Sau. Indubai Shamrao Ghormade & Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Heard.

Both the appeals arising out of the same land acquisition proceedings and decided by the same Reference Court. The issue which is raised in the both the appeals is also identical. Hence, these both the appeals are taken together to decide and pass a common judgment.

In First Appeal No.922/2013, vide Notification dated 09.02.2010, the land owned by the appellant of Mouza Goddeo of Survey No.28 1–A admeasuring 0.81 HR having 407 orange trees of 12 to 17 years age were acquired for “Minor Irrigation Project”. And in First Appeal No.1131/2013, out of land Survey No.16/2 of Mouza Ghoddeo, land admeasuring 1 H 21 R having 235 orange trees of nine years age was acquired for the same project.

The contention of the appellants in both appeals is that in the land acquisition proceedings which was conducted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer without determining the correct market value of the trees as well as land awarded meager compensation amount. The appellants being dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, preferred the reference on the various grounds by pointing out the correct market value of the land. In support of their grounds for enhancement, they have produced relevant record and evidence. As such, they discharged their initial burden.

According to the appellants, learned Reference Court has properly determined the market value of the land but without recording any reason, the Reference Court has deducted 10% amount from the market value which was determined towards the trees. Hence, on this count, both appeals are under challenge before this Court.

The appellants have specifically pointed out that before the Reference Court, the appellants entered into the witness box as well as examined the expert in the matter. As such, they have discharged their primary burden and thereby proved that they are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Per contra, there was no rebuttal of the material which appellants brought on record.

From the record, it is clear that no one entered into the witness box on behalf of respondent in the matter. So also, no expert was examined by the State Government to demonstrate the fact that the evidence which was brought on record by the appellants is not legal or proper. Hence, appellants are correct to state that respondents failed to rebut the burden in the matter.

Learned Reference Court in light of this factual position has rightly considered the evidence and reached to the conclusion that the market value drawn by the expert and stated by the appellants at the rate of Rs.671/- for 1000 fruit is correct. However, in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment without recording any reasons recorded that on the basis of guesswork, it is required to deduct 10% from market value determined by the Court. Hence, appellants raised limited grievance that deduction of 10% from market value being without any basis, same needs to be set aside.

It is a well-settled position of law, if the claimants establish on recording by concrete proof the correct market value of the land, then the same is required to be awarded to the agriculturist, whose land is compulsorily acquired for a public purpose. In such case, unless there are some reasons recorded, deduction of any percent is not permissible under the provision of law. From the impugned judgment, it is crystal clear that in both matters, the perusal of the entire order, nowhere shows on what basis the Court reached to the conclusion that 10% deduction is required from the amount, which was determined by the Court on the basis of evidence available on record.

In the facts and circumstances, prima facie, I am of the opinion that 10% deduction recorded in the impugned order is not sustainable and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:

Both First Appeals are disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs.