Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd vs Parshuram Babalya Tatkari And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 9028 Bom

                                                                (7) FA 2308-2007.doc

BDP-SPS




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 2308 OF 2007

          Kokan Railway Corporation Ltd.         )
          Having its corporate office at         )
          Belapur Bhavan, CBD, Belapur,          )
          New Bombay                             ) ..... Appellant.

                        V/s

          1] Parshuram Babalya Tatkari           )
          2] Janabai Balkrishna Kambale          )
          Residents of Sukivali, Taluka Khed     ) ...... Respondents.
                                                   (Original Claimants)
                        And

          3] The Special Land Acquisition        )
          Officer (1), Ratnagiri.                ) ...... Referee

                                        ALONGWITH
                              CIVIL APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2019
                                            IN
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2308 OF 2007

          Mr. Parshuram Babalya Tatkari          ) ....Applicant.

                        V/s

          Kokan Railway Corporation Ltd.         ) ......Respondent.
                                                  (Original Appellant)

          In the matter between

          Kokan Railway Corporation Ltd.         ) ...... Appellant.


                                                                                     1/8



              ::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2021           ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2021 19:09:16 :::
                                                          (7) FA 2308-2007.doc


               V/s

Mr. Parshuram Babalya Tatkar & Anr. ) .......Respondents.
----
Ms. Kiran Bhagalia a/w Musharaf Shaikh for the the Appellant in First
Appeal and for the Respondent in IA.
Mr. Ajinkya Murumkar a/w Anand Awasarmool for Respondents 1 and
2 in First Appeal and for Applicant in IA
Mr. A.R. Patl, AGP for the State.
------

                       CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                        DATE: JULY 12, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1]     By consent of the respective Counsel, appeal is taken up on

final hearing board.



2]     Heard respective Counsel.



3]     Impugned in the present appeal is a judgment delivered by the

Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Reference No. 3 of

1998 under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act (hereinafter

referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Act"), thereby granting

enhanced compensation in favour of the Respondents/claimants

                                                                              2/8



     ::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2021             ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2021 19:09:16 :::
                                                                 (7) FA 2308-2007.doc


with the following observations:-

                                    ORDER

The reference is partly allowed.

The referee do pay the compensation to the claimants as under :

Rs. 1,73,500/- (Rs. One lac seventy three thousand five hundred only) + 30% solatium + 12% p.a. component from the date of notification i. e. from 21.10.1993 till date of award i.e. 17.12.1996

- (minus) Rs. 60, 597/-

+ 6% p.a. interest from 17.12.1996 till realisation of amount.

Both the claimants shall have equal share in the said amount.

Parties to bear their own costs.

Award be drawn up accordingly."

4] Ms. Bhagalia, the learned Counsel for the Appellant would

urge that enhancement granted is on exorbitant side and that too

without considering the basis on which Special Land Acquisition

(7) FA 2308-2007.doc

Officer ("SLAO") has made an offer to the Respondents/land

owners. So as to substantiate her contention, she would invite

attention of this Court to the oral and documentary evidence,

whereas Counsel for the Respondents/claimants would oppose the

claim of the Appellant and submits that enhancement granted is in

tune with the provisions of the Act.

5] The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on

21/10/1993 and after considering the relevant evidence, SLAO

passed an award on 17/12/1996, thereby offering compensation of

Rs 60,597/- to the claimants which includes solatium.

6] Since the compensation offered was on lower side,

Respondents / land owners sought enhanced compensation of Rs

2,41,803/- on the ground that prevailing market rate at the time of

Section 4 Notification was on much higher side, the compensation

awarded in Land Reference No.3 of 1993 was not considered,

(7) FA 2308-2007.doc

location and market value of the land and its access was also not

dealt with.

7] From the contents of the award passed by SLAO, it is apparent

that compensation was awarded at the rate between Rs 290/- to

Rs 540 per Are considering the location of the land and Rs 15/- per

Are for Pot Kharaba (non cultivable) land as against the

enhanced claim of Rs 1,500/- per Are. The

Respondents/claimants examined Respondent No.1 - Parshuram at

Exhibit-23. Rajaram, the witness of Claimants who was the Circle

Inspector was also examined in support of the claim for enhanced

compensation. The Index Extract placed on record in respect of

Land Reference No.1/1998 and 2/1998 is also relied on. The

testimony of Chandrakant in Land Reference No.2/1998 is also

relied on in addition to the revenue extract of Survey No.935,

revenue map and communication issued by the SLAO on

30/06/1998. The evidence of Parshuram, the Claimants' witness

(7) FA 2308-2007.doc

(C.W.1), has specifically established acquisition of the land by the

Appellant acquiring body and has sought to establish prevailing

market price. He has established that he had an irrigation facilities

and was cultivating paddy crop. In an acquisition proceedings in

relation to adjoining land, the compensation of Rs 1,000/- per Are

appears to have been awarded which was approved up to this Court.

As such, he has justified his claim for enhanced compensation of Rs.

2,41,803/- by also relying on Index Extracts at Exhibits 28 to 30.

Testimony of Parshuram is not controverted. Rajaram, the witness

of the Claimants who has been examined as C.W.2 has deposed in

support of existence of certain trees such as mango, Ain, Kinjal and

Siwan from the map at Exhibit-27. He has also established the age

of the trees. Though suggestions were given about non-existence of

such trees at the spot, however nothing contradictory could be

extracted. As such from the testimony of these two witnesses, it was

also established that the land adjoining to Sukivali Kartol was

treated as NA land for sale transaction in the Office of Sub-

(7) FA 2308-2007.doc

Registrar. As such, ready-reckoner rate of 1995 as was approved

by the State Government was Rs 4,500/- per Are. The claim was

restricted by the claimants to the extent of compensation as stated

above i.e. Rs 1,500/- per Are. The enhanced compensation ordered

is based on Index Extracts at Exhibits 24, 25 and 26. Apart from

above, Reference Court has dealt with each and every aspect of the

plea raised by the Appellant in the matter of grant of enhanced

compensation and has rightly reached to a conclusion of granting

enhanced compensation. In my opinion, the enhanced

compensation awarded under Section 18 of the Act is based on

appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence wherein

claimants have specifically established their claim for grant of

enhanced compensation.

8] In that view of the matter, in my opinion, no case for

interference is made out. Appeal as such fails and same stands

dismissed.

(7) FA 2308-2007.doc

9] At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Appellant informs

that on 26/06/2006 compensation to the extent of Rs 1,64,487/-

was deposited. In response to the Court's query, she further informs

that entire balance compensation shall be deposited along with

accrued interest thereon till date in this Court within a period of

eight weeks from today. Since the statement is made on

instructions, same is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

10] In the light of above, Application preferred by the land owner

for withdrawal of the amount stands allowed. Applicant/land owner

shall be entitled to withdraw the entire amount of compensation

deposited in this Court including accrued interest thereon.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )