AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Mahalle, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shinde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Kadu, learned AGP appearing for respondent/State.
The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant–Corporation has challenged the judgment and award dated 28.08.2014 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Achalpur, in L.A.C. No.52 of 2009.
By the impugned award, the learned Reference Court directed the appellant–Corporation to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants at the rate of Rs.3,42,667/- per hectare, after deducting the amount of compensation already paid.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Reference Court failed to consider the relevant factors while passing the impugned judgment and award. According to him, the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is highly excessive and unjustified. He further submitted that the learned Reference Court erroneously relied upon the compensation awarded in other references produced by the claimants. According to him, there was no cogent evidence on record to justify the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.3,42,667/- per hectare. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants relied upon the judgment passed by this Court dated 20.03.2024, passed in First Appeal No.846/2016. According to Mr. Shinde, this Court, while deciding the appeal arising out of the same notification, dismissed the appeal, which pertained to land adjoining the acquired land of the respondents/claimants. He therefore submits that the rate considered by this Court has already attained finality as the appellant-Corporation has not challenged the judgment delivered by this Court in First Appeal No.846/2016. In the said case, this Court granted the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.3,39,294/- per hectare.
Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, further submitted that the land involved in First Appeal No.846 of 2016 was also a dry crop land. He, therefore, submitted that as this Court has already determined the rate of dry crop land in an identical appeal. Therefore, the same rate be made applicable to the instant case and hence, the instant appeal be dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court has already decided an appeal arising out of the same notification in respect of dry crop land situated in a village adjoining the acquired land and has upheld the market value at the rate of Rs.3,39,294/- per hectare. The learned Reference Court, in the present case, has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,42,667/- per hectare, which is marginally higher than the rate upheld by this Court in the aforesaid decision. Hence, no valid and strong grounds has been made out by the appellant to warrant interference with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award warrant no interference, and the present appeal is dismissed.