1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No. 615/2003 ( State of Mah.through Collector & another VERSUS Habibbhai Husenbhai & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. Wasnik, Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant. Ms. Ramteke, Adv. H/f Shri Sambre, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 23 rd August, 2007. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This first appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award passed by the reference Court on 25.10.1999 granting enhanced compensation to the respondents @ Rs. 37,500/- per Hectare. A few facts giving rise to the present first appeal are stated thus----- The lands of the respondents were situated at village Nagthana. The lands were acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the construction of the Right Main Canal of Antergaon Project. The Section 4 notification was issued on 11.08.1988. The respondents demanded compensation @ Rs.40,000/- 2 per Hectare. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, passed the award and granted compensation @ Rs. 14,400/- per Hectare. Since the rate of compensation was very meagre, the respondents preferred a reference application before the Collector, Yavatmal. The matter was referred to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yavatmal and was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.113/1991. Several land acquisition cases were decided by the reference Court by the common judgment dated 25.10.1999. Common evidence was tendered by the parties in these cases. The reference Court enhanced the compensation and granted it @ Rs.37,500/- per Hectare. This enhancement is challenged by the appellant in the instant first appeal. I have perused the judgment passed by the reference Court on 25.10.1999. The claimants in all the land acquisition cases had produced ample evidence on record to show that the lands in question yielded several crops like Jowar, Cotton H4, Urid, Tur, Groundnut, etc. from the lands in question. Some of 3 the claimants were also taking the yield of Chilly and Wheat. The respondents produced the 7/12 extracts to show the products cultivated in their lands. The respondents as well as other claimants in the other land acquisition cases produced extracts of sale index to show that the market value of the lands was much more than what was granted by the land acquisition officer. Certain sale-deeds were also produced on record to show that the market value of the lands at the time of issuance of Section 4 notification was nearly Rs.40,000/- per Hectare. The reference Court considered the evidence tendered by the claimants on record as the appellant State had not produced any cogent evidence to prove that the market value of the lands was rightly fixed by the land acquisition officer at Rs.14,400/- per Hectare. The reference Court considered the fact that all the lands belonging to the claimants were falling in one group i.e. Class I group. The Court applied the income capatalisation method as the yearly yield from the acquired lands was more than Rs.1,000/- per year. By applying the income 4 capatalisation method, the reference Court came to conclusion that the lands in question were not valued less than Rs.37,500/- per Hectare. The reference Court also considered the extract of sale indexes and the sale transactions of comparable lands and did not blindly grant compensation on the basis of income capatalisation method only. The Court considered certain awards passed by the Court in land acquisition cases where lands of village Kinhala were acquired for the same project. In the land acquisition case No. 13/47/87-88, dated 30.03.1990, the reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.37,500/- per Hectare to the claimants therein. The reference Court, therefore, found that there was no reason to deny the aforesaid rate to the claimants in the land acquisition cases which were together considered by the reference Court. The previous judgments of the reference Court pertaining to the adjacent and similarly situated lands formed the basis and foundation for determining the market value in this case. The Court, therefore, considered the award dated 30.03.1990 at Exh.25 as 5 village Nagthana was situated only One Kilometer away from village Kinhala. Since the reference Court had granted compensation for the lands situated at Kinhala @ Rs.37,500/- per Hectare though the Section 4 notification was issued in that case at an earlier point of time, the reference Court rightly granted compensation in the present case at Rs.37,500/- per Hectare. The Court also considered the document at Exh.24 which was an extract of sale index which showed that the market value of the lands was much more than what was granted by the land acquisition officer or the reference Court. The sale index showed that the market price of the lands in village Antergaon was Rs.40,000/- per Hectare in the year 1983. In view of the voluminous documentary evidence produced by the claimants, the reference Court rightly arrived at a conclusion that the market value of the lands in question was Rs.37,500/- per Hectare. I see no fault with the judgment and award passed by the reference Court. In fact, the principles laid down in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act have been duly followed by 6 the reference Court while computing the market price of the lands in question. For the reasons aforesaid, the first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE