State Of Maha vs Parasram Rama Rathod
2018 Latest Caselaw 650 Bom

                                          (1)                     926-FA 384 of 2005



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       926 FIRST APPEAL NO.384 OF 2005

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       through Collector, Nanded.

2.     The Sub Divisional Officer and
       Land Acquisition Officer, Degloor,
       Nanded.

3.     The MIDC, a corporate body, per its
       Regional Officer, Latur, Regional
       Office at Latur.                    ..Appellants

                                 VERSUS

.      Parasram s/o Rama Rathod
       Age: 35 years, Occu.: Agril,
       R/o.Kushnoor, Tq.Biloli,
       Dist.Nanded.                                        ..Respondent

                              ...
          AGP for Appellants/State : Mr.K.N.Lokhande
    Advocate for Respondent : Mr.Abhay Deshmukh  h/f. 
                              Mr.M.M.Patil Beedkar
                              ...

                                          CORAM :  M.S.SONAK, J.

DATE : 18th January, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1) Heard Mr.K.N.Lokhande learned AGP for the appellants

and Mr.Abhay Deshmukh, who holds for Mr.M.M.Patil for the

(2) 926-FA 384 of 2005

respondent.

2) The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and

award dated 1.10.2003 by which the Reference Court has

enhanced the compensation from Rs.440 per Are to Rs.520

per Are. Learned AGP submits that there was no legal

evidence on record for grant of enhancement. He submits

that the Reference Court itself has said that such

enhanced rate is based on guesswork. Accordingly, he

submits that the impugned award may be set aside and the

rate determined by the Land Acquisition Officer be

restored.

3) Mr.Abhay Deshmukh learned counsel for the claimant

submits that Sale-Deeds were relied upon and the

Reference Court has taken the same into consideration for

the purposes of determining the compensation. He points

out that the enhanced compensation awarded in this case

is well within the limits prescribed by the Government

(3) 926-FA 384 of 2005

itself in its Government Resolution dated 3.11.2016 as

amended from time to time. For these reasons,

Mr.Deshmukh submits that this appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

4) The reasoning of the Reference Court is set-out in

paragraph No.24 of the impugned award. Although, three

Sale-Deeds were relied upon by the claimant, the

Reference Court has declined to rely upon two of the

Sale-Deeds on the basis that claimants themselves

admitted that the land which is the subject matter of the

Sale-Deed was of better quality. In respect of third

Sale-Deed, the Reference Court has held that it could be

taken into consideration for guidance for determination

of market value.

5) In this case, the enhancement granted is also not

substantial i.e. Rs.520 per Are as compared to Rs.440 per

Are as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(4) 926-FA 384 of 2005

6) Apart from this, the enhanced rate in the present

case is well within the limit prescribed in the

Government Resolution dated 3.11.2016 as amended from

time to time. This Government Resolution relates to the

policy of the State Government that it shall not

institute or pursue appeals where the enhanced

compensation is less than four times of the Ready

Reckoner Rate prevalent on the date of the issue of

Section 4 Notification.

7) Taking into consideration the circumstances, there

is no necessity to interfere in the Judgment and award

made by the Reference Court.

8) For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed.

9) There shall be no order as to costs.

[M.S.SONAK, J.] SPT/926-FA 384 of 2005