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 the Respondent No.1/State.
By the present Appeal, the Appellants have challenged the Judgment and Award dated 30/11/2010 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur in LAC No. 87/1997, whereby the reference filed by the Appellants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was dismissed.
It is the contention of the Appellants that their land admeasuring 1.55 HR out of Survey No. 84 and 1.22 HR out of Survey No. 83/1A was acquired by the Respondents. According to the Appellants, Respondent No.2 is Company duly constituted under the Companies Act and Government of India. It has proposed the acquisition of 232.24 HR land out of village Gowari for mining coal out of it. Upon receiving proposal from the Respondent No.2, the Land Acquisition Officer issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 27/11/1992. In the said land acquisition proceeding, Land Acquisition Officer had conducted enquiry as required under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and determined the value of the land and thereby awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.32,000/- per hectare to the land owned by the Appellants.
The Appellants, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, has preferred the reference. According to the Appellants, considering the quality and potentiality of the land, their land can fetch the compensation as per the market value at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. However, the same was not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and meagre amount has been awarded in the matter.
The Appellants, to substantiate their submission, before the Reference Court, have stated that by applying comparable sale instances method, enhancement be granted to them. Therefore, they have relied upon the various sale instances and made attempt to demonstrate that they are entitled for higher compensation.
The learned AGP has strongly opposed the present Appeal. According to the learned AGP, the sale instances which were relied upon by the Appellants before the Reference Court were considered by the Reference Court, and after evaluating the evidence and contents of the said sale deed, has recorded specific reasons in the impugned Judgment. From the Appeal Memo and the evidence which is available on record, it is crystal clear that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Reference Court are incorrect.
In the light of submissions of both the parties, I have perused the record as well as the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court in the matter.
It is admitted fact that the Appellants herein have strongly relied upon the sale instance i.e. 7/12 extract (Exhibit-31) of village Gowari, whereby the said sale exemplar has determined the value of the land at the rate of Rs.1,32,000/- per hectare for 0.77 HR land. So also it is pertinent to note that the said sale instance shows that it was purchased by 18 persons and all the purchasers were the persons whose lands were acquired in the acquisition proceeding. Therefore, prima facie, such sale instance does not inspire confidence of its authenticity.
The Appellant has relied upon the sale instance of the another village. If the said sale instance is available and the same was considered and decided by the learned Reference Court, then there is no reason to look into the other sale instance of the adjoining villages. The same can be looked into only in case if the sale instances of the same village are not available.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the learned Reference Court has considered the entire evidence and material brought before him. It is further seen that the reasons were recorded by the learned Reference Court by applying his judicial mind, and therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned Judgment. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the present Appeal. The same stands dismissed.