AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Mr. Vinay Dahat, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Varsha Vasu (Dhoble), learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. M. A. Kadu, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
In the present Appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and order dated 28/3/2012 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No. 209/2005, whereby the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.3,25,053/- for the acquired land.
It is not disputed that the Appellant has acquired the land admeasuring 0.92 HR out of 1.87 HR from Survey No. 234 and 0.19 HR out of 0.42 HR from Survey No. 276 situated at Mouza Nara, Tahsil Karanja, District Wardha for submergence of Kar River Project. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 12/6/1999. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,438/- as per the final Award dated 12/12/2001 for the acquired land.
Being dissatisfied with the said compensation, the Respondent No.1/Claimant has preferred the reference proceeding before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha. The learned Reference Court, while enhancing compensation, has relied upon the Judgment passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 343/2005 (Vishnu Buwade V/s State of Maharashtra), whereby the compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs.1,32,000/- per hectare. However, considering the land of the Respondent No.1 being irrigated land, learned Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,64,000/-.
In the present Appeal, ground raised by the Appellant is that the learned Reference Court committed an error by relying upon the Judgment in LAC No. 343/2005 without there being any evidence of similarity of both lands. Appellant denied that land belongs to Respondent was an irrigated land. Respondent failed to discharge initial burden about his entitlement of enhancement in compensation. The method of valuation on the basis of comparable sale method was not properly applied by the Reference Court while deciding the Reference.
In the light of grounds raised in the Appeal, I have gone through the record and proceeding of the matter. I found that Respondent No.1 has entered into witness box, and to establish the fact that his land is an irrigated land, has produced on record 7/12 extract of field Survey Nos. 234 and 276 from the year 1996-97 to 1999-2000. He has pointed out that he has recorded his objection while accepting compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer on 11/2/2004 by stating that there were 100 orange trees in 0.92 HR of Survey No.234 and 40 orange trees in 0.91 HR of Survey No. 276. There was stone constructed well, electric pump. He has stated that he has done valuation of the acquired land through Expert, who has specifically stated about existence of orange trees, number of trees, well and electric pump. As such, according to me, these material factors are sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has discharged his initial burden in the matter.
The Appellant has examined one Jagdish B. Sangitrao, Special Land Acquisition Officer before the Reference Court. In his cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that at the time of acquisition there were orange trees. Only disputed its numbers. This fact itself is sufficient to draw conclusion that acquired land was having perennial source of water. This witness also admitted that, Respondent No.1 has raised objection while accepting compensation amount. As such, from the cross-examination of this witness there remains no doubt that acquired land was an irrigated land.
In the present Appeal, Expert, who was examined by the Respondent No.1 namely Sharad B. Umale is seen to be worked as Assistant Professor in subject Horticulture at Government Agriculture College, Nagpur and at the time of retirement has worked as a Horticulture Expert at Divisional Research Center, Katol, District Nagpur. He stated that on the basis of 7/12 extract and by scientific examination i.e. by considering the height, Bund and girth of tree he has evaluated age of tree. This evidence of Expert is not controverted by any independent witness on the part of State Government before the Reference Court.
In the present matter, valuation of land and trees is done by applying comparative sale deed method. The learned Reference Court thereby relying upon the sale exemplar of dry crop land determined the value of land. From the record as well as finding of Reference Court it is clear that sale exemplar of adjoining land were taken into consideration. On the basis of same, coupled with evidence available on record, Reference Court has determined the market value of land.
Bare perusal of the Judgment, prima facie, shows judicial application of mind and evaluate the entire evidence and documents in proper manner. Appellant failed to point out, as to how reliance is placed by the Reference Court in LAC No. 343/2005 is not legal and proper. So also not pointed out that said Judgment of Reference Court was set aside by any Court of law. In absence of any kind of such evidence available on record, I find no substance in the submission of Appellant.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in Appeal, hence, the same stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of Appeal, Respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the Appellant along with interest accrued thereon from the Registry of this Court, subject to satisfaction of Registrar (Judicial).