Madhukar Gawhale & Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

. Heard.

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 14.11.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana in LAC No.205/1998.

The appellants/claimants herein owned 72 R land from Gat No.203 out of which 58 R land was not in cultivation. From Gat No.202 land admeasuring 66 R was under cultivation and 65 R was not in cultivation and from Gat No.201, 91 R land was under cultivation and 71 R land was not in cultivation. As such, out of 4.21 HR, the cultivated land was 2.26 HR whereas non cultivated was 1.94 HR.

The respondents vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 16.03.1995, acquired 4.23 HR land for the purpose of Minor Irrigation Project at village Telhara, Ta. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana from Gat No.201, 202 and 203. Admittedly, the Land Acquisition officer has awarded Rs.26,000/-per hectare to the cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per HR for non cultivable agricultural land. As such, total compensation was awarded Rs.40,256/- towards permanent constructed well situated in Gat No.201.

The appellants being dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer preferred reference before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana. The appellants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- for the acquired land per hectare. According to him, the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the quality and potentiality of land properly. He had also stated before the Reference Court that in identically situated land, the Reference Court had granted the higher compensation.

The appellant, before the Reference Court, has relied upon the sale instances, but failed to place on record the certified copy of the sale deed on which he was relying upon. As such, learned Reference Court, by recording findings that in absence of the evidence available on record, the submission of the appellant to the extent that he is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare cannot be accepted.

Learned Reference Court, on the other hand, observed that the Land Acquisition Officer while passing award (Exhibit 20) has relied upon seven sale instances for deciding the sale price of the acquired land. The sale instances were for the period from 1991 to 1994. At that time, the rate of land was in between Rs.24,000/-to Rs.26,000/- per hectare. Accordingly, by considering the fact that the value of land increased added 10% per year. Accordingly, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.39,000/- per hectare for the acquired cultivable land to the claimants. However, learned Reference Court has awarded only Rs.5000/- per hectare for non cultivable land to the appellants.

In the facts and circumstances, it is seen that the learned Reference Court has rightly awarded the compensation towards the cultivable land, but according to me, for non cultivable land, the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court is meager and, therefore, to that extent, the indulgence of this Court is necessary in the matter.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly stated that the non cultivable land in-question in the present matter cannot be said to be ‘Potkharab’ land as same is 1.95 HR. Therefore, same is required to be treated as non cultivated land. So also, learned Reference Court has referred it as non cultivated land. Therefore, considering these aspects of the matter, the appellants are entitled to Rs.19,500/- per hectare for non cultivable land.

It is also pointed out from the record, particularly Exhibit 17, 18 and 7/12 extract of the land in question that there was irrigated facility available in the field and the crops which was taken were wheat and chickpeas (harbhara). The said yield is available only when facility of irrigation is available. Therefore, I am of the opinion that learned Reference Court ought to have considered the land in question as a seasonal irrigated land. But, there is no consideration to this material documents which were part of record and proved before the Reference Court.

Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the appellant is entitled for the enhancement of the compensation. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to the costs. All the pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.