Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P For vs Mr. N.G. Solao
2012 Latest Caselaw 333 Bom

051112FA460.97.odt
                                           1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:




                                                                                 
                             NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
                            FIRST APPEAL NO.460 OF 1997




                                                         
            APELLANTS:
            1]       State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Amravati




                                                        
            2]       Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.4 Upper Wardha
                     Project, Amravati
                                          VERSUS



                                              
            RESPONDENT:          
                     Kashirao Jagobaji Kherade, age about 83 years, occ :
                                
                     agriculturist, r/o Wardu, Tq. Warud District : Amravati.
                     through L.Rs.
            1]       Smt. Nalinibai wd/o Madhukarrao Kherade (Wife)
             


            2]       Sandip Madhukar Kherade (Son)
          



            3]       Ku. Monika Madhukarrao Kherade (Daughter)
            4]       Ku.Sonali Madhukarrao Kherade (Daughter)





                     All r/o Vidya Nagar, Plot No.9, Gorakshan Road, behind
                     Income Tax Office, Akola, tah and dist. Akola
            ============================================





            Mr. D.B. Yengal A G P for appellant
            Mr. N.G. Solao, advocate for respondents / L.Rs.
            ============================================




                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:51 :::
 051112FA460.97.odt
                                        2

                                  CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.

DATE: 5/11/2012:

ORAL JUDGMENT:

This appeal arises out of the judgment and award

dated 30.11.1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No.96/1992, whereby the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer for the lands acquired was enhanced from Rs.45,000/-

P.H. to Rs.67,500/- P.H. The State challenges the award.

2] The land bearing survey no.467 admeasuring 3.49 H.R. mouja Warud, district : Amravati was compulsorily acquired for the rehabilitation of flood affected persons, vide

notification dated 25.11.1991. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer declared award on 24.2.1992. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,

the land owner/ respondent sought reference. He claimed enhancement in the amount of compensation towards land, fruit bearing trees, two wells , tanks, pipeline and

embankments. The learned Reference Court after appreciating the evidence brought on record held that the respondent/ land owner is entitled to compensation @ Rs.67,500/- P.H. 3] Mr. Yengal, learned A G P contended that the

051112FA460.97.odt

evidence brought on record is wholly insufficient to claim any

enhancement. The number of sale instances relied upon by the land owner being not proximate from time angle and

situational angle, did not support his claim. 4] Mr. Solao, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent / land owner, supported the judgment and award. 5] The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the learned Reference Court was

justified in enhancing the amount of

compensation from Rs.45,000 to 67,500/-

P.H. towards land acquired?

6] The factor that the land was acquired for rehabilitation of flood affected person mainly weighed with

the learned Reference Court in allowing marginal

enhancement in the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. These observations find place in

paragraph 9 of the judgment and are reproduced below:

"It is not in dispute that land came to be acquired for rehabilitation of the flood affected

person and after acquiring land houses came to be built there. The land was selected for the purpose as it was found best or the purpose of constructing houses for rehabilitation of the

051112FA460.97.odt

flood affected persons. Thus, it can be seen that

acquired land had very high non-agricultural potentialities, which to my mind has been totally

ignored while fixing price of the land. It came to be treated as a dry agricultural land and on that

basis sale instances have been collected and price of the land came to be fixed at Rs.45,000/- per hect. The p[rice of the land having non-

agricultural potentialities has got much value

than agricultural land."

7] Apart from this a good deal of evidence was adduced in the nature of sale instances to justify enhancement. Learned Reference Court discussed the evidence in paragraph

8 of the judgment. There are sale instances relating to the land

under agricultural use as well as the land converted to non agricultural use. One Manohar Mohod had purchased 67 R

land from survey no.181/2 for a consideration of Rs.2,26,000/-. This sale instance is dated 19.1.1989. The other sale instance is exhibit 34 in respect of the land area 40 R. It

is dated 23.10.1986. This land was sold for Rs.80,000/-. It was brought in the evidence that the acquired land was adjoining to the land sold. In that view of the matter, the learned Reference Court was justified in considering these

051112FA460.97.odt

sale instances, apart from considering the plus factors like

land having high non-agricultural potentiality. In that light of the matter, the judgment and award passed by the learned

Reference Court granting enhanced amount of Rs.78,525/- appears to be just and proper. I therefore, find no merit in this

appeal. Appeal is dismissed with costs.

JUDGE

SMP.