Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs Madhukar Krishnarao Savakarkar & Ors.

. Heard.

The appellant herein challenged the judgment and order passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, in LAC No.24/2001 decided on 06.04.2010, on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is without proper consideration of the sale instances relied upon by respondent No.1 in a proper manner and thereby awarded exorbitant compensation in the matter.

In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that in pursuance of Notification dated 13.01.1994, the land of the respondent/claimant bearing Gat No.292 of village Talkhanda, admeasuring 1.50 hectare was acquired. In the said proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the meager compensation of Rs.1,500/- per hectare.

The present respondent/claimant being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer preferred the reference. In the reference proceedings, the respondent/claimant claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare.

Learned Reference Court after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence and the sale exemplar, which were produced on record determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.85,000/- per hectare.

In the present appeal, the contention of the present appellant is that the reliance placed by the Reference Court in LAC No.482/1998 is misconceived for the reason that the sale exemplar relied therein cannot be made applicable in the present case. It is the submission of the appellant that village Talkhanda being an interior place, the claimant therein are not entitled for such compensation at a higher rate.

Learned Counsel for respondent states that the appellant-Corporation, in identical matters, filed before this Court has compromised the matters before the Lok Adalat. According to him, the appellant has withdrawn the appeal before Lok Adalat and, therefore, considering this fact, the market value determined by the Reference Court is accepted, hence there is no merit in the present appeal.

In light of the submission made by both the parties, I have perused the record and particularly Exhibit 59, which was relied upon by the Reference Court. The perusal of the Exhibit 59 shows that the learned Reference Court in the said matter has considered the sale exemplar of village Sawardi, wherein the compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. However, it is observed in the said proceedings that village Talkhanda, which is situated in interior parts, not abutting to National Highway or State Highway, therefore, the value of the land of that village needs to be considered less than what is fixed by the Reference Court. Hence, the Reference Court has deemed it proper to consider the value of the land of village Talkhanda at the rate of Rs.85,000/- per hectare in the year 1994.

In the present matter, learned Reference Court has also considered the fact meticulously and thereby recorded the specific findings, particularly in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the judgment. Therefore, it is clear that by applying the judicial mind and by applying the rule of parity, learned Reference Court has awarded compensation in the matter.

The appellant also states that learned Reference Court failed to consider the fact that in the matters, where land is acquired for industrial development, then the development charges are acquired to be deducted from the compensation amount. But, same are not deducted in the present matter. In the present case, it is the own case of the appellant that acquired land of village is at interior place. So also, no specific evidence is brought on record that in such cases, how the deduction towards the development charges is necessary, particularly when megar amount of compensation is awarded in the matter. Hence, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court are corrected and there is no need to deduct the amount towards the development charges.

In the present matter, one more thing is required to be considered that the land of the agriculturist was acquired for the industrial project in the land. Therefore, the land of the agriculturist is likely to be used for industrial purposes. Hence, merely because the village is interior and, therefore, the land in-question is not having any potentiality or not entitled for higher compensation cannot be accepted. One fact is to be considered that when the State Government or the appellant-Corporation has acquired the land for the industrial purposes, the same land is likely to be used for that purpose. Hence, the claimant cannot be deprived the market value of land as par with other acquired land only because his land is an interior place. In my view, the amount, which was determined by the learned Reference Court in the present proceedings is proper and same is supported by the sale instances and by applying rule of parity. Therefore, there is no need of any interference in the matter, accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs.