Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Uttam Janardhan on 18 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
(1) 927-First Appeal No.486 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
927 FIRST APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
Through: Collector, Osmanabad ..Appellant
VERSUS
Uttam s/o.Janardhan Kulkarni
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agri. & Service,
R/o.Hipparga (Rava), Tq.Tuljapur. ..Respondent
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr.S.P.Deshmukh
AGP for Respondent : Mr.Prashant Deshmukh (absent)
...
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE : 18th January, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1) Heard Mr.S.P.Deshmukh for the appellant. Learned
counsel for the respondent neither present nor
represented.
2) The appeal is directed against the Judgment and
award 17.12.1993 by which the Reference Court has
enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,200/- per Acre to
(2) 927-First Appeal No.486 of 2005
Rs.22,000/- per Acre. Mr.S.P.Deshmukh learned AGP for
the appellant submits that enhancement was not justified
as there was no cogent evidence on record to sustain such
enhancement. He points out that the sale instance was
not in respect of comparable land and even the land,
which was subject matter of L.A.R. No.419 of 1991 cannot
be regarded as comparable instance.
3) He submits that the enhancement in this case is more
than four times the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be
set aside and the rate determined by the Land Acquisition
Officer is liable to be restored.
4) Having considered the submissions of the learned AGP
and perusing the record, there is really no case made out
to interfere in the impugned award. There is ample
evidence on record that the acquired lands were irrigated
and out of the acquired lands, the respondent claimant
(3) 927-First Appeal No.486 of 2005
was raising crops like Sugarcane and earning income by
sell of the same. Sale instances relied upon by the
Reference Court also relates to comparable land. Same is
the position to the lands, which was the subject matter
of opposition in L.A.R. No. 419 of 1991.
5) Infact, on perusal of the impugned award, it is seen
that the Reference Court in paragraph No.12 has held that
the respondent/claimant has brought sufficient evidence
on record to show that the lands were sold @ Rs.30,000/-
per acre at the relevant time. However, the Reference
Court has restricted the compensation to Rs.22,000/- per
acre on the basis that this was compensation determined
in L.A.R.No.419 of 1991. The material on record has
noted by the Reference Court to indicate that quality and
fertility of the acquired land was infact superior to
subject land in L.A.R. No.419 of 1991.
6) For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is liable to
(4) 927-First Appeal No.486 of 2005
be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
7) There shall be no order as to costs.
[M.S.SONAK, J.]
SPT/927-First Appeal No.486 of 2005
