Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Ravindra Bapurao Nimat & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8289 Bom

        J-fa201.06.odt                                                                                                       1/4


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


                                      FIRST APPEAL No.201 OF 2006


        Vidarbha Irrigation Development 
        Corporation, through Executive Engineer, 
        Medium Project Division,
        Pusad, District Yavatmal.                                                     :      APPELLANT

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.    Ravindra Bapurao Nimat,
               Aged about 22 years,
               Occupation : Student,
               R/o. Warud, Tq. Ralegaon, 
               District : Yavatmal.

        2.    The State of Maharashtra,
                through Collector, Yavatmal.

        3.    The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                Benefitted Zone, Yavatmal.                                             :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
        None for Respondent No.1.
        Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                       CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

st DATE : 31 OCTOBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal questions legality and correctness of the

judgment and order dated 19th September, 2005, rendered in Land

J-fa201.06.odt 2/4

Acquisition Case No.260/2002, by Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Pandharkawada (Kelapur), District Yavatmal. By this judgment and

award, compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under

Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquired land bearing Gat

No.56/2-C, situated at mouza Warud, Taluka Ralegaon, District

Yavatmal at the rate of Rs.21,500/- per hectare has been enhanced by

the Reference Court to Rs.37,500/- per hectare. Not being satisfied with

the same, the acquiring body has preferred the present appeal.

2. I have heard Shri A.B. Patil learned counsel for the appellant

and Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent Nos.2 and 3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent

No.1 though duly served on merits. I have also gone through the record

of the case.

3. Now, the only point which arises for my consideration is :

Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper ?

4. On going through the impugned award, I find that rate of

Rs.37,500/- per hectare has been determined by the Reference Court by

taking recourse to income capitalization method as well as method of

relevant judgment comparison and rightly so. The Reference Court, by

considering the evidence of the original claimant, which disclosed that he

was taking such crops as cotton from his non-irrigated land, found that

J-fa201.06.odt 3/4

the annual income that the original claimant must have earned would be

in the range of Rs.3,458/- to Rs.3,952/- per hectare. The Reference

Court then adopting multiplier of '10' determined the market value of the

acquired land to be between Rs.34,580/- and Rs.39,520/- per hectare at

the time of Section 4(1) of the Land acquisition Act Notification. In other

connected matters such as L.A.C. Nos.96/97, 97/97 and 98/97, in which

acquired lands were Gat Nos.55/4 and 55/2 from the same village

covered under the same Notification, the Reference Court found market

value of each of these lands to be at Rs.37,500/- per hectare. The

Reference Court also noticed that all these lands were comparable with

the land acquired in the present case, they being of the same quality,

fertility and potentiality. Thus, by combining the income capitalization

method with the judgment comparison method, the Reference Court

found that the true market value of the acquired land in the present case

was of Rs.37,500/- per hectare and accordingly it awarded the

compensation to the original claimant.

5. On going through the evidence available on record, I find

that these conclusions drawn by the Reference Court are based upon the

evidence available in the present case and are not the result of

non-consideration of the relevant evidence or consideration of some

extraneous material. These conclusions are also seen to be arising

logically from the evidence available on record. Therefore, I am of the

J-fa201.06.odt 4/4

view that the market value of the acquired land determined by the

Reference Court is its true market value at the relevant time and,

therefore, no interference with the findings recorded by the Reference

Court is called for. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. The point is

answered accordingly.

6. The appeal stands dismissed.

7. The parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE okMksns