State Of Maharashtra Thr.The ... vs Ramrao Madhaorao Lohare
2016 Latest Caselaw 983 Bom

    290-J-FA-408-07                                                                                1/3


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                           
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO.408 OF 2007




                                                                   
    1.  The State of Maharashtra, 
         Through the Collector, Yavatmal. 




                                                                  
     
    2.  The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
          Benefitted Zone, Yavatmal.                                  ... Appellants. 

    -vs- 




                                                    
    Ramrao Madhavrao Lohare           
    Aged about 50 years. 
    Occ. Agriculturist, 
    R/o Mohada, Tq. Kelapur, 
                                     
    District Yavatmal.                                                ... Respondent. 


    Shri M. A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants.  
    Respondent served. 
              


                                                  CORAM  : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. 

DATE : MARCH 29, 2016

Oral Judgment :

The present appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 by the acquiring body as it is aggrieved by the

judgment of the Reference Court dated 10/10/2003.

Land admeasuring 1H 51 R situated at Zotingdara, Taluka

Ralegaon, District Yavatmal is the subject matter of acquisition. The Land

Acquisition Officer declared the award on 05/08/1996 and granted an

amount of Rs.12,500/ per hectare. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed

reference proceedings under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court

290-J-FA-408-07 2/3

enhanced the compensation to Rs.50,000/- per hectare. Hence this appeal.

2. Shri M. A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

appellants submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing

the amount of compensation. It was submitted that there was no sufficient

evidence on record to justify the fourfold enhancement in the amount of

compensation. According to him, the amount awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer was adequate compensation for the acquired land.

3.

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent who has been

duly served.

With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, I have perused the records and I have also gone through the

impugned judgment. The point that arises for consideration is whether the

award of the Reference Court deserves to be interfered with ?

4. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of

Rs.12,500/- per hectare. For seeking enhancement the respondent relied

upon two sale instances at Exhibits 26 and 27. These sale instances are of

village Antargaon. In so far as the sale instance at Exhibit-26 is concerned,

the same is dated 30/03/1988. Land admeasuring 3H 63 R was sold for

Rs.1,65,000/-. The sale instance at Exhibit-27 is of the year 1993 wherein 3

acres of land was sold at Rs.95,000/-. Similarly the respondent also relied

upon the judgment in L.A.C. No.235 of 2002 wherein compensation at the

rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare was granted. It is on this basis that the

290-J-FA-408-07 3/3

Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.50,000/- per

hectare.

5. The material on record indicates that the acquired land and the

land acquired in L.A.C. No.235 of 2002 were of the same village and from

the same notification. On that basis, as the land of the respondent was dry

crop land, half the value of irrigated land was awarded. This consideration

by the Reference Court appears to be just and reasonable.

It is to be noted that the present appeal was directed to be heard

along with F.A. No.391 of 2007. However, said appeal was decided and

dismissed on 27/11/2012. The subject matter of said first appeal was

irrigated land from the same village from which the present appeal arises. As

said land was irrigated land, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare was

awarded. It is obvious that the Reference Court was justified in granting

compensation of Rs.50,000/- per hectare for the dry crop land of the

respondent. The point as framed is answered by holding that there is no

reason to interfere with judgment of the Reference Court.

6. In view of aforesaid, the judgment in L.A.C. No.249 of 2002 is

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

JUDGE

Asmita