Bombay High Court
State Of ... vs Trambak Bhaurao Gadkar(Dead) on 11 April, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa686.15.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.686 OF 2015
APPELLANT: The State of Maharashtra Through
Collector, Buldana.
Ori. Respondent
(On R.A.)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Trambak Bhaurao Gadkar (Dead)
Ori. Claimants (Appeal abates)
(On R.A.) ig 1(a) Smt. Shashikala Trambak Gadkar
(Wife), At post Pinpadgaon Renukaai,
Tq. Bhukardan District - Jalna (M.S.).
1(b) Krushna Trambak Gadkar (son), Pole
No.435 Sr. No.68, Behind Deepak,
General Stores, Teravi Yojana Road,
near CIDCO, N-4, Jai Bhavani Nagar,
Aurangabad - 431001 (M.S.)
Mob.9921808544 - 9404877462.
1(c) Kishor Trambak Gadkar (son) At post
Pinpadgaon Renukaai, Tq. Bhukardan
District - Jalna (M.S.) Mob
no.7709027717 - 8793489277.
2. Ramdas Bhanudas Gadkar, Aged Major,
Agriculturist,
All R/o Kingaon Jattu, Tq. Lonar,
District Buldana.
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anand Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent Nos. R-1(a)
to 1(c) & 2.
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:52:14 :::
fa686.15.odt 2/5
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 11
th APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. In view of notice for final disposal issued on
23-11-2015, the learned Counsel for the parties are
heard at length after admitting the appeal.
2. This appeal filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 takes exception to the
judgment of the Reference Court dated 19-6-2008 in
L.A.C. No.309/1998. Land admeasuring 0.76 R from
Gut No.650, situated at village Kingao Jattu, Tq.
Lonar, District Buldhana came to be acquired by
issuing notification under Section 4 of the said Act on
30-12-1993. The award was passed on 7-1-1997 and
the Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation @
Rs.26,000/- per hectare. In the reference proceedings,
the amount of compensation was increased to
Rs.39,000/- per hectare. Hence, this appeal.
3. Shri H. R. Dhumale, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the appellants submitted that
the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the
amount of compensation especially when there was
fa686.15.odt 3/5
no satisfactory evidence on record. He submitted that
merely on the basis of guess work, the enhancement
has been granted. According to him, the sale instance
at Exhibit-26 was of the period after issuance of the
notification under Section 4 of the said Act. It was,
therefore, submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer
had rightly granted compensation of Rs.26,000/- per
hectare.
ig Shri Anand Deshpande, learned Counsel for
the respondent supported the impugned judgment.
According to him, the 7/12 Extract at Exhibit-27
indicated that the respondents were taking crops of
cotton and tur. Though the sale instance was dated
30-4-1998, same could be taken into consideration
after reducing some amount from the total
consideration. He, therefore, submitted that
considering the small enhancement, there was no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel of
the parties, I have gone through the records of the
case.
6. The point that arises for consideration:
fa686.15.odt 4/5
Whether a case has been made out to reduce
the amount of compensation?
7. The claimants examined the respondent
No.1 below Exhibit-24. She placed on record a sale
instance dated 30-4-1998 at Exhibit-26. The
transaction was from the same village in respect of
0.61R land which was sold for Rs.50,000/-. Though
the transaction is dated 30-4-1998 which is after
issuance of notification under Section 4 of the said Act,
the consideration therein can be kept in mind while
determining the claim for fair compensation.
8. The 7/12 Extract at Exhibit-27 indicates that
since the years 1989-90 onwards crops like cotton and
tur were being taken from the acquired land. It is on
this basis that the Reference Court enhanced
compensation from Rs.26,000/- per hectare to
Rs.39,000/- per hectare. Considering the nature of
evidence on record and the fact that the acquired land
admeasures only 0.76R, it cannot be said that the
enhancement granted by the Reference Court is on a
higher side. The sale instance indicates rate of the
land in April, 1998 to be approximately Rs.1,00,000/-
fa686.15.odt 5/5
per hectare. As the amount of Rs.39,000/- has been
awarded by applying some guesswork which is a
possible view, it cannot be said that any case for
reducing the amount of compensation has been made
out. The point as framed is answered by holding that
the amount of compensation granted by the Reference
Court does not deserve to be reduced.
9. In view of aforesaid, the judgment dated
19-6-2008 in L.A.C. No.309/1998 stands confirmed.
The first appeal accordingly stands dismissed
with no order as to costs.
It would be open for the respondents to
withdraw the amount of compensation deposited by
the appellant.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
