Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Dayaram S/O Punajaji Marathe & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2955 Bom

 fa593.06.J.odt                                 1



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

                      FIRST APPEAL NO.593 OF 2006

          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]       Dayaram s/o Punajaji Marathe
          Aged about Adult, Occ: Agriculturist,
          R/o Shivini, Akola.

 2]      State of Maharashtra through
         Collector, Akola,
         District Akola.                         ....... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
         Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

th DATE: 8 JUNE, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1] This is an appeal preferred against the judgment

and order dated 25.04.2006 in Land Acquisition Case

No.450/1997, passed by Reference Court at Akola, thereby

enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.80,000/- to

Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. The acquiring body, the M.I.D.C.

has therefore, preferred this appeal challenging such

enhancement of compensation.

2] The 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.

3] With the assistance of the learned counsel for the

appellant, I have gone through the judgment delivered by the

Reference Court and also the relevant award as passed by the

Land Acquisition Officer.

4] The undisputed factual position is that the land

belonging to the claimant, bearing Survey No.50/2

admeasuring 1 H 62 R came to be acquired for establishment

of industrial colony, vide notification issued under Section

32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act,

published on 01.06.1995. Vide award dated 20.03.1997, the

Land Acquisition Officer had determined the rate of acquired

land belonging to the claimant at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per

hectare.

5] The respondent-claimant, feeling aggrieved

thereby made reference before the Trial Court contending

inter alia that the compensation needs to be enhanced having

regard to the potentiality, location and quality of the land.

However, at the time of hearing, despite sufficient

opportunity provided to the respondent-claimant to enter the

witness box he failed to do so. As a result, in the absence of

any evidence led on record by both the sides, the Reference

Court considered the award itself and the compensation

amount, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to

various other lands situated in the same village Shivani.

It was found by the Reference Court that the Land Acquisition

Officer has taken into consideration the sale instances at Sr.

No.1, 4, 14 only. Moreover though reference was made by

him to the sale instance at Sr. No.12, Land Acquisition Officer

has not awarded the compensation at that rate. So far as the

sale instances at Sr. Nos.1, 4 and 14 were concerned, the

price was found to be Rs.74,000/- to 88,500/- and

Rs.76,500/- respectively. The Reference Court held that as

regards the sale instance at Sr. No.12 the price was stated to

be Rs.1,60,000/-. The Reference Court held that hence it was

desirable to calculate the mean rate of sale instances at Sr.

No.1, 4, 12 and 14 to determine the fair and proper rate of

acquired land. Accordingly, the Reference Court held the

claimant entitled at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare

instead of Rs.80,000/- per hectare, as awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer.

6] The submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that the Reference Court has not at all considered

the fact that no evidence was brought on record by the

claimant to show the location, potentiality and quality of the

acquired land or even to show that the acquired land is in any

way situated near the sale instance at Sr. No.12.

By producing copy of map for perusal of this Court, it is

submitted that the land of sale instance at Sr. No.12 is

situated far away from the land of the claimant and,

therefore, the consideration of the said sale instance which

was Rs.1,60,000/- could not have been used for drawing a

mean. According to learned counsel for appellant, the

Reference Court has, straightway, in the absence of any

evidence, enhanced the amount of compensation and hence,

the said judgment and award is liable to be quashed and set

aside.

7] I find much substance in the submission advanced

by learned counsel for appellant. Perusal of the map

produced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the

copy of the award makes it clear that the land of sale instance

at Sr. No.12 is definitely far away from the acquired land of

the claimant. It is also apparent that in the absence of

claimant leading any oral or documentary evidence, the

Reference Court has, by calculating some mean amount

enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.80,000/- to

Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare.

8] However, at the same time, having regard to the

fact that increase in the compensation amount is only to the

tune of Rs.20,000/- and hence, a meager one and having also

regard to the fact that the entire amount of compensation is

deposited and may be withdrawn by the claimant, this Court

does not find it fit to interfere in the impugned judgment and

order and therefore, holds that the appeal needs to be

dismissed on this sole ground. Accordingly, the appeal stands

dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

NSN