Subhash Shriram Mundhe & Anor vs State Of Mah. Thr. Special Land ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3125 Bom

 fa578.06.J.odt                         ..1..



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

                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2006

 1]       Subhash Shriram Mundhe,
          Aged Major, Occ-Agriculturist.

 2]       Vijay S/o Shriram Mundhe,
          Aged Major, Occ-Agriculturist.

          Both R/o. Vadji, Tah-Khamgaon,
          District - Buldana.            ....APPELANTS.

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

         State of Maharashtra,
         Through Special land Acquisition Officer,
         Buldana.                                        ....RESPONDENT.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Shri A. S. Kilor, Advocate for Appellants.
         Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

th DATE: 13 JUNE, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1] In Land Acquisition Case No.20 of 2002, the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon vide its judgment and award dated 23.11.2005 partly allowed Reference with proportionate costs, thereby enhancing compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from the rate of Rs.33,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per hector.

  fa578.06.J.odt                      ..2..


 2]               As   per   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   /

claimants, the Reference Court should have awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare, considering potentiality of the land and also having regard to the sale instance dated 23.06.1995 referred in the Award wherein for the land bearing Gat No.56, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.49,382/- per hectare. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that compensation awarded by the Reference Court being meager compared to the sale instance cited by the said Land Acquisition Officer himself in his Award, the compensation needs to be enhanced.

3] However, as rightly submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader there is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the appellants before the Reference Court to show that his land is adjacent to the land in the sale instance for which the compensation at the rate of Rs.49,382/- was awarded. There is also no evidence to prove potentiality or fertility of the land of appellants. Appellant himself has admitted that their land is situated at village Wadji, which is at the distance of 20 km from Khamgaon. He has further admitted that he used to cultivate crops like Jawar, Cotton, Tur etc., thereby indicating that the acquired land is non-irrigated. Moreover, though he has stated that he used to get yield of the crops worth Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- per annum, he has admitted that he has not

fa578.06.J.odt ..3..

maintained the accounts of expenditure and income of the said land. He has also not got the soil of his field tested in laboratory.

4] In view of the above, there was no evidence to award compensation as claimed by the appellants at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. The perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court reveals that Reference Court has considered all these aspects and also the sale instance on which the appellants have placed reliance and thereafter, came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation can be enhanced from Rs.33,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per hectare only. In the absence of any other evidence on record brought by the appellants before the learned Reference Court, it has to be held that the amount of compensation as enhanced by the Reference Court is adequate, just and reasonable. As a result, no interference warranted in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.

Appeal, therefore, holds no merits and stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

JUDGE

PBP