1 fa446.94 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 446 OF 1994 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded, 2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, B & C Janta Market, Shivajinagar, Nanded ...Appellants VERSUS 1 Uttam s/o Atmaram Uttarwar age 35 years, occ. Agril., r/o Loha Mandva, Tq. Hadgaon ...Respondent ..... Smt. S.D.Shelke, A.G.P. for the appellants. Shri A.G.Mukhedkar, advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 07.02.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 18.02.2011 2 fa446.94 J U D G M E N T : - 1 The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in Land Acquisition Reference No. 186 of 1989 on 13.8.1993. The appellants are the original respondents i.e. the acquiring body; whereas the respondent herein is the original claimant, who had filed the Reference before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, being aggrieved by the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Land Acquisition Reference No. 186 of 1989. 2 The claimant is the owner and was in possession of the land Gat No. 325 of village Loha Mandava, Taluka Hadgaon. Appellant no. 2 herein acquired land admeasuring 88 Ares out of Gat No. 325 of village Loha Mandava as per notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for minor irrigation tank purpose. Appellant no.2 herein took the possession of the claimant’s land at the time of notification dated 13.5.1988 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 3 The original claimant had filed reply to the respondents 3 fa446.94 notice stating the price of land acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer allegedly prevailing at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per acre. However, it is the claimant’s plea that no opportunity was given to him to adduce the evidence or to produce any document before the Land Acquisition Officer before passing the award and the said award was passed behind the back of the claimant and without ascertaining the facts and situation of the land under acquisition. 4 Thereafter, appellant no.2 herein, by notice dated 29.4.1989 under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act informed the claimant regarding passing of the award. 5 According to the claimant the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate, which did not reflect true market price of the land under acquisition. Hence, the amount sanctioned by appellant no.2 was obtained by the claimant under protest. According to the claimant, appellant no.2 herein determined the price of the land on the basis of revenue which was fixed by the Government before more than 60 years. It is the contention of the claimant that the land was developed since long and the quality of the land is good soil and fertile one, which was adjacent to the house easily accessible and suitable for field cultivation. It is also the 4 fa446.94 contention of the claimant that the land is totally irrigated. It is well developed, owing crops of H-4 cotton, Banana, Turmeric and other crops like Tur, etc. Hence, the claimant asserted that the price of the land on the date of notification was more than Rs.30,000/- per acre, and the claimant also claimed the compensation on the basis of capitalization method stating that yearly income of the land is not less than Rs. 6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per acre, and also claimed the relief of costs, etc. 6 The appellants herein filed written statement and resisted the claim of the claimant and contended that the claimants claim for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land is unjust and based on imaginary grounds. It was admitted that the land acquired was owned by the claimant, but the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 13.5.1988 and the subsequent notifications under Sections 6 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was properly served on the claimant, but the claimant has not properly placed his claim before the Land Acquisition Officer by adducing oral or documentary evidence and issued the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act on 29.4.1989. It is also contended by the appellants herein that the original claimant has withdrawn the amount under the award. It is 5 fa446.94 also contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has undertaken all the circumstances, such as quality of the land, fertility, potentiality and sale instance at the time of concluding the award, as well as the Land Acquisition Officer has given 12 per cent compensation and 30% component while concluding the award. 7 Basing upon the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the issues and after assessing the evidence, adduced and produced by the parties, allowed the Reference filed by the claimant partly under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and appellant nos. 1 and 2 herein i.e. the respondents in the said petition were directed to pay sum of Rs.26,496/- to the claimant, in addition to interest of 15 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs.13,750/- from 14.8.1993 till realization of the dues with proportionate costs, by judgment and award dated 13.8.,1993. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and award, the appellants herein have preferred the present First Appeal challenging the same, raising the grievance that the compensation awarded to the claimant is excessive and exorbitant, and the Trial Court erred in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per Hectare to the claimant without considering the sale instance in proper perspective. 6 fa446.94 8 The learned Assistant Government Pleader canvassed that the Special Land Acquisition Officer granted the compensation at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per Hectare considering the material before him; whereas the Reference Court awarded the double compensation i.e. Rs.22,000/- per Hectare, although the land under acquisition is dry land and although the claimant failed to prove quality and potentiality of the said land. Moreover, It is also submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the claimant failed to prove the sale instance as well as no cogent expert evidence was adduced/produced by the claimants to prove and establish the fertility and potentiality of the land and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, therefore, urged that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is not based on the sound and legal footing and same is excessive and exorbitant and same deserves to be reduced, considering the totality of the matter, by allowing the present appeal. 9 Shri Mukhedkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/claimant submitted that the Reference Court considered the sale instance produced by the respondent (original claimant) i.e. the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.6.1988, which is in respect of the sale of land of 1 Hectare, which was 7 fa446.94 purchased for the amount of Rs.30,000/- and the learned Reference Court has considered the said sale instance and having the comprehensive view of the matter, awarded the compensation of Rs. 22,000/- per Hectare to the respondents, which is proper and adequate, and there is no reason to interfere therein. 10 Learned counsel for the respondent also canvassed that the multi purpose cooperative society was installed in the village for giving the financial assistance and Tamsa, Nanded and Hadgaon are the nearest market places for selling the agricultural produce of the acquired land, and the said aspects were considered by the Reference Court while fixing the compensation of Rs.22,000/- per Hectare in respect of the acquired land. It is further submitted that the Reference Court also considered the 7/12 extract produced on record at Exh. 24, which discloses that the crops of Cotton, Jawar, Tur, etc. were being taken in the acquired land. Accordingly, considering the potentiality, fertility and quality of the land and crops which were being taken therein and the sale instance, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation of Rs.22,000/- per Hectare, rightly and no interference therein is warranted in this appeal. 11 After assessing the evidence on record and after 8 fa446.94 considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, admittedly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation of Rs.11,000/- per Hectare to the respondent, after considering the record before him,which was enhanced by the Reference Court at Rs.22,000/- per Hectare. 12 In the said context, on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Reference Court has considered the sale instance i.e. the sale deed dated 16.6.1988 Exh. 25, which is for Rs. 30,000/- for the purchase of land admeasuring 1 Hectare and the Trial Court has discussed the said sale deed and considered the quality, fertility and potentiality and location thereof, and arrived at the conclusion and granted the amount of Rs. 22,000/- per Hectare towards the compensation to the respondent, which appears to be proper and adequate and no interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, sight cannot be lost of the aspect that the 7/12 extract Exh. 24 discloses that the respondent was taking crops of cotton, Tur and Jawar in the acquired land and the multi purpose cooperative society was installed in the village for giving the financial assistance and Tamsa, Nanded and Hadgaon are the nearest market places for selling the agricultural produce of the acquired 9 fa446.94 land, and considering the said aspects, the Reference Court appears to have granted proper and adequate compensation to the respondent and no interference therein is called for in the present appeal. 13 Besides that, considering the rival pleadings and after assessing and analyzing the evidence, the view adopted by the Reference Court appears to be probable view and the reasoning given therefor does not appear to be perverse and same cannot be faulted with, and consequently, the present appeal lacks merits and same deserves to be dismissed. 14 In the result, present appeal, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. R. and P. be sent back to the concerned court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/fa446.94