State Of Maharashtra Thr.Special ... vs Smt.Rahmatkhatun Wd/O ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6883 Bom

                          J-fa385.05.odt                                                                                                     1/5 


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


                                                        FIRST APPEAL No.385 OF 2005


                          State of Maharashtra,
                          through Special Land Acquisition Officer
                          and S.D.O. Amravati.                                                         :      APPELLANT

                                             ...VERSUS...

                          Smt. Rahmatakhatun wd/o. Faujdarkhan, 
                          aged about 51 years,
                          r/o. Takali Jahagir,
                          Tq. and Distt. Amravati.
Amended as per 
Court's order             L.Rs. of deceased Respondent Smt. Rahamatkhatun 
dt.28.7.2008.

                          (1-a).    Umardarjkhan Faujdarkhan (son)
                                       Age 58 years, r/o. Namuna, Distt. Amravati.
Appeal is dismissed 
against respondent        (1-b).    Rahimatkhatun w/o. R. Rahim,
No.(1-b).                              R/o. Katepurna, Distt. Akola.

                          (1-c).    Rajiyakhatun w/o. Miyakhan,
                                       Tq. And Distt. Akola.                                            :      RESPONDENTS


                          =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                          Shri A.M. Kadukar, Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant.
                          None for the legal heirs of deceased Respondent.
                          =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                                        CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 7 SEPTEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal preferred against the award dated

J-fa385.05.odt 2/5

24.11.1995, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, in

Land Acquisition Case No.112/1992. The land of the original respondent,

who is presently represented by her legal heirs, bearing survey No.116,

admeasuring 1 hectare of mouza Takli, Jahagir, District Amravati was

acquired compulsorily for extension of gavthan area of village Takli

Jahagir. Section 4 Notification was published on 9 th September, 1989.

The Land Acquisition Officer determined market value of this land to be

at Rs.7,000/- per acre. While deciding the reference application filed

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on merits, the Reference

Court enhanced the market rate and fixed the value of the acquired land

to be at Rs.15,000/- per acre. Accordingly, by the impugned award, the

Reference application was partly allowed and enhance compensation was

granted to the original respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the

appellant is before this Court in the present appeal.

2. I have heard Shri A.M. Kadukar, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the appellant. None appears for the legal heirs

of the deceased respondent, though duly served. I have gone through the

record of the case including the impugned award.

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

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

4. It is seen from the record of the case that there has been no

J-fa385.05.odt 3/5

evidence adduced by the claimant/original respondent and yet, the

Reference Court, on some imagination thought that true market value of

the acquired land would be of Rs.15,000/- per acre. There was a copy of

a sale instance filed along with list of documents at Exh.-19. The date of

the sale-deed, as seen from its photostat copy was of 12.3.1992. This

copy not being a certified copy was not admissible in evidence. This has

also been found by the Reference Court and, therefore, the Reference

Court refused to read this document in evidence and rightly so. After

refusal of the Reference Court to admit copy of the sale-deed in evidence,

it was the duty of the claimant to adduce some evidence to justify her

claim that the acquired land, at the relevant time, carried the market

value of not less than Rs.20,000/- per acre. But, it appears that the

claimant, inspite of giving adequate opportunity, did not tender any

evidence to prove her claim. This has also been noted appropriately.

The Reference Court in paragraph 6 has, in particular, noted that there is

no evidence to show that the acquired land could be purchased for the

purpose of residential plots by the public. The Reference Court further

found that the acquired land was situated towards the interior of the

village and that it was a dry crop land. All these observations, which I

must say, are based upon the evidence available on record and have

clearly gone against the respondent and then one would think that the

logical result of the same would be disallowing of the reference

J-fa385.05.odt 4/5

application by the Reference Court. But, that was not to be. Suddenly,

the Reference Court proceeded to reach a finding, and obviously without

there being available on record any evidence to support it, that

compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was not adequate.

Then, the Reference Court, in paragraph 6 of the impugned award

observed thus :

"Since the claimant has claim compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre, which is not proper. This land has been acquired in the year 1992 and it is a dry land hence I think that compensation should have ben paid at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. Hence, my finding on this issue accordingly."

5. As stated earlier, the finding so recorded by the Reference

Court is not based upon the evidence available on record and therefore,

would have to be termed as perverse warranting interference with the

same.

6. It is settled law that one who claims enhancement in

compensation must prove it or otherwise he must fail. In the instant

case, the original respondent claimed enhancement in compensation and

as she did not produce any evidence on record to prove her claim that

the acquired land was capable of taking more price than one determined

by the Land Acquisition Officer, the reference application filed by her

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act must fail. Consequently, I

find that the original claimant has failed to prove her case for grant of

J-fa385.05.odt 5/5

enhancement in compensation. The compensation awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer is just and proper and its enhancement done by the

Reference Court is unjust and improper. The point is answered

accordingly.

7. The appeal is allowed.

8. The impugned award is quashed and set aside.

9. The compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer

stands confirmed. As same has already been received by the original

claimant, there is no need to pass any order regarding component and

other statutory benefits.

10. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

11. Parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE okMksns