Vikram Haribhau Suradkar (Dead) ... vs The State Of Mah. Thru Collector ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2796 Bom

 fa100.04.J.odt                    1



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


                        FIRST APPEAL NO.100 OF 2004


          Vikram son of Haribhau Suradkar,
          Aged about 63 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
          R/o Berala, Post Kolara, Tah. Deulgaon Raja,
          District Buldana (dead) thr. LR's

 1]        Sahebrao s/o Vikram Suradkar
          Aged about 62 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
          R/o Berala, Post:Kolara, Tah. Chikhali,
          Dist. Buldana.

 2]       Smt. Ajabkor w/o Shyamrao Ingale
          Aged about 56 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
          R/o Chandanpur, Tah. Chikhali,
          Dist. Buldana.

 3]       Smt. Nilkor w/o Sukhdeo Pawar
          Aged about 54 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
          R/o Harni, Tah. Chikhali, 
          Dist. Buldana.                       ....... APPELLANT


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


          The State of Maharashtra, through
          the Collector, Buldana,
          District Buldana.                                  ....... RESPONDENT
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for Appellant.
          Shri M.A. Kadu, A.G.P. for Respondent.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

          DATE:      6 th
                          JUNE, 2017.







 ORAL JUDGMENT



 1]               This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and

order dated 17.07.2003, delivered in Land Acquisition Case No.4

of 1997, by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana.

2] Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under:

The land admeausring 2 hectares 49 R., out of Gat

No.125, situated at village Berala was acquired by the State of

Maharashtra for the purposes of construction of Bhalgaon

Percolation Tank No.2. The notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act was published on 07.09.1995. The appellant

has in response to the same notification requested and claimed

compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre, but the Land

Acquisition Officer has not considered his demand and granted

him meagre compensation at the rate of Rs.26,000/- per hectare

by his award dated 04.10.1996.

3] Being aggrieved therewith, the appellant approached

the Reference Court. The learned Reference Court after

appreciation of the evidence on record, was pleased to enhance

the compensation amount partly to the extent of Rs.1,38,446/-

with proportionate costs and 12% component per annum on the

enhanced compensation. The appellant is however, still not

satisfied with the said judgment and decree and since he has

preferred this appeal.

4] According to the learned counsel for the appellant,

the Reference Court has not properly considered the sale

instances, which were produced by the appellant. It is submitted

that the learned Reference Court has rejected those sale instances

merely on the ground that those sale instances pertain to smaller

portions of the land, whereas the land of the appellant, which was

acquired, was comparatively of larger portion. It is submitted that

the learned Reference Court has also not considered the

enhancement of compensation in respect of standing fruit bearing

trees and also the fact that the land is irrigated one. According to

the learned counsel for the appellant, the amount of compensation

enhanced by the learned Reference Court being not satisfactory,

the appellant is entitled for the compensation at the rate of

Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare.

5] It is pertinent to note that the respondent-State also

being not satisfied with the judgment and order of the Reference

Court, and hence preferred First Appeal No.57 of 2007. However,

the said appeal also came to be dismissed on 28.11.20015,

thereby upholding and confirming the findings arrived at by the

Reference Court. According to the learned A.G.P. therefore, as the

matter is already decided judicially, even at the appellate stage by

this Court, no interference is warranted in the impugned

judgment and decree of the Reference Court.

6] Having regard to the submissions advanced at bar,

the only question which necessarily arise for my consideration is

whether the enhancement of compensation, as made by the

Reference Court is legal and valid or calls for any interference.

7] In this respect, perusal of the impugned judgment of

the Reference Court, particularly contents of para No.9 clearly

reveals that the Reference Court has considered both the sale

instances, which were produced by the appellant at Exh.19 and

21. The learned Reference Court has also considered the oral

evidence as adduced by the appellant and his witness Trimbak

Mansingh Suradkar. On appreciation of their evidence the learned

Reference Court held that these two sale instances pertain to the

land admeasuring 4 gunthas and 15 gunthas only, respectively,

whereas the acquired field of the appellant is admeasuring 2 H

49 R. Thus as both the sale instances clearly pertain to small

portion of the land, they cannot be considered for deciding the

larger portion of land to determine the real price of the larger

portion of land. The Reference Court has also considered the fact

that the sale instance at Exh.19 was executed and registered on

15.12.1995, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act was published in this case on 07.09.1995, and

therefore, the sale instance at Exh.19 being post dated transaction

cannot be relied upon. The perusal of para 9 of the impugned

judgment also reveals that the Reference Court has considered the

oral evidence in the case and also the fact that the land which was

purchased by Trimbak Suradkar was at a distance of 5 to 7 acres

from the acquired field, and thus the acquired field is not adjacent

to the field under sale instance at Exh.20.

8] Thus it is apparent that the Reference Court has

considered all the aspects of the case, properly appreciated the

evidence adduced on record, and thereafter arrived at the finding

that market price of the acquired land would be approximately

Rs.15000/- per acre i.e. Rs.37,500/- per hectare at the time of

issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act. The learned Reference Court therefore, held that

the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer at the

rate of Rs.26,000/- per hectare needs to be enhanced to the

compensation at the rate of Rs.37,500/- per hectare.

9] It is pertinent to note that those finding of the learned

Reference Court were also considered and discussed at length by

this Court in First Appeal No.57 of 2007, and it was held that the

view taken by the Reference Court is based upon reasonable

appreciation of the evidence available on record, and accordingly

it was further held that the conclusion arrived at by the Reference

Court need not be disturbed as no error of fact or law was found

in the impugned judgment and order.

10] Not only there is thus a judicial finding recorded by

this Court on this factual aspect, but even otherwise also

independently viewed, this Court does not find that any case is

made out to interfere in the impugned judgment and order,

especially when the Reference Court has considered all the

aspects, coupled with the settled legal position. The compensation

enhanced and awarded to the appellant also cannot be called in

any way as meagre so as to warrant interference therein.

The award is passed on the appreciation of evidence, which the

appellant has adduced before the Reference Court.

11] Even as regards the amount of compensation in

respect of fruit bearing trees and the income yielded there-from as

there was absolutely no sufficient evidence on record, and hence

the rejection of the claim of the appellant on that count is also

upheld by the Court in its decision dated 20.11.2016 in the First

Appeal No.57 of 2007. Hence, on that count no other view can be

taken or is warranted.

12] As a result, the appeal stands disposed of as dismissed

with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

NSN