Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Shashimohan Suganchand Tapdiya & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2949 Bom

 fa137.08.J.odt                         1



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

                      FIRST APPEAL NO.137 OF 2008

          Maharashtra Industrial Development
          Corporation, through its Chief Executive
          Officer, having its Regional Office at
          Amravati Industrial Estate By-pass
          Road, Amravati.               ....... APPELLANT

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

 1]       Shashimohan Suganchand Tapadiya,
          Aged Adult, Occ: Agriculturist.

 2]       Madhumalti Shashimohan Tapadiya,
          Aged adult, Occ: Agriculturist.
          Both R/o Tapdiya Compound, Akola,
          Tq. & Dist. Akola.

 3]      State of Maharashtra through
         Collector, Akola,
         District Akola.                         ....... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
         Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent No.3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

th DATE: 8 JUNE, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1] In Land Acquisition Case No.444/1997 filed under

Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act,

1961 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984,

the Reference Court at Akola has enhanced the compensation

for acquisition of land belonging to the respondents No.1 and

2 at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare by its judgment and

order dated 01.03.2006. Being aggrieved there by, the

acquiring body, the Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation, has filed this appeal challenging the enhanced

compensation from Rs.80,000/- per hectare to Rs.1,00,000/-

lakh per hectare.

2] The only point for determination is whether the

Reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation

from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare, especially in

the absence of any oral or documentary evidence brought on

record, to that effect by the claimants/respondents.

3] It is a matter of record that the respondent No.1

has entered into the witness box, but not produced any

documentary evidence to justify the enhancement of the

compensation. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for

the appellant is that the enhancement of compensation from

Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- was not at all warranted. It is

also not reasonable, but it is arbitrary. It is submitted that the

Reference Court has ignored the award passed by L.A.O.

which was based on the comparable sale instances.

4] The undisputed factual position brought on record

in this case is that the land admeasuring 20 R situated in Gat

No.33/1 at village Shivani was owned by the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 and it was subject-matter of the acquisition by

the notification dated 13.08.1992 issued under Section 32(2)

of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act read with

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. While deciding the

compensation for the said acquired land, the Land Acquisition

Officer considered the various sale instances and accordingly,

fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per hectare.

However, when the same was challenged before the

Reference Court, the Reference Court considered the evidence

of the claimant and also the amount of compensation as

awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to other

lands, which are situated in the same village and acquired

under the same award. The Reference Court considered that

in the award, two different sale instances were considered

according to which the acquired land could easily fetch value

at the rate of Rs.92,000/- per hectare at the relevant time.

In the circumstances, by taking into consideration 10% p.a.

minimum growth in the rates, it was found that the Land

Acquisition Officer should have determined the rate of

acquired land at Rs.1,00,000/- lakh per hectare.

Accordingly, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation

amount from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- lakh per hectare.

5] According to learned counsel for appellant, there

was no evidence before the Reference Court as adduced by

the respondent-claimants to justify such enhancement.

Especially in the absence of any evidence regarding the

nature, quality, potentiality and location of the comparable

lands or the comparable sale instances, according to him, the

Reference Court should not have enhanced the amount of

compensation. However, in my opinion it cannot be ignored

that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the

compensation at different rates to different lands though

situated in the same village and the Reference Court has

considered the amount of sale instances relied upon by L.A.O.

himself while awarding the enhanced amount of

compensation from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare.

6] Hence, considering the amount of compensation

which is enhanced by the Reference Court and having regard

to the fact that there is sufficient discussion and reasoning

given by the Reference Court in para 9 of the judgment, this

Court is reluctant to interfere in the said judgment and

award. It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely no

cross-examination of the claimant as regards the quality,

potentiality and the location of the land. According to the

claimant, the land is adjacent to the National Highway for

which, the land was finally acquired. Moreover, the land is

connected with roads and it has approach road. From there

city buses are available to the number of destinations. It is his

evidence that the potentiality of the land could easily fetch

the market price of Rs.10/- to 12/- per sq.ft. even at the time

of date of acquisition of the land. In the cross-examination

the evidence this witness is not seriously challenged and

hence having regard to all these facts, this Court does not find

any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and award,

as passed by the Tribunal enhancing the compensation

amount from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare.

The appeal therefore, stands dismissed.

7] It is submitted that the entire amount of

compensation is already deposited and therefore, the

claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same.

JUDGE

NSN