Bombay High Court
Smt.Radhabai Ramgopal Murarka vs State Of Mah.Thr.The Collector ... on 28 April, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
fa518.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
First Appeal No.518 of 2004
Smt. Radhabai w/o Ramgopal Murarka,
Aged about 65 years,
Occupation - Cultivation and
Household Work,
R/o Near Old Arvi Motor Stand,
Wardha, Tq. & Distt. Wardha. ... Appellant
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector,
Amravati.
2. Special Land Acquisition
Officer No.IV, Upper Wardha
Project, Amravati. ... Respondents
Smt. Anjali Joshi, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondents.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 28 April, 2016
th
Oral Judgment :
1. The Reference Court, acting under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, has enhanced the compensation for acquisition
of the land Survey No.21/2 of Village Dattapur, Tahsil and District
fa518.04.odt
Amravati, admeasuring 2 H and 8 R, by the notification
dated 25-11-1988 issued under Section 4 of the said Act for
construction of Central Railway Electric Sub-Station. The Land
Acquisition Officer had granted the compensation at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per annum, equivalent to Rs.34,583/- per hectare. The
Reference Court has enhanced it to Rs.90,000/- per hectare, which
comes to 50 paise per square foot. The present appeal is filed by the
claimant seeking further enhancement in the compensation.
2. Smt. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-claimant, has invited my attention to the finding of the
Reference Court that the land in question bears non-agricultural
potentiality as on the date of the issuance of the notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. She has invited my attention to
the map produced on record at Exhibit 46 and the agreement to sell
executed on 16-9-1988 in respect of Survey No.28, admeasuring 2 H
and 80 R, reflecting the price at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare.
The sale-deed in respect of this land is placed on record at Exhibit 67
dated 5-10-1989. She has urged that the claimant had claimed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square foot, but the Reference
Court, without taking into consideration the said sale-deed, has
fa518.04.odt
granted the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hectare.
3. The point for determination is as under :
Whether the claimant is entitled to further enhancement in
compensation, and if yes, to what extent?
4. With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, I have gone through the oral evidence of Shivkumar Ramgopal
Murarka, the son of the claimant; Panjabrao Balkrishna Davhane, the
Talathi - retired in the year 1983 and was residing at Dhamangaon;
Rajabhau Namdeorao Tembhre, the Secretary of Prithviraj Gruh
Nirman Sahakari Sanstha, who has proved the sale-deed at Exhibit 67;
and Mohan Girdhar Jirapure, working as Deputy Commissioner at
Amravati, examined by the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.
5. Exhibit 46, the map, prepared by the retired Talathi and
placed on record by the claimant, is admitted and accepted by witness
Mohan Girdhar Jirapure, the Deputy Commissioner, examined by the
respondent-Land Acquisition Officer. Perusal of the map and
Exhibit 67, the sale-deed dated 5-10-1989, placed on record by the
fa518.04.odt
claimant indicate that the land under acquisition is from Village
Dattapur, where the sale-deed at Exhibit 67 is from Village Parsodi
and the boundary of both is common. The land of the claimant is
located to the southern side of the sale instance at Exhibit 67 and it
can be seen that both these lands are adjacent to each other. The
sale-deed at Exhibit 67 reflects the price at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- as
on 16-9-1988, i.e. the date prior to issuance of the notification under
Section 4 of the said Act.
6. I tried to find out as to whether the sale instance at
Exhibit 67 genuinely reflects the price at the rate of
Rs.1,25,000/- as on the date of issuance of the notification under
Section 4 of the said Act. The findings recorded by the Reference
Court indicate that the agreement to sell dated 16-9-1988 is a
registered document, and the reference to this document is also found
in the registered sale-deed at Exhibit 67. In view of this factual
position, it cannot be said that the sale instance at Exhibit 67 is post-
notification and is, therefore, required to be ignored. Though the date
of the sale-deed is subsequent to the date of the notification issued
under Section 4 of the said Act, the agreement to sell was executed on
16-9-1988. This is the best piece of evidence produced on record by
fa518.04.odt
the claimant in support of his claim. The Reference Court has,
therefore, committed an error in ignoring the price reflected by this
sale-deed as representing the market value of the land on the date of
issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the said Act. I hold that
the claimant is, therefore, entitled to the market value of the land in
question at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare.
7. Since the land under acquisition is a fallow land and is put to
the use of non-agricultural purpose, the Reference Court has granted
10% deduction on account of development, and, therefore, I do not
find to vary this percentage of development.
8. In view of the aforesaid position, the following order is
passed :
(1) The claimant shall be entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.1,12,000/- per hectare after granting deduction of
10% on account of development charges.
(2) The claimant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits
made available by the Reference Court on the basis of the
total compensation of Rs.1,12,000/- per hectare.
fa518.04.odt
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
