1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.20/1994 Sudhakar s/o Pandurang Almale, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Makani, Tq. Omerga, District : Osmanbad. ...Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra, through The Collector, Osmanabad. ...Respondent. Claim : Rs.3,00,000/-. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 21/1994 Vasant s/o Gana Musande, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Makani, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Appellant. versus The State of Maharashtra, through, The Collector, Osmanabad. ... Respondent. Claim : Rs. 29,500/-. Mr. S.B. Bhapkar h/f Mr. K.B. Bhise, Advocate for appellant. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for respondent sole. (In both appeals). 2 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Date : 25th March, 2010. ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the claimants / land holders and learned A.G.P. for respondent. The appeals are admitted by order date 17/02/1994. 2 The undisputed facts narrated are, the agricultural fields of the two appellants were acquired for the purpose of constructing lower Terna project. The properties of the applicants are situated at Makni Tq. Umarga Dist. Osmanbad. 3 In appeal No.20/1994 (L.A.R. No. 191/1988) the area acquired of the appellant was 11H 33R out of survey no.159 while in L.A.R. No. 186/1988 (appeal No. 21/1994), land to the extent of 104 R from survey no. 99/2, 128 and 129 came to be acquired. The compensation granted by S.L.A.O. was obtained under protest. It was canvassed that the acquired lands are of black rich cotton soil and high potentiality and the respective claimants / appellants were having net annual income at the relevant time Rs.3,000/- per acre. The market value of the lands was ranging to Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Bagayat and Rs.20,000/- per acre for Jirayat land. The potentialities of the lands are not considered by the S.L.A.O… 3 4 The learned judge framed issues at Ex. 9 and 11 in the respective L.A.R. and reached to the finding that the appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.9,000/- per acre with consequential statutory benefits. The reference court, has not considered the sale instances and award of enhancement is inadequate. 5 The evidence in L.A.R. No. 191/1988 was recorded as common at Ex. 13. Copy of award was produced at Ex. 18. In the evidence also, petitioners / appellants reiterated high potentiality of the property acquired and sale instances in the vicinity. It was pointed that the lands are situated at 7 / 8 k.m. from Killari sugar factory while City Latur is nearest market place. Umarga is at distance of 30 k.m.. Ramchandra Vithal Jadhav was examined who has sold 1 acre 7 gunthas of land to Dilip Wanhale for Rs. 25,000/-. The distance between his land and appellants’ lands was 2 ½ k.m.. Copy of award is at Ex. 18 and copies of sale deeds at Ex. 20 and Ex. 21. The land in question was found by reference court to be of rich quality capable of yielding income. Learned reference court had the occasion to browse judgments produced at Ex. 20 and Ex. 21 showing that land in vicinity were sold on hire price as per copy of sale deed dated 28/06/1982 which is property situated at village Sastur where 1 acre land was sold at Rs. 4 14,500/-. The certified copy of judgment at Ex. 21 showed that land from village Mangulur to the extent of 1 acre 7 gunthas was sold for Rs.25,000/-. The land reference court on evidence also found that the land has high potentiality. It is within jurisdiction of Killari Sugar factory and petitioner had good yield consequential earning. It was so indicated by the projection of the revenue record. The lands referred in judgment at Ex. 26 were assessed as Bagayat land and hence, compensation at Rs.14,000/- per acre was awarded. Ultimately, the learned judge found on analysis that the proximate cost / enhancement should be Rs.9,000/- per acre. Mr. Bhapkar submits that the approach of the learned reference court is on mistaken facts, and urged for enhancing the compensation to what is fixed by the learned judge. 6 On hearing the learned counsel, I find that the appeal warrants interference and enhancement to the price of the acquired property @ Rs.17,000/- per acre for following reasons. 7 The notification under section 4 was dated 22/07/1981 and 02/12/1982. The declaration under section 6 was dated 10/02/1983 while award is dated 04/04/1983 and 18/09/1986. The lands are situated at village Makani. The sale instances referred herein above, illustrate the prices of the lands @ Rs. 25,000/- for 1 acre 17 gunthas. The close proximity of the 5 acquired land to the City also need not be ignored. 8 Incidentally, in identically placed matter in F.A. No. 29/1993 with F.A. No. 31/1993 by judgment dated 25/03/2009 this court, has granted enhanced compensation @ Rs.17,000/- per acre. No other view can be taken. 9 Considering the available record and survey of the facts, I find that the compensation granted by the learned reference court, Osmanabad requires modification and hence, order. a) The appellants (claimants) in both appeals are entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.17,000/- per acre from the award of compensation of Rs.9,000/- as has been shown by the learned Civil Judge (Senor Division), Osmanabad by order dated 25th September, 1990. b) Other statutory benefits remain un-altered. No cost. [K.U. CHANDIWAL.J] tsk/fa20.94 6