Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Anil Khushalchand Chandak & 2 ... on 11 July, 2017
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
fa-j 148-06.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2006
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation
Through Executive Engineer
Lower Wardha Project
Wardha. ....... APPELLANT.
...V E R S U S...
1] Anil Khushalchand Chandak
Aged about 25 years, Occ.: Student
R/o Chinchpur, through attorney
Khushal Gulabchand Chandak of
Chinchpur, Tq. Dhamangaon (Rly)
District-Amravati.
2] The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Amravati.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Upper Wardha Project No.4,
District-Amrvati. .......RESPONDENTS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri J. J. Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent no. 1.
Shri. M. A. Kadu, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 & 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: DR. (SMT.) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 11 th
JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the Acquiring Body, being
aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered on 26.10.2005 by
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Land
fa-j 148-06.odt
Acquisition Case No. 202/1999, thereby granting additional
compensation amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to respondent No.1, the
claimant.
2] Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:-
Respondent no.1 herein was owner of cattle shed and
used for residence of labours, admeasuring about 277 sq.mtr.,
which was bearing old Grampanchayat no. 330 and was situated
in ward no.2 at village Chichpur. It was acquired by the State for
the purpose of Lower Wardha Project, in pursuance of the
Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
which was published in the year 1983. Special Land Acquisition
Officer (S.L.A.O.) has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,25,824/-
to the respondent no.1. Being not satisfied with the said amount,
respondent no.1 approached the Reference Court under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking the compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/-.
3] In support of his case, respondent no.1 examined
himself, Government valuer- Shri. Tiwaskar, Sectional Engineers
Shri Vijay Kashikar and Shri Meghshyam Dhongli.
fa-j 148-06.odt
4] On appreciation of their evidence, the Reference
Court was pleased to enhance the amount of compensation to
Rs.2,45,824/- thereby directing the additional compensation of
Rs.1,20,000/-.
5] This judgment and order of the Reference Court is
rightly challenged in this appeal by learned counsel for appellant,
by submitting that without their being an iota of evidence proving
on record proving that the compensation awarded by S.L.A.O. was
inadequate, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation
multifold times and hence, the impugned judgment and order of
the Reference Court needs to be quashed and set aside.
6] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has
supported the impugned judgment on the basis of evidence and
reasons given by the Reference Court.
7] Hence, the only point which arise for my
determination is whether Reference Court was justified in
enhancing the amount of compensation? On this aspect, in my
fa-j 148-06.odt
considered opinion even the perusal of the description of the
acquired property, as given by the respondent no.1 is more than
sufficient to show that it was a cattle shed and used for residence
of labourers at the most. The photograph of the said property,
which is produced on record at Exh19, also supports the fact that
it was a cattle shed, constructed in mud, having a roof of tiles and
the walls of mud. It was erected with the help of wooden log and
it is admitted by the witness that if the wooden log was removed,
the structure may break down. If this is the state of construction,
which was standing on the site then there was hardly any reason
for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation amount to
the tune of Rs.2,45,824/-.
8] Even the evidence of sale instances on which, the
Reference Court has relied upon clearly go to show that in the first
sale instance proved through the evidence of witness no.3 and
marked at Exh.25, the market price of the property sold at village
Anjansingi on 15.3.1995 was Rs.2,000/- which is, as discussed by
the Reference Court itself was at the rate of Rs.132/- per sq.mtr.
The another sale instance dated 15.3.1993 was for Rs.2,000/-. Its
market rate was Rs.132.89 per sq.mtr. The Reference Court has
fa-j 148-06.odt
then placed reliance on the certified copy of Index-II produced in
and relied upon in the Award in L.A.C. No.201/99. It was in
respect of the sale of the open plot admeasuring 1171 sq.mtr. of
village Anjansingi dated 12.5.1993. The said sale instance also
shows and proves the market rate of Rs.179/- per sq.mtr.
9] Therefore, all the sale instances on which
respondent/claimant has relied upon were of the market rates,
which were far lesser than the market rate awarded by the
S.L.A.O. also, which was Rs.454/- per sq.mtr. Thus, all the
documents produced on record by the claimant clearly go to show
that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. was not only fair
but also just and reasonable. Thus, it is apparent that relying
simplicitor on the evidence of the experts examined by the
claimant, Reference Court has enhanced the amount of
compensation, which cannot be justified in any way, having
regard to the sale instances on which the claimant himself has
relied upon.
10] The impugned judgment and order of the Reference
Court, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside, as it is not
fa-j 148-06.odt
based on the evidence on record.
As a result, the appeal is allowed with no order as to
costs
Impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court
stands quashed and set aside.
JUDGE
RGIngole
