Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahimankhan Pathankhan And Ors on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Amit Borkar
206-fa43-2001.doc
VRJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.43 OF 2001
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
V/s.
Rahimankhan Pathankhan & Ors. ... Respondents
Ms. Tanaya Goswami, AGP for the appellant/State.
Mr. G. Francis i/by Mr. V.S. Talkute for the respondent
No.4.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 23, 2023
P.C.:
1. The State has challenged impugned judgment and award
dated 24th February, 1997 passed by the learned Joint District
Judge, Nashik holding claimants entitled to receive amount of
compensation of Rs.2,59,700/- plus interest @ 9% per annum
from 30th September, 1982 till 29th September, 1993 and,
thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till realization.
2. The facts necessary for adjudicating the appeal are as under.
The land is situated in Village Chandwad, Taluka Chandwad,
District Nashik. The Government of Maharashtra under section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act issued notification for acquiring
claimants land was issued on 18th June, 1991. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer passed an Award granting compensation of
Rs.8,000/- per hectare and Rs.25,722/- for trees. By the impugned
206-fa43-2001.doc
judgment, the learned District Judge enhanced compensation to
Rs.50,000/- per hectare. Hence, the State has filed present appeal.
3. Learned AGP for the State submitted that the enhancement
of the claimant is based on no evidence as only sale instance relied
upon by the claimants has been disbelieved with the result there
was no evidence on record to arrive at market value more than the
market value mentioned in the Award. There was no evidence to
bring on record value of trees.
4. Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondent
submitted that the sale instance relied on by the claimant was of
the year 1978 and the land was acquired in the year 1981,
therefore, market value of the sale instance was proportionately
release and considering area of four (4) hectares amount of
Rs.50,000/- per hectare has been rightly held as market value of
the land. The basis for arriving at market value of the trees is
valuation report of the Agriculture Officer, therefore, no
interference is called for.
5. On the basis of submissions, following points for
consideration arise: (i) whether claimants proved that the
compensation for the land acquired was rightly fixed at the rate of
Rs.50,000/- per hectare; (ii) whether the District Judge was
justified in granting amount of Rs.38,585/- towards valuation of
trees.
6. In so far as the first point for consideration is concerned, the
claimant stepped into witness box and stated that he and his friend
had purchased 0.44R of land for Rs.22,500/-. The said transaction
206-fa43-2001.doc
is of the year 1978. Undisputedly, notification in the present
reference has been issued in the year 1981. There is a gap of three
(3) years in the transaction relied by the claimant. The area of the
land of comparable sale instance is also much lesser than that of
the claimants land. However, considering the said land ad-
measuring 0.44R, market value of Rs.50,000/- per hectare can be
treated as market value of the acquired land. The said value of the
acquired land in the absence of any other material can be fairly
treated as Rs.50,000/- per hectare.
7. In so far as the market value of trees are concerned, report of
Agriculture Department is on record which shows that there are 7
Bore trees, 6 Gauva trees, 856 Sitafal trees. The valuation of the
trees as per the report of Agriculture Department comes at
Rs.38,585/- which has been rightly awarded by the reference
Court. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no reason to interfere in
the present appeal.
8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
9. The amount of compensation deposited, if any, be paid to the
claimants.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
