Pandurang Namdeo Lugade vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

. Considering the short issue involved in the First Appeal, the parties are heard for final disposal at admission stage by their consent.

A very common issue often experienced in Land Acquisition Reference cases is seen in this case. The Reference Court arrives at a conclusion for grant of higher rate to calculate enhancement. However, the claimant has claimed for enhancement that falls deficit to the rate as concluded by the Reference Court. In short enhancement is claimed @ ‘X’ amount, and the Reference Court finds entitlement @ ‘X.1’ in the light of the assessed evidence. However, the Reference Court restrains its hands from granting enhancement above ‘X’ only for want of claim in the Reference application. Present is the identical case before me in this Appeal.

Mr. A. S. More, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Reference Court arrived at a conclusion that the subject matter lands under acquisition belonging to the appellant, comprised in Gat Nos. 125 and 126 of village Watefal, Taluka Paranda, District Osmanabad were irrigated lands. The finding to that effect can be seen in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment and award.

Recitals in paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment and award show that the Reference Court thought it just and proper to fix the market value of non-irrigated land at Rs.1,12,200/- per acre, the market value of seasonal irrigated land at Rs.1,68,300/- per acre and the market value of irrigated land at the rate of Rs.2,24,400/- per acre. It is further observed by the Reference Court that since the appellant had restricted the claim to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, the appellant would be entitled to such enhancement despite the rate for irrigated land was fixed @ Rs. 2,24,400/- per acre.

It is further submitted that, once the Reference Court had arrived at a conclusion that the appellants were entitled to a higher rate of compensation, merely because their claim was restricted to a lesser amount, they ought not to be precluded from being considered for the higher rate. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhimasha Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, reported in 2008 (10) Supreme Court Cases 797. He would further rely upon the judgment in the case of Chandrashekhar and Others Vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2009 (14) Supreme Court Cases 441.

The sum and substance of Mr. More’s argument is that the object of the Act is to compensate the land losers by awarding just and adequate compensation. Once the Reference Court has found that the just and adequate compensation is at a higher rate, merely because the claim was restricted to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre on account of the financial constraints of the land losers, they ought not to be deprived of the higher compensation. He submits that the enhanced compensation would of course be subject to payment of the requisite deficit court fees. In view of the above, Mr. More prays that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be modified to the aforesaid extent.

Mr. S. N. Kendre, learned AGP for respondent-State and Mr. G. B. Rajale, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 do not dispute the fact that the Reference Court has fixed the market value of an irrigated land @ of Rs.2,24,400/- per acre. They would submit that the Reference Court cannot be faulted for not granting the additional compensation for want of an appropriate claim by the appellant. They therefore pray for passing of appropriate orders.

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

The controversy before me is very narrow. It is an undisputed fact that the Reference Court has arrived at a conclusion holding that the appropriate compensation for the acquired irrigated land would be at the rate of Rs.2,24,400/- per acre. Only because the claim before the Reference Court was restricted to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, the appellant cannot be denied the compensation which, according to the finding recorded by the Reference Court itself, is otherwise payable for the acquired land. In my view, once the Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired land at a particular rate on the basis of the material before it, the claimant ought not to be deprived of the compensation so determined merely because the claim was restricted to a lesser amount.

The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Narendra and ors. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2017 INSC 882, at later part of paragraph No.2 of the judgment identified the issue as below :

Concluding paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the judgment read thus :

Thus, the appeal must succeed in view of the settled guiding principles enunciated by the Honorable Supreme Court (supra).

Hence I pass following order.