Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Husen S/O Vithu Pradhan & 3 Ors on 21 September, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
(Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 451/2010
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division,
Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1] Husen S/o Vithu Pradhan,
Aged 60 years, Occu: Cultivator,
2] Bisen S/o Vithu Pradhan,
Aged 56 years, Occu: Cultivator,
Both R/o. Thalegaon, Post - Dighi,
Tq. Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal.
3] The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
4] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work No.1 Division,
Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.B. Patil, counsel for appellant.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for respondent no..3 and 4.
CORAM: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
This appeal is preferred against the
judgment and award dated 11/04/2008, rendered by
(Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 2/6
the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Yavatmal in Land Acquisition
Case No. 80/1997.
2] The land belonging to the respondent
nos.1 and 2 bearing Gut No.76, admeasuring 0.49 HR,
situated at village Thalegaon, Taluka - Babhulgaon,
District - Yavatmal, was acquired for the purposes of
Bembla Project. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
(in short, "L.A. Act") notification was published on
18/03/1993. The Land Acquisition Officer
determined the market value of the acquired land to
be at Rs.13,000/- per hector. In the reference
application filed under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, the
reference court enhanced the market value and
determined it to be at Rs.1,00,000/- per hector.
Accordingly, compensation was granted to the
respondent nos.1 and 2, by the impugned judgment
and award.
3] It is seen from the impugned judgment and
award that while fixing the market value of the
acquired land, the reference court has placed reliance
upon the judgment in the connected Land Acquisition
(Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 3/6
Case No.180/2000 (Exh.63), where the reference
court granted compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,00,000/- per hector. This judgment was relied
upon by the reference court in the present case and
accordingly, the reference court determined the
market value of the acquired land to be at
Rs.1,00,000/- per hector. However, what is glaringly
lacking in the impugned judgment and award is that
the reference court has not recorded anywhere it's
finding that the acquired land and the land involved
in the land acquisition case judgment vide Exh.63
were similar to each other, and therefore, capable of
fetching same market value. This being the position,
as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the judgment rendered in the connected
land acquisition case (Exh.63) cannot be relied upon
for determining the true market value of the acquired
land in the present case, and therefore, the finding
recorded by the reference court, cannot be confirmed.
4] Now, if the basis of the judgment vide
Exh.63 used by the reference court has been rejected,
(Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 4/6
then the question would be what evidence should be
considered by this Court in order to determine the
true market value of the acquired land and I think
answer would lie, as rightly submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant, in the sale deed vide
Exh.61. The learned AGP appearing for the
respondent nos.3 and 4 also agrees that this sale deed
vide Exh.61 could be relied upon for determination of
correct market value of the acquired land in this case.
Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent
nos.1 and 2, and therefore, this court has received no
assistance from these respondents, on this point.
5] The sale deed vide Exh.61 shows that the
total consideration for sale of the land situated at
village Thalegaon, admeasuring 1.21 HR was of
Rs.99,000/-. This sale deed was executed on
05/08/1994. However, examining the sale deed on a
different consideration, I find that as the agreement to
sell the land was reached between the parties on
08/03/1992, the agreed price of the land was
representative of it's price that prevailed in the year
(Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 5/6
1992. Therefore, the consideration of this land would
have to be taken as representing the value of the land
in March-1992. By considering this value, the value
of 1 HR of land situated at village Thalegaon in
March-1992 would come to about Rs.82,000/-.
Section 4 of the L.A. Act notification, in the present
case, has been issued on 18/03/1993. So, 10% of the
amount of Rs.82,000/- would have to be added on
account of escalation of the land price for one year.
Adding the same, the market value of the acquired
land in the present case would roughly come to
Rs.90,000/- per hector. This is the amount, which
could be determined to be the true market value of
the acquired land in the present case, which is slightly
lower than what has been determined by the
reference court. But, the determination of the
reference court having not been based upon the
evidence, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
6] In the result, I am of the view that the
respondent nos.1 and 2 are entitled to receive
compensation in the present case at the rate of
(Judgment) 2109 FA 451-2010 6/6
Rs.90,000/- per hector and accordingly, I declare that
the respondent nos.1 and 2 are entitled to receive
compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hector.
The other benefits granted to the respondent nos.1
and 2 by the reference court, need to be given to the
respondent nos.1 and 2 on the compensation
determined by this order, and they are given
accordingly.
7] Appeal is partly allowed.
8] The impugned award is modified in above
terms.
9] Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Yenurkar
