Sicom Ltd. Thr. Its Regional ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. The Collector ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4449 Bom

 fa160.06.J.odt                            1

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

                        FIRST APPEAL NO.160 OF 2006

          Sicom Ltd. through its
          Regional Manager, 
          Uddyog Bhavan,
          Civil Lines, Nagpur.                              ....... APPELLANT

                                   ...V E R S U S...

 1]       State of Maharashtra through
          the Collector, Wardha.

 2]       Special Land Acquisition Officer,
          [MIW], Wardha.
  
 3]       Gopal s/o Jagdishprasadji Mundada,
          Aged about 28 years, Occ: Business
          and Cultivation, R/o Beed, Tah. Khandwa
          Dist. East Nimad (M.P. through P.A. 
          Holder Shri Govind s/o Kanhaiyalalji
          Mundada, R/o Sindhi Railway,
          Tq. Seloo, Dist. Wardha.                           ....... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri P. Dharaskar, Advocate holding for Shri Anand
          Parchure, Advocate for Appellant.
          Shri M.A. Kadu, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          CORAM:            DR. (SMT.) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

          DATE:                th
                            13    JULY, 2017.

 ORAL JUDGMENT


 1]               By   this   appeal   filed   under   Section   54   of   the   Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 the appellant which is an acquiring body, is

challenging the judgment and award passed by 4 th Ad-hoc

Additional District Judge, Wardha on 20.10.2005 in Land

Acquisition Case No.92/1991, thereby granting additional

compensation of Rs.63,181/- to the respondent No.3-claimant.

2] Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:

Respondent No.3 was the owner of the agricultural

land bearing Survey No.42/1 admeasuring 4.82 H.R. situated at

village Parsodi, Tahsil Seloo, District Wardha. In pursuance of the

notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

and published on 12.06.1985 in the local newspaper and on

27.06.1985 in the Government Gazette, the said land came to be

acquired by the respondents. As per the award passed by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer on 29.03.1988, the compensation

was awarded at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per hectare with statutory

benefits.

3] Being not satisfied with the meagre amount of

compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O., the reference was made

by respondent No.3 to the Trial Court under Section 18 of the Act.

It was the contention of the respondent that his land was fertile

one and fetching him annual profit of Rs.25,000/-. It was also

irrigated from the well water. The land was adjacent to Seldoh

Kandhali metal road and was near to Sindhi Railway Station

town. It was having all the facilities including near by sugar

factory. Hence, the market value of the land cannot be less than

Rs.75,000/- per hectare. Respondent No.3 also claimed

compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards the Well.

4] This reference petition came to be resisted by the

appellant contending inter alia that the compensation paid by the

S.L.A.O. is legal and correct. Respondent No.3 has not produced

any evidence on record to prove the market price of the land and

as the S.L.A.O. has passed the award considering the location,

situation, potentiality of the acquired land and after having regard

to the various sale instances, no interference was warranted in the

award of the S.L.A.O.

5] In support of his case, respondent No.3 examined his

power of attorney holder and also lead the evidence of one

witness by name Shri Sudhakar Vishwanathrao Khedkar.

As against it, on behalf of appellant the evidence of S.L.A.O.

Shri Suresh Kalu Jadhav was led.

6] In the light of this oral evidence and other

documentary evidence produced on record by both the parties, the

learned Reference Court was pleased to enhance the

compensation for the acquired land to Rs.30,000/- per hectare

from Rs.10,000/- per hectare, which was awarded by the S.L.A.O.

As regards the compensation for the well it was held by the

Reference Court that the respondent No.3 has not produced on

record the valuation report of the Architect and hence in the

absence of any evidence, respondent No.3 cannot be entitled for

the said compensation.

7] This judgment of the Reference Court enhancing the

amount of compensation for the acquired land is challenged in

this appeal by learned counsel for appellant Shri Parchure, by

submitting that there was no convincing, reliable or cogent

evidence produced on record by respondent No.3 for enhancing

the compensation amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per

hectare. It was submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon

the judgment delivered in L.A.C. No.102/1991 by Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Wardha in respect of the land purchased by Vijay

Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha. However, it is urged that the

acquired land bearing Survey No.49/1 is in interior area. Even in

respect of sale-deed at Exh.80, it is submitted that the said sale

transaction was also in respect of the land situate in Sindhi

Railway town, whereas the acquired land is outskirt of the Sindhi

Railway town and hence, it is urged that the enhancement as

granted by the Reference Court is not at all justified.

8] Respondent No.3 the original claimant was duly

served with notice. However, he failed to remain present. It may

be stated that he has not filed any appeal or cross-objection

challenging the enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded

by the Reference Court.

9] Hence the only point which arises for my

consideration is whether the compensation enhanced by the

Reference Court is just, legal and correct?

10] In this case, in addition to his own evidence,

respondent No.3 has also lead the evidence of one witness by

name Sudhakar Khedkar, the Secretary of Vijay Co-operative

Housing Society. The said society had purchased 0.77 land

bearing Survey No.49/2 for Rs.40,000/- by registered sale-deed

on 19.02.1983 from one Bhalchandra Chavan. The society has

also purchased another piece of land bearing Survey No.49/1 for

consideration of Rs.80,000/- on 22.06.1983 from Ratansing

Chavan. The first sale-deed pertains to the land admeasuring

0.77 R, whereas the second sale-deed was of 1.80 HR.

The Reference Court has considered both these sale instances and

the evidence of this witness Sudhakar Khedkar and found that as

his sale-deeds pertain to the lands situate at Sindhi Railway town,

which was much more advanced, compared to the village

Parsodi, which is interior area and 3 Km. away from Sindhi

Railway town, the Reference Court has not relied upon the

sale-deeds.

11] The Reference Court has then considered the fact that

the S.L.A.O. has in his award taken note of 161 sale transactions

and determined the market value of the acquired land as

Rs.11,541/- per hectare. It is found that Reference Court has also

considered the evidence of S.L.A.O. Shri Suresh Jadhav that

village Parsodi is at a distance of 15 Km. away from Seloo.

There was no market place and the acquired land was not having

any industrial or non-agricultural potential. The Reference Court

has then also considered that in another L.A.C. No.102/1991, the

compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per hectare was awarded

by the Reference Court. However, it was found that the said land

was situate at Sindhi Railway station town where as acquired land

was situate at out skirts of the town and there was no evidence of

any residential houses or layouts nearby. Hence, it cannot feth the

market value of Rs.45,000/- per hectare and will fetch less market

value.

12] Thus, taking into consideration the location of the

acquired land, its potentiality and the comparable sale instances,

the Reference Court has, in my considered opinion, rightly

enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.10,000/- to

Rs.30,000/- per hectare. The compensation awarded or enhanced

by the Reference Court thus being just, reasonable and adequate,

no interference is warranted therein. The Reference Court has also

rejected the claim of respondent No.3 for compensation of Well

finding that there was no evidence of expert Valuer or Architect to

that effect.

13] Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the

Reference Court shows that it has taking a balance view of the

matter, granted additional compensation of Rs.63,181/-.

The appeal therefore, holds no merit and hence stands dismissed,

with no order as to costs.

JUDGE NSN