Chief Executive Ofcece vs Kisancao Bapucao Kawade (Died) And Others

S.G. Dige, J

This appeal is pcefecced mainly on two gcounds. Ficst gcound is 16 times moce enhancement is gcanted by the Refecence Couct and second is Claim of the ociginal claimants was not within limitation.

Brief facts of the case are as under :-

Land admeasucing 1H 42 R situated at sucvey No.239 at Washie Tq. Bhoom was acquiced foc the constcuction of New Gicls High School at Washi. The Special Land Acquisition Ofcec (foc shoct ‘the S.L.A.O.’) gcanted compensation at the cate of Rs.16e000/- pec Hectoc. Being aggcieved by meagce amount of compensation awacded by the S.L.A.O. pcesent cespondents fled suit befoce Civil Judgee Senioc Divisione Osmanabad (foc shoct ‘the Refecence Couct’) and claimed compensation at cate of Rs.4/- pec Sq. Ft. The Refecence Couct allowed the cefecence pactly and gcanted compensation at the cate of Rs. 2.50/- pec Sq. Ft. foc the acea admeasucing 1H 88 R and othec consequential benefts. Against the said judgment and awacd passed by the Refecence Couct this appeal.

It is contention of leacned Counsel foc appellant thate the cefecence was not fled within limitation. The awacd was passed by the S.L.A.O. on 25th Octobece 1983 and cefecence was fled by claimants / cespondents on 16th Junee 1984 i.e. aftec lapse of 7 months and 22 days. Thece is delay of 1 month 22 days foc fling the cefecence but this fact was not consideced by the Refecence Couct. The Refecence Couct has consideced acquiced land as agcicultucal land and gcanted the compensation considecing it as non-agcicultucal land which is wcong and ecconeous. Hencee cequested to allow the appeal.

It is contention of leacned Counsel foc cespondents thate the Refecence Couct has fcamed the issue of limitation and has held thate the cefecence was within limitation. The cate gcanted by the Refecence Couct is on the basis of sale-deed pcoduced befoce the Refecence Couct. In the sale-deed the macket pcice of the plot was moce than Rs.4/- pec Sq. Ft. but the Refecence Couct has consideced it at lowec side at the cate of Rs.2.50/- pec Sq. Ft. Hencee the ocdec passed by the Refecence Couct is legal and valid.

I have heacd all the leacned Counsel. Pecused judgment and ocdec passed by the Refecence Couct.

The issues involved in this appeal ace whethec the cefecence fled was within limitation oc not? and whethec excessive enhancement is awacded by the Refecence Couct.

The Refecence Couct has fcamed the issue No.3 cegacding limitation and answeced it in afcmative. The Refecence Couct has obsecved thate the cefecence was fled within time. It appeacs fcom cecocd thate undec pcotest application was fled on 7th Maye 1984 which is at Exh.28 and the cefecence petition was fled on 16th Junee 1984. It shows thate the cefecence was fled within six weeks’ fcom the date of obtaining the amount undec pcotest. The S.L.A.O. ceceived the cefecence and tcansmitted the same to the Distcict Coucte Osmanabad vide his lettec at Exh.1e in which it has been cleacly mentioned thate petitionec had obtained the amount undec pcotest and cefecence application is ceceived within time. It shows thate the cefecence was in time. Hencee I do not fnd any mecit in the contention of leacned Counsel foc appellant thate cefecence was not within limitation.

In cespect of issue of excessive enhancement gcanted to the cespondentse it has come in the evidence of petitionec at Exh.30 thate acquiced land is adjacent to village Washi and village Washi is big villagee Schoolse High Schoole Technical Collegee Acts and Science College ace available in the village. His land is at the distance of 250 to 300 Ft. fcom S.T. Stand Washie Washi Paca coad is adjacent to his land. The macket pcice of the land is Rs.4/-pec Sq. Ft. Thece ace houses adjacent to the acquiced land since 1980. Petitionec had fled cectifed copies of sale instances at Exh.26 and 27 on cecocd.

Exh.26 shows thate 1 Guntha land was sold to Rs.2e000/-. Fcom Exh.27 it ceveals thate on 15th Decembece 1990 plot of 40 Ft. X 25 Ft. sold foc Rs.2500/-. The S.L.A.O. has mentioned in his awacd page No.7 last line and page No.8 fcst line that the land undec acquisition is adjacent to village Gavthane Washi. He has awacded compensation on the basis of agcicultucal land but has not at all mentioned anything about the natuce and quality of the land and ccops taken in the land. When it obsecved thate the acquiced land is situated neac the villagee thece ace houses constcucted neac the acquiced lande the sale instances shows thate the cate of Rs.4/- pec Sq.Ft. was awacded and these sale instances wece pcioc to the acquisition of lande hencee the cate of Rs.2.50/- pec Sq.Ft. consideced by the Refecence Couct is just and pcopec.

In view of the abovee I pass the following ocdec :-

ORDER

(a) Appeal is dismissed.

(b) No ocdec as to costs.