State Of Mah. Thr. The ... vs Vikram Haribhau Suradkar
2016 Latest Caselaw 6717 Bom

            J-fa57.07.odt                                                                                               1/4        


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




                                                                                                             
                                           FIRST APPEAL No.57 OF 2007




                                                                               
            State of Maharashtra,
            through the Collector,




                                                                              
            Buldana.                                                                     :      APPELLANT

                               ...VERSUS...

            Vikram Haribhau Suradkar,




                                                          
            Aged 57 years,
            Occupation : Agriculturist,
                                 
            R/o. Berala, Post Kolara,
            Tq. Deulgaonraja, Distt. Buldana.                                             :      RESPONDENT
                                
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
            Shri K.R. Lule, Advocate for the Appellant.
            None for the Respondent .
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      


                                                          CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 28 NOVEMBER, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order

dated 17.7.2003, delivered in Land Acquisition Case No.4/1997, by the

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under :

The land admeasuring 2 hec. 49 R out of Gat No.125,

situated at village Berala was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for

the purpose of construction of Bhalgaon Percolation Tank. The

J-fa57.07.odt 2/4

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, "LA

Act") was published on 7.9.1995 and the Notification under Section 6

thereof was published on 15.2.1996 in the Government gazette.

According to the respondent, he had claimed compensation at the rate of

Rs.50,000/- per acre and had also claimed compensation for the income

yielded by the trees standing on the acquired land. However, total

compensation that was awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Officer

was much less and the rate was of Rs.26,000/- per hec, as per the award

dated 4.10.1996. This was accepted by the respondent under protest and

he sought reference of his claim for enhancement under Section 18 of the

LA Act to the Civil Court. Accordingly, the reference was made and the

claim of the respondent was contested on merits by the appellant.

Upon considering the evidence available on record and

argument of both sides, learned Civil Judge found that the market value

of the land was assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer somewhat on

the lower side and it ought to have been determined to be at Rs.37,500/-

per hec. instead of Rs.26,000/- per hec. and accordingly, the learned

Civil Judge, Senior Division, by his judgment and order 17.7.2003 partly

allowed claim under reference and enhanced the total compensation by

Rs.1,38,446/- together with 12% component per annum on the enhanced

compensation and also interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from taking over of

the possession till expiry of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15%

p.a. on the excess amount till full realization. Being aggrieved by the

J-fa57.07.odt 3/4

same, the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal.

3. I have heard Shri K.R. Lule, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the appellant. None for the respondent. I have carefully

gone through the record of the case and the impugned judgment and

order.

4. The only point that arises for my determination is :

Whether the enhancement of compensation made in the impugned judgment and order is legal and correct requiring no interference ?

5.

My answer to the point is in the affirmative for the reasons to

follow.

6. It is seen from the evidence available on record that although

the respondent examined witnesses in support of sale instances brought

on record, those sale instances being related to smaller portions of the

land and also not representing any similar lands as the land acquired in

the present proceedings, their evidence as well as both sale instances

could not have been held to be relevant for determining the market value

of the land acquired in the present proceedings. The learned Civil Judge,

therefore, rightly rejected such evidence and documents. However, 7/12

extract tendered in evidence did show that different kinds of crops were

being taken and harvested from the land in question by the respondent,

although the evidence on the annual net income yielded from these

harvests was not proved to be reliable by any probability by the

respondent. Therefore, learned Civil Judge carried out permissible

J-fa57.07.odt 4/4

exercise of some guesswork while taking into consideration the evidence

available on record and arrived at the conclusion that the market value of

the land ought to have been determined to be at the rate of Rs.37,500/-

per hec. instead of Rs.26,000/- per hec. as determined by the Land

Acquisition Officer, and rightly so. The learned Civil Judge has also

rejected the evidence of the respondent in respect of fruit bearing trees

and the income yielded there from, it being of sketchy and insufficient

nature. I see no error of fact or law in rejection of the said evidence by

the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon. The view taken by

the learned Civil Judge in the instant case is based upon the reasonable

appreciation of the evidence available on record and logically arises from

such an appreciation. There is no scope for me to take any different view

from the one taken by the learned Civil Judge. I see no error of fact or

law in the impugned judgment and order. The enhancement of

compensation and the rate so determined for it, both have been done

correctly and legally. The point is answered accordingly.

7. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. The appeal stands

dismissed.

8. In the circumstances of the case, the parties to bear their own

costs.

JUDGE okMksns