V.I.D.C. Thru. Executive ... vs Arun Haridas Gondhane & 3 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3327 Bom

                                                                                                          fa1148-08.J.odt
                                                           1


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

                             FIRST APPEAL NO.1148 OF 2008

            Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation
            Through its Executive Engineer, 
            Upper Wardha Canal Division No.3, 
            Dhamangaon Railway.                ....... APPELLANT

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

 1]         Arun Haridas Gondane, 
            Aged about 36 years,

 2]         Yashwant Charandas Gondane,
            Aged about 34 years,
            Both residents of Dhamangaon Railway,
            District-Amravati.
             
 3]         The State of Maharashtra,
            Through the Collector, Amravati.

 4]         The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
            Upper Wardha Project-4,
            Amravati.                             ....... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri. A. B. Patil, Advocate for Appellant.
          Shri. A. B. Bambal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
          Shri. A. R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.  
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            DATE    :  19 th
                             JUNE, 2017.

 ORAL JUDGMENT

By the judgment and order dated 27.9.2007 passed

by the Ad-hoc District Judge-5, Amravati in L.A.C. No. 178/2003

fa1148-08.J.odt

compensation amount for the acquired land was enhanced from

Rs.45,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved thereby,

appellant has approached this Court on the count that said

enhancement of the amount was not at all warranted. Whereas

the respondents/claimants have filed cross-objection contending

inter-alia that the amount enhanced by the learned Reference

Court is quite meager as the actual market value of the acquired

land is quite high.

2] The facts giving rise to this appeal and cross-objection

are to the effect that in pursuance of Notification issued under

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 28.6.1999, the

respondent No.4, Special Land Acquisition Officer acquired the

agricultural land, admeasuring 1.6 H.R. bearing Gat No. 77,

situated at Parsodi, Tq. Dhamangaon Railway for Parsodi Sub-

Canal Nos. 1 and 2 Project by Upper Wardha Canal Division No.3

and granted compensation of Rs.45,000/- per hectare for the

acquired land.

3] Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation

awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No.1

fa1148-08.J.odt

preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,

thereby claiming enhancement at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per

hectare.

4] In the Reference Court, the respondent No.1

examined himself and also produced on record two sale-deeds of

the year 1989-90 under which the lands were purchased at the

rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. As against it, appellant relied

upon the Index-II showing that at the relevant time in the year

1999 the actual market value of the acquired land could not be

Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The contention was also raised by the

appellant that the acquired land is of Class-II category and hence,

it has no selable value as the land could not be alienated without

permission of the Collector.

5] On appreciation of the evidence adduced before it,

the reference Court was pleased to enhance the compensation

amount at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per hectare and allowed the

reference partly along with the statutory benefits thereon.

6] As stated, this judgment and order of the reference

fa1148-08.J.odt

Court is challenged by both the parties, being not satisfied with

the award passed by the reference Court. According to learned

counsel for the claimants, the reference Court has failed to

consider the market value of the acquired land properly, especially

in the light of their two sale-deeds produced on record. It is

submitted that those two sale-deeds are of the year 1989-90 and

the consideration thereof was at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per

hectare and Rs.90,000/- per hectare respectively. It is submitted

that if the prices of these lands in the year 1989-90 was in the

range of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare, then in the

year 1999, the prices of the claimants' land which is acquired by

the Land Acquisition Officer, must have increased manifold.

7] As against it, learned counsel for appellant has placed

reliance on the certified copy of Index-II and also the copy of the

map showing the location of the lands. It reveals that Gat No. 74

of the same village was sold vide registered sale-deed dated

9.3.1998 for consideration of Rs.37,313/- per hectare, whereas

Gat No. 83 was sold on 22.4.1999 for consideration of

Rs.49,107/-. It is also pointed out from the map that these two

lands are situated near the acquired land and, therefore, as the

fa1148-08.J.odt

sale-deeds reflected in the Index-II are of the year 1998-99

whereas the sale-deeds in which the claimants have relied are of

the year 1989-90, it has to be held that the sale-deeds in Index-II

give real picture and according to those sale-deeds the market

value of the acquired land cannot be more than the one awarded

by the Land Acquisition Officer.

8] Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon

the relevant entry made in 7/12 extract produced at Exhibit No.31

and submitted that without permission of the Collector the

acquired land cannot be sold as it was of Class-II category and,

therefore, the contention of the claimants that it has N.A.

potential cannot be accepted.

9] The reference Court has considered the entire

evidence produced by both the parties and then it is held by the

reference Court, after considering the sale instances on which the

appellant and the claimants have relied, that the market value of

the acquired land and just amount of compensation on that score,

can be at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per hectare. In my considered

opinion, the said finding of the reference Court is based on the

fa1148-08.J.odt

evidence adduced before it and the amount of compensation

arrived at by the reference Court is just and fair. Therefore, no

interference is warranted therein either at the instance of

appellant or even at the instance of claimants. Hence, appeal and

cross-objection stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

RGIngole