The State Of Mah.And Other.S vs Syd.Farook Syd.Karim
2016 Latest Caselaw 6766 Bom

                                               1




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                    
                             NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                            
    First Appeal No.  43 of 2004




                                                           
    Appellants :             1)  The State of Maharashtra

                             2)  Collector, Yavatmal




                                              
                             3)  Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer,
                                  
                             Darwha, District Yavatmal

                             versus
                                 
    Respondent:              Syd. Farook Syd. Karim, aged about 43 years, resident 

of Inamdarpura, Ward No. 1, Darwha, District

Yavatmal

Shri Nitin Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants

None appears for respondent

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 29th November 2016

Oral Judgment

1. By this appeal, legality and correctness of the judgment and

order dated 31.1.2003 delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 24 of 1992 has been questioned.

2. The respondent, whose land admeasuring 95 R from and out

of field survey number 140 of village Mahuli, Tahsil Darwha, District

Yavatmal, was acquired for extension of Gaothan of village Mahuli, had

made a Reference for granting enhancement in the compensation received

by him from the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer

awarded him compensation of Rs. 33,972/- and the respondent desired

that more compensation be given to him. Section 4 Notification was

published on 21.1.1995 and the Award was passed on 27.1.1997.

3. In the Reference Application, the respondent adduced the

evidence and heavily relied upon the sale instances to prove his

contention that the land which was acquired, deserved compensation @

Rs. 50/- per square foot, it being situated within hardly 3 and half

kilometers away from Darwha town and bordering Yavatmal-Akola State

Highway.

4. Upon considering the evidence available on record and

arguments of rival parties, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division partly

allowed the Reference Application by enhancing the compensation @ Rs.

16/- per square foot by the impugned judgment and order. The

appellants, being aggrieved thereby, are now before this Court in the

present appeal.

5. I have heard Shri Nitin Rode, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for appellants. None appears for respondent though served. I

have carefully gone through the record of the case as also impugned

judgment and order.

6. The only point that falls for determination is -

"Whether the compensation rate determined to be at Rs. 16/-

per square foot is reasonable, warranting no interference in the impugned judgment and order ?"

7. The evidence available on record shows that sale deed at

exhibit 47 was the relevant sale instance for demonstrating the market

value of the land acquired in the instant case and it has been rightly

considered to be so by the Reference Court. Shri Nitin Rode, learned

Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that this sale instance being

post- notification transaction, the Reference Court ought not to have

considered the same. He submits that this sale instance was not even

within the proximate period of time to Section 4 Notification published on

21.1.1995. So the submission that no sale instance falling beyond the

proximate period of time of the issuance of Section 4 Notification can be

taken into account for determining the value, is to be considered.

8. Perusal of the impugned judgment, however, shows that this

sale instance has been considered by the Reference Court not as it is, but

only as a reference point for appropriately determining the market price

of the acquired land in the year 1995. Learned Reference Court has

rightly observed that there were no sale instances of higher or lesser price

during the proximate period and it was just and proper to consider the

sale instance (exhibit 47) to determine market value in the present case.

Learned Reference Court has properly calculated annual increase of 10%

and made 1/3rd price reduction considering size of the land in question

and thereby determining price of the land at Rs. 16/- per square foot.

Learned Reference Court by applying the ratio laid down by the Apex

Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. LAO (AIR 1988 SC 1652) has

computed 75% of acquired land for granting compensation, sparing 25%

of land for development purposes.

9. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has not granted any

compensation for trees and claim of respondent in that regard was

rejected and rightly so.

10. In the circumstances, I find that neither any illegality nor

incorrectness in appreciating the evidence or applying the law has been

committed by the Reference Court. It has correctly determined the

compensation rate to be at Rs. 16/- per square foot. The point is

answered accordingly. Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

11. In the result, appeal is dismissed. No costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi