act") notification was published on 18/03/1993. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired land to be at Rs.13,000/- per hector. In the reference application filed under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, the reference court enhanced the market value and determined it to be at Rs.1,00,000/- per hector. Accordingly, compensation was granted to the respondent nos.1 and 2, by the impugned judgment and award.
3] It is seen from the impugned judgment and award that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the reference court has placed reliance upon the judgment in the connected Land Acquisition ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:48 ::: (Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 3/6 Case No.180/2000 (Exh.63), where the reference court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hector. This judgment was relied upon by the reference court in the present case and accordingly, the reference court determined the market value of the acquired land to be at Rs.1,00,000/- per hector. However, what is glaringly lacking in the impugned judgment and award is that the reference court has not recorded anywhere it's finding that the acquired land and the land involved in the land acquisition case judgment vide Exh.63 were similar to each other, and therefore, capable of fetching same market value. This being the position, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the judgment rendered in the connected land acquisition case (Exh.63) cannot be relied upon for determining the true market value of the acquired land in the present case, and therefore, the finding recorded by the reference court, cannot be confirmed. 4] Now, if the basis of the judgment vide Exh.63 used by the reference court has been rejected, ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:48 ::: (Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 4/6 then the question would be what evidence should be considered by this Court in order to determine the true market value of the acquired land and I think answer would lie, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the sale deed vide Exh.61. The learned AGP appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4 also agrees that this sale deed vide Exh.61 could be relied upon for determination of correct market value of the acquired land in this case. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, and therefore, this court has received no assistance from these respondents, on this point. 5] The sale deed vide Exh.61 shows that the total consideration for sale of the land situated at village Thalegaon, admeasuring 1.21 HR was of Rs.99,000/-. This sale deed was executed on 05/08/1994. However, examining the sale deed on a different consideration, I find that as the agreement to sell the land was reached between the parties on 08/03/1992, the agreed price of the land was representative of it's price that prevailed in the year ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:48 ::: (Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 5/6 1992. Therefore, the consideration of this land would have to be taken as representing the value of the land in March-1992. By considering this value, the value of 1 HR of land situated at village Thalegaon in March-1992 would come to about Rs.82,000/-. Section 4 of the L.A. Act notification, in the present case, has been issued on 18/03/1993. So, 10% of the amount of Rs.82,000/- would have to be added on account of escalation of the land price for one year. Adding the same, the market value of the acquired land in the present case would roughly come to Rs.90,000/- per hector. This is the amount, which could be determined to be the true market value of the acquired land in the present case, which is slightly lower than what has been determined by the reference court. But, the determination of the reference court having not been based upon the evidence, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6] In the result, I am of the view that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are entitled to receive compensation in the present case at the rate of ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:48 ::: (Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 6/6 Rs.90,000/- per hector and accordingly, I declare that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hector. The other benefits granted to the respondent nos.1 and 2 by the reference court, need to be given to the respondent nos.1 and 2 on the compensation determined by this order, and they are given accordingly.
7] Appeal is partly allowed.
8] The impugned award is modified in above
terms.
9] Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Yenurkar
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:48 :::