Bombay High Court
Utram S/O Pandhari Kalal vs The Collector,Yavatmal And ... on 13 April, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 fa.343.07.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.343 OF 2007
Appellant : Uttam s/o Pandhari Kalal,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Agril.
R/o Darati, Tah. Umarkhed,
District Yavatmal.
ig -- Versus --
Respondents : 1] The Collector, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
2] The Sub Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Pusad,
Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, A.G.P. for the Respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C ORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : APRIL 13, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
The present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) seeking enhancement in the
amount of compensation that has been awarded by the Reference Court by
judgment dated 15/12/2003 in L.A.C. No.98/1997.
2 fa.343.07.jud
02] The land admeasuring 1 hectare 50 ares bearing Survey
No.7/3 at Village Darati was the subject matter of acquisition for
construction of police station and police residential quarters. The
notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 27/01/1994 and the
Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 20/05/1996. A sum of
Rs.21,000/- per hectare was awarded as compensation. In the reference
proceedings filed by the appellant, the compensation was enhanced to
Rs.30,000/- per hectare. Hence, the present appeal.
03] Shri K.S. Narwade, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant was entitled for higher compensation. Relying
upon the deposition of the appellant at Exh.36, he submitted that the
acquired land had great potential considering its location. According to
him, the land was irrigated and part thereof was sought to be sold at the
rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. He submitted that nothing much was revealed in
the cross-examination of said witness and therefore, the version of the
appellant was required to be accepted. He submitted that though there
was no sale instance on record, by some guesswork and considering the
evidence already on record, a case for enhancement of compensation had
been made out.
3 fa.343.07.jud
In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed
reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :
i. Bhupal Singh and others vs. State of Haryana - (2015) 5 SCC
ii. Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India & anr. - 2015(3) SCALE 263
iii. Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra - (2009) 11
SCC 171.ig
iv. Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (dead) by L.Rs.
and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others -
(2012) 7 SCC 595.
04] Ms. N.P. Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondents opposed said submissions. It was submitted that as the
appellant was seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, the
burden was on the appellant to lead sufficient evidence in that regard. It
was submitted that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was
adequate and no further enhancement was called for. The second witness
sought to be examined by the appellant had failed to produce the sale-deed
which was claimed to have been executed in his favour. It was, therefore,
submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
05] With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I
have perused the record of the case. I have also gone through the
impugned order. The following point arises for determination:
4 fa.343.07.jud
Whether a case has been made out for enhancing the amount of
compensation?
06] In support of the claim for compensation, the appellant
examined himself below Exh.36. He stated that Survey No.7/3 was
admeasuring 10 acres. The land was irrigated and there was a well and an
electric pump in the field. The 7/12 extract at Exh.39 was placed on
record which indicated crops like cotton, toor and jwar being cultivated
therein. He also stated that there was a canal passing through his field.
The land was situated near Kinwat-Pusad road. On that basis, the
compensation of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. was claimed.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that though
compensation of Rs.60,000/- per acre was claimed in the reference, these
figures were written by the concerned officer. He further admitted that the
sale-deed executed was after issuance of the notification under Section 4 of
the said Act.
07] From the aforesaid, it is clear that no sale instance has been
placed on record. The appellant has relied upon the 7/12 extract of his
field. In the award at Exh.51, it has been stated that village Darati is
5 fa.343.07.jud
electrified and there was water supply to the acquired field. Said village is
on Kinwat-Mahur road. Though there was reference to certain sale
instances in the award, the same had not been placed on record. It is
further mentioned in the award that a sum of Rs.43,200/- was proposed to
be awarded for the acquired land. However, ultimately, an amount of
Rs.21,000/- per hectare came to be awarded.
08] In the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant, it has been held that in absence of any sale instance, the oral
evidence on record can be taken into consideration and by applying
reasonable guesswork, a just and fair market value for the acquired land
can be awarded. It has further been held that the potential value of the
land can be assessed by taking into consideration the purpose of
acquisition. The ratio of aforesaid decisions, therefore, could be kept in
mind while considering the prayer for enhancement of compensation.
09] As noted above, the acquired land was irrigated having a well
and electric pump therein. The crops grown were cotton, toor and jwar.
Presence of 140 orange trees, 140 citrus trees and one mango tree on the
land is also indicated. However, these fruit bearing trees were not grown
on the acquired portion of the land. The purpose of the acquisition was to
6 fa.343.07.jud
construct the police station and residential quarters. The land was located
near Kinwat-Pusad road. Considering the aforesaid material on record, it
can be said that the acquired land had good potential value. The purpose
for its acquisition also indicates the same. Considering the fact that the
notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 27/01/1994 and
by noting the fact that a sum of Rs.43,200/- per hectare was considered as
a price to be offered in the draft award, in my view, an amount of
Rs.60,000/- per hectare would be just and fair compensation. Said figure
has been arrived at by considering the quality of the land on account of the
crops grown, its location and its potential. The point as framed is
answered by holding that the appellant is entitled to receive sum of
Rs.60,000/- per hectare as compensation for the acquired land.
10] Accordingly, the following order is passed :
(I) The judgment dated 15/12/2003 in L.A.C. No.98/1997 is
partly modified.
(II) It is held that the appellant is entitled for the sum of
Rs.60,000/- per hectare as compensation for the acquired
land.
7 fa.343.07.jud
(III) Rest of the award stands maintained.
(IV) The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
ig JUDGE
*sdw
