Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Pratapsingh Bhagwansingh Thakur ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1150 Bom

                                                                                         Fa357.07
                                                   1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                                        
                               NAGPUR.

                        FIRST   APPEAL     NO.    357      OF     2007




                                                               
    Maharashtra Industrial 




                                                              
    Development Corporation
    through its Chief Executive 
    Officer having its office at
    Marol Industrial Estate,
    Andheri East, Mumbai and




                                                
    having its Regional Office at
    By-pass road Amravati.     ig                                            APPELLANT.


                                               VERSUS
                             
    1] Pratapsing Bhagwansing
    Thakur, aged 41 yrs. Occu.
    Agriculturist R/o Wagholi
    Distt. Amravati. 
      


    2] State of Maharashtra 
   



    through Collector, Amravati. 

    3] Land Acquisition Officer
    cum Sub Divisional Officer,





    Amravati.                                                                RESPONDENTS.

Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent no. 1.

Shri H. R. Dhamale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.2 & 3.

                             CORAM  :     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                                     Dated    :   APRIL  02, 2016.


    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

The present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

Fa357.07

Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the judgment of the

Reference Court dated 02.07.2005 in Land Acquisition Case No. 228 of 1999

whereby the Reference Court has partly enhanced the amount of

compensation in respect of the fertile land.

2] In proceedings under the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer

while acquiring land admeasuring 1 H. 07 R belonging to the respondent no.

1 passed his award on 20.03.1997. He awarded compensation at the rate of

Rs. 49,900/- per hectare. While doing so 67 R land was treated as fertile

land while 47 R land was treated as Pot kharab land. For Pot kharab land Rs.

1500/- came to be granted. Being aggrieved the land owner filed reference

under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court partly enhanced the

amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 11,989/- for 98 R land. Being

aggrieved the acquiring body has filed the present appeal.

3] Shri M. M. Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in partly enhancing the

compensation. He submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had rightly

granted compensation for 67 R land by treating the same to be fertile and 47

R land was rightly treated as Pot kharab land. In absence of any other

evidence to indicate the entitlement to enhance compensation, the Reference

Court was not justified in granting the same. It was therefore submitted that

the judgment passed by the Reference Court deserves to be set aside and the

Fa357.07

award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer deserves to be restored.

4] There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent no.1. Shri H.

R. Dhumale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared for

respondent nos. 2 and 3 and he supported the judgment of the Reference

Court.

5] With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have

perused the judgment of the Reference Court. The point that arises for

consideration is:

Whether any case is made out to interfere with the award of the Reference Court?

6] The Land Acquisition Officer has while acquiring the land of the

respondent no.1 granted a sum of Rs. 37,900/- for 67 R land by treating it to

be fertile. In respect of remaining 47 R land an amount of Rs. 1500/- was

granted by treating the same as Pot kharab land. According to respondent

no.1 only 16 R land was Pot kharab land and not 47 R land as held by the

Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Court in para 11 of the judgment

has held that the appellant had not placed on record any evidence to show

that 47 R land was Pot kharab land. It found that even the 7/12 extracts

recorded that only 16 R land was Pot kharab land. On that basis it was held

that the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified in treating 47 R land to be

Pot kharab land. Thereafter by deducting 16 R land from 47 R land, the

Fa357.07

Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for 31 R land at the same rate

at which the compensation was granted for the remaining land.

7] From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Reference Court on the

basis of the 7/12 extracts on record has partly enhanced the compensation

for 31 R land at the same rate at which the compensation had been granted

for the fertile land. It, therefore, cannot be said that the part enhancement

granted by the Reference Court is without any evidence. The point as framed

is answered by holding that there is no case made out to interfere with the

impugned judgment. In view of aforesaid, the judgment dated 02.07.2005

passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 228 of 1999 is

confirmed. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

svk