Chief Gen Manager, Wcl Ltd vs Laxmikant Narhari Agre And 2 Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1623 Bom

                                                                                    
                                                     1                                fa.34.07.jud




                                                            
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                   FIRST APPEAL NO.34 OF 2007




                                                           
     Appellant                 :      Chief General Manager,
                                      Western Coalfields Limited,
                                      Jaripatka, Nagpur.




                                             
                                      -- Versus --

     Respondents
                             
                               :   1] Laxmikant s/o Narhari Agre,
                                      aged about 34 years, Occupation - Agriculturist,
                                      R/o Junni Kamptee, 
                            
                                      Tahsil Parseoni, District Nagpur.

                                   2] The State of Maharashtra,
                                      through Collector, Nagpur.
      


                                   3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
   



                                      Pench Project -1, Nagpur.

                   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       Shri C.S. Samudra, Advocate for the appellant.





                     Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
                   Shri H.R. Dhumale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
                   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                                C ORAM :  A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

                               DATE     :  APRIL 18, 2016.


     ORAL JUDGMENT :-  



     01]              The   present   appeal   filed   under   Section   54   of   the   Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the said Act') takes exception to the

judgment of the Reference Court dated 29/11/2005 in L.A.C. No.76/1999.

                                                  2                                 fa.34.07.jud




                                                          
     02]              The land  admeasuring  1 hectare  21 ares  situated at  Village

Gondegaon, Tashil Parseoni, District Nagpur was the subject matter of

acquisition in proceedings under the said Act. The notification under

Section 4 of the said Act is dated 25/04/1993. The Land Acquisition

Officer by his award dated 25/06/1996 granted compensation at the rate

of Rs.50,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the claimant filed reference

under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court by relying upon the

sale instance dated 21/05/1990 enhanced the amount of compensation to

Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the

present appeal.

03] Shri C.S. Samudra, the learned Counsel for the appellant

submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the

amount of compensation. According to him, the sale instance dated

21/05/1990 could not have been taken into consideration by the Appellate

Court especially when there was no evidence to show that said land was

comparable with the acquired land. He submitted that the land revenue for

the land which was sold as per Exh.23 was approximately Rs.3.37 while the

land revenue for the acquired land was Rs.4.75 per hectare. He further

submitted that there was no evidence led by the claimant to prove the

contents of the sale-deed and therefore, the Reference Court could not have

3 fa.34.07.jud

relied upon said sale instance. He, therefore, submitted that the award

passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was liable to the restored. In

support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment

of the Division Bench in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer,

M.I.W., Jalgaon vs. Chindha Fakira Patil - 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 130.

04]

Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel for respondent no.1

supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the sale instance at

Exh.23 was with regard to land from the same village where the acquired

land was located. Though the sale instance is dated 21/05/1990 and

notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 25/04/1993, the

Reference Court granted the same rate of compensation by considering the

market value as on 21/05/1990. He, therefore, submitted that there was

no reason to interfere with the award of the Reference Court.

05] Shri H.R. Dhumale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

06] With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I

have perused the records of the case and the impugned judgment. The

following point arises for consideration:

4 fa.34.07.jud

• Whether any case has been made out to interfere with the judgment of the Reference Court?

The Reference Court while partly enhancing the amount of

compensation has relied upon the sale instance at Exh.23. This sale

instance is in respect of Survey No.101/1 from Village Gondegaon,

admeasuring 1 acre 50 decimal that was sold for Rs.75,000/-. The rate,

therefore, would be Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is to be noted that the date of

this sale instance is 21/05/1990 while the acquired land was the subject

matter of acquisition pertaining to notification dated 25/04/1993 under

Section 4 of the said Act. In the cross-examination of the Land Acquisition

Officer, who was examined below Exh.31, it has come on record that the

distance between Survey No.101 and Survey No.127 was approximately

between 1 km to 1½ km. In absence of any other sale instance on record,

the Reference Court was justified in relying upon Exh.23.

07] Insofar as the assessment of land in question is concerned, the

notification under Section 4 of the said Act refers to the assessment of the

acquired land at Rs.4.75 while the assessment for the land under the sale

instance is Rs.3.37. This would indicate that the acquired land required

payment of higher assessment than what was paid for the land under the

sale instance. This would itself indicate that the acquired land was of a

better quality. The Division Bench in Special Land Acquisition Officer,

5 fa.34.07.jud

M.I.W., Jalgaon (supra) has held that comparison of the proportion of the

revenue assessment could be a reasonable criteria for comparing the lands

in question. On that analogy, it can be stated that higher assessment was

paid for the acquired land and, therefore, it had greater value than the land

under the sale instance. Therefore, even on that basis, it cannot be said

that the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is on a

higher side. Moreover, a certified copy of the sale instance was placed on

record and the same could have been relied upon in view of the provisions

of Section 51A of the said Act.

08] In view of aforesaid, it is held that the amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- granted by the Reference Court as compensation for 1

hectare land appears to be just and reasonable. There is no reason to

interfere with the judgment of the Reference Court. The point as framed is

answered accordingly.

Hence, the judgment dated 29/11/2005 in L.A.C. No.76/1999

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

The respondent No.1 would be entitled to withdraw the amount of

compensation deposited by the appellant along with accrued interest.

JUDGE *sdw