The State Of Maharashtra ... vs Haribhau Pundlik Khandelkar
2016 Latest Caselaw 5348 Bom

     Judgment                                                 1                                  fa712.04.odt




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




                                                                  
                                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 712  OF 2004




                                                                 
     The State of Maharashtra,
     through Collector, Buldana. 
                                                                                   ....  APPELLANT.




                                                   
                                               //  VERSUS //



     Haribhau Pundlik Kandelkar,
                               
     Aged about 45 years, 
                              
     Agriculturist, R/o. Botha Forest, 
     Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldana. 
                                                       .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                         . 
      ___________________________________________________________________
      

     Ms A.R.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Appellant-State.  
     None for the Respondent. 
   



     ___________________________________________________________________

                                  CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : SPETEMBER 16, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms A.R.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for the appellant. None appears

for the respondent.

2. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act published on 27th June, 1996, 1.28 hectare land owned by

the respondent/ claimant was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer

granted compensation @ Rs.22,000/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied with the

Judgment 2 fa712.04.odt

amount of compensation, the claimant requested for reference under Section

18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was made accordingly. The

reference Court by the impugned award has granted compensation @

Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The appellant being aggrieved by the above award

has filed this appeal.

3. The learned A.G.P. has submitted that the amount of

compensation determined by the Reference Court is without any basis and

therefore, the award passed by the reference Court be set aside and the

award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer be restored.

4. After hearing, the following point arises for consideration :

Whether the impugned award is proper or is required to be modified.

5. I have examined the record. The reference Court has recorded

that the Land Acquisition Officer had not taken into consideration the sale

instances dated 13th February, 1995 and 13th March, 1996 which show that

the land in the vicinity of the acquired land was sold @ Rs.30,000/- per

hectare and Rs.34,615/- per hectare. The above sale instances have not been

disputed by the appellant. The reference Court has further recorded that the

land of the claimant which is acquired was irrigated by well water and this

factor was also not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Judgment 3 fa712.04.odt

6. After examining the relevant aspects, the reference Court has

rightly determined the amount of compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per hectare.

The reference Court has found that the claim made by the claimant for

enhanced amount of compensation for well, pipeline, trees etc. was not

established by the claimant and that part of the claim has been rejected. As

far as 47 Are Potkharab land is concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer had

granted Rs.705/- which is found to be meager and inadequate by the

reference Court and the amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted for 47 Are

Potkharab land. These conclusions cannot be said to be perverse.

I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award.

7. The appeal is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.

8. If the amount is not withdrawn by the claimant and and if it is

lying in deposit, it be given along with interest to the claimant.

JUDGE

RRaut..

      Judgment                                          4                                             fa712.04.odt




                                                                                              
                                    C E R T I F I C A T E




                                                                   

I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment.

Uploaded by : R.B. Raut, PS Uploaded on : 22.09.2016.