AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Chandurkar, J.
This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the said Act) takes exception to the judgment of the Reference Court dated 28-4-1999 wherein it awarded compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 10,000/-per acre.
The land of the present respondents admeasuring 1 Hectare 21 R situated at Dadapur Tah. Warora, District Chandrapur was acquired for extension of Gaothan. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award granted compensation @Rs. 10,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. The Reference Court partly enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 10,000/-per acre which comes to Rs. 25,000/-per hectare.
Smt. M.N. Hiwase, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the amount of compensation. It was submitted that there was no sufficient evidence placed on record by the respondents to enhance the amount of compensation. Only on the basis of another award, the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation.
None appeared on behalf of the respondents.
The following point arises for consideration:
Whether the award passed by the Reference Court deserves to be interfered with?
With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellants, I have gone through the records of the case. In support of the claim for enhancement, the respondent No. 2 examined himself vide Exhibit-51. He placed on record copy of award Exhibit-54 in respect of another land which, according to the respondent, was near to their land. In his deposition the respondent No. 2 further stated that his land was near Warora Chimur Road. Said land was near village Shegaon and a revenue map was also placed on record to show the location. On that basis, the Reference Court observed that though the enhanced compensation was claimed @Rs. 20,000/-per acre, it was being granted at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per acre.
It is to be noted that besides aforesaid evidence, there was no other evidence placed on record by the appellants to indicate that the respondents were not entitled for higher compensation. The Reference Court has after considering the location of the field in question and the fact that it was acquired for extension of Gaothan granted compensation at Rs. 10,000/-per acre. The same, therefore, appears to be justified and reasonable. Considering the nature of evidence available on record, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The point as framed is answered accordingly.
In view of aforesaid discussion, the judgment dated 28-4-1999 passed in L.A.C. No. 55 of 1992 stands confirmed.
The first appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.