Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Champat Ganpat Khade (Dead) Thr. ... on 14 July, 2017
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
368-J-FA-900-08 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.900 OF 2008
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
Through its Chief Executive Officer having its office
in Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai and having its Regional Office at
By-pass Road, Amravati. ... Appellant.
-vs-
Champat Ganpat Khade
(since Deceased Thr. LR)
1. Shantabai Champat Khade
Aged about 62 years.
(Deceased)
2. Arun Champat Khade
Aged about 42 years.
3. Suman Arunrao Tale
Aged about 37 years,
All Resident of Wagholi
Dist. Amravati.
4. State of Maharashtra
Through its Collector.
5. Land Acquisition Officer cum
Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati ... Respondents.
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate of appellant.
Shri M. A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
CORAM : DR (SMT) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : JULY 14, 2017
Oral Judgment :
This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
368-J-FA-900-08 2/6
is preferred by the the M.I.D.C. an acquiring body, challenging the judgment
and order of 5th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Amravati delivered on
19/09/2005 in L.A.C. No.604 of 1999, granting additional amount of
compensation of Rs.81,180/- to respondents/claimants.
2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows :
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the original claimant
who was the owner of the agricultural lands bearing Gat No.92 admeasuring
3.8 hectare and Gat No.127 admeasurinng 1.6 hectare situate at village
Wagholi. The said land was acquired by the appellant as per provisons of
Sections 33 and 34 of the Maharasthra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and
the award was passed in L.A.C. No.1/1 to 12/47/93-94 by respondent No.2
on 20/03/1997. By the said award, the LAO has granted compensation at
the rate of Rs.31,678/- per hectare to Gat No.127 and Rs.37,900 per hectare
to Gat No.92. He had Therefore he claimed Rs.6,51,000/- for Gat No.127
and Rs.1,62,000/- for Gat No.92. Thus his total claim was for the amount of
Rs.8,13,000/-. As a result of award passed by the LAO, he received on the
amount of Rs.1,79,044/- as total compensation and therefore being not
satisfied with the said award, he has preferred reference seeking difference
of Rs.6,33,956/- towards enhanced amount of compensation. However, he
restricted his claim for Rs.1,50,000/-.
368-J-FA-900-08 3/6
3. This claim came to be resisted by the present respondent Nos.4
and 5 by filing written statement Exhibit-16, interalia stating that while
determining the amount of compensation, the LAO has taken into
consideration sale transactions of respective villages for the period from 1989
to 1994 and on the basis of the same, he has determined market value at the
rate of Rs.31,678/- per hectare which is just, reasonable and adequate. It
was submitted that the land of the claimant consists of major portion as
Potkharab land which was valued by the LAO separately. The amount of
compenstion claimed by the petitioner/claimant was exorbitant. The LAO
has considered the potential value of the acquired land and hence it was
requested that the reference of the petitioner be dismissed.
4. In support of his plea, the original claimant examined himself;
whereas on behalf of the appellant, Dy. Commissioner Shri Uddhav S.
Garkan led his own evidence. He relied upon the Government Notification
dated 08/02/1996 indicating that for Potkharab land the amount of
compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.1500/- per hectare. He has
therefore justified the amount of compensation which was awarded to the
claimant.
5. On appreciation of this evidence, the learned Reference Court was
pleased to hold that the compensation amount awarded by the LAO was not
368-J-FA-900-08 4/6
just and adequate and thus granted additional compensation of Rs.81,180/-.
Being aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred.
6. On the submissions made before me by the learned counel for the
parties, the only point which arises for my consideration is whether the
Reference Court was justified in enhancing and granting additional amount
of compensstion of Rs.81,180/- ?
7. The main grievance of the claimant before Reference Court was
in respect of the classification done by the LAO for awarding different
amount of compensation for Potkharab land, which is according to LAO
based on the Government Notification dated 08/02/1996. According to that
notification, compensation amount for Potkharab land was fixed at the rate
of Rs.1500/- per hectare. However, as rightly observed by the Reference
Court, 2.71 hectare of the acquired land was not Potkharab land as assessed
by the LAO but for the time being only, it was lying uncultivated (padit). It
is admitted by the Dy. Commissioner also that there is difference between
padit land and Potkharab land. He has also admitted that in 7/12 extract of
the acquired land, it is stated that some land is chalu padit or Potkharab
land. According to him, the word 'chalu padit' and word 'padit' are having
the same meaning. As against it, according to the claimant, only 2 R land
out of Gat No.127 was Potkharab land whereas remaining land was
368-J-FA-900-08 5/6
cultivable and not Potkharab land. The learned Reference Court has
considered this aspect in paragraph 8 of its judgment and held that the entire
land of the claimant was not at all Potkharab but only 2 R land, as can be
seen from 7/12 extract of Gat No.127, was Potkharab land. Merely because
some portion of the land was not cultivated during the year or was not
cultivated for temporary period, the entire land cannot be held as Potkharab
land. Therefore the finding given by the Reference court in this respect
holding that claimant is entitled to get compensation at the rate of
Rs.31,678/- per hectare to 2 H 69 R land out of Gat No.127 being based on
the evidence on record, need not be disturbed. Claimant has not raised any
grievance in respect of the compensation for the land bearing Gat No.92.
8. Even as regard the market value of the land, the Reference Court
has considered the fact that though the claimant has claimed the
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare, having regard to the
admission given by him in cross-examination that the village where the land
was situated is a small village and he has not produced any document to
show that his land was adjoining the road, Reference Court rightly held that
the market value of the acquired land claimed by the claimant at the rate of
Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare was on higher side and hence having regard to all
the factors on record, the learned Reference Court has enhanced the
compensation amount by granting additional amount of Rs.81,180/-. The
368-J-FA-900-08 6/6
enhanced amount being just, reasonable, fair and adequate, in my
considered opinion, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment
and order of the Reference Court.
The appeal holds no merit and the same is dismissed with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
