AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Mr. J. J. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Kadambini Meshram, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 and Ms. Hemlata Dhande, learned AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
By the present Appeal, Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 30/6/2010 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur in LAC No. 107/1996, whereby the reference filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the Reference Court.
In the present Appeal, Appellant has raised ground that the learned Reference Court failed to assess the evidence and method of comparable sale deeds while deciding the Reference. Hence, preferred this Appeal.
It is undisputed fact that Respondent No.2/WCL has proposed acquisition of land admeasuring 232.24 HR of village Gowari for mining coal out of it. Upon receiving the proposal from the Respondent No.2, Land Acquisition Officer issued Notification under Section 4 which was published on 21/11/1992. In pursuance to the said land acquisition proceeding, by conducting enquiry and by ascertaining the correct market value of the land, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.63,035/- for acquiring the land admeasuring 1.22 HR out of Survey No. 83/2A owned by the present Appellant.
Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Appellant has preferred the Reference. According to him, the land acquired was having high potential quality as well as high yielding capacity. The acquired land being adjoining to the villages Gowari – Pawani was very useful in all respect. Taluka Rajura is just 4 to 5 kms away from the village Gowari. The adjoining villages Sasti and Pawani are crowdy villages due to the Coal Mines, and accordingly, on various grounds the Appellant has claimed enhancement in the compensation amount.
It is well settled position of law that when the Reference is preferred by the person, he has to discharge initial burden by placing on record relevant material in the nature of sale instances or by other method which he desires and find fit for seeking enhancement in the compensation.
In the present matter, the Appellant has chosen the method of comparable sale deed, and accordingly, relied upon certain sale instances before the Reference Court.
The perusal of the evidence which was brought on record by the Appellant, it seems that out of the sale instances, the only sale instance, which according to him can fetch higher value of the land of Gowari, was sale deed (Exhibit-62). Hence, on the basis of this sale exemplar, the Appellant has claimed enhancement in the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,32,000/-per hectare.
In the present Appeal, perusal of sale deed (Exhibit-62) of village Gowari shows that the land involved in the said sale deed was of only 0.77 HR and the sale transaction shows that it was purchased by 18 persons and all the purchasers are the persons whose land was acquired in the acquisition proceeding. Hence, prima facie, this document cannot be a reliable document to consider the enhancement in the claim of compensation.
The Respondent/WCL has strongly opposed this Appeal and stated that the Reference Court has considered all the sale instances which the Appellant has brought on record. According to them, the 7/12 extract quality of land and its location is very much considered and discussed by the Reference Court in the impugned Judgment. Not only this, it is specifically pointed out that Exhibit-62 of the village was also considered by the Reference Court and by recording cogent reasons as to why such sale instance cannot be accepted in the matter, has decided the Appeal.
In the light of rival submissions of both the parties, I have perused the Judgment and record which was made available before me. It is seen that as per the revenue record i.e.7/12 extract, the land owned by the Appellant was a dry crop land. In this regard, there is a specific finding recorded by the Reference Court in the impugned Judgment. This fact is not disputed by the present Appellant in the matter. It is also recorded in the impugned Judgment that the land of the Appellant was proximate to Rajaura is also incorrect because the distance between village Gowari and Rajura is about 8 km. So also no evidence was brought on record that the village is having facilities of transportation, School, Grampanchayat etc. which will be one of the considering factor for enhancement of the compensation. More importantly, the sale instance which was relied upon by the Appellant in the matter was specifically discussed in paragraph No.23 of the Judgment and recorded the finding that the said sale exemplar was executed by 18 persons who are the purchasers of the land and whose land was acquired in the acquisition proceeding. Prima facie, sale deed (Exhibit-62) seems to be not genuine transaction. Hence, no error can be found in the impugned Judgment.
By considering the entire evidence and the findings rendered by the Reference Court, I do not find any perversity or illegality while dismissing the reference by the learned Reference Court. Hence, the order which is passed on merits by applying judicial mind, needs no interference of this Court. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.