The Executive Engineer vs Shobha Devi Premchand Darda & Ors.

Heard Shri Nikhil Waghmare, Advocate h/f Shri P.B. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Acquiring Body and Shri G. S. Umale, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 at length.

The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and award dated 13/10/2015 passed by the learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in LAC No.619/2005.

It is the case of the original claimant/respondent is that in pursuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 11.05.2000, the land of respondent situated at village Pahur, Taluka Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal, House No.787 admeasuring 119.20 sq. mtrs. with open area having 112.41 sq. mtrs. constructed area was acquired for the project of Submergence of Bembla Project. In the said land acquisition proceedings, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per sq. mtrs for the open plot and for built up area awarded Rs.1,412/- per square meter for constructed area.

The respondent No.1 being dissatisfied with this meager amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer preferred the reference. In the reference proceedings, the submission of respondent No.1 is that, as per the market value, the acquired land can fetch price @ of Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtr. for open plot and Rs.4,900/- per sq.mtr. for constructed area, hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

In light of the submission made before the Reference Court, the Reference Court has considered the entire evidence which was produced by the appellant and reached to the conclusion that respondent No.1 is entitled for Rs.900/- per sq. mtrs. for open land and Rs.2,650/- per sq. mtrs, for the built up area and on that basis, enhanced the compensation amount in favour of respondent No.1.

The present appellant challenged the said judgment and order before this Court on the ground that the sale instances, which are relied upon by the Reference Court are not properly appreciated in the matter. While appreciating the market value, Reference Court is required to consider various factors such as whether the sale instance, which is relied upon, is of the same area, age of construction, amenities available within vicinity etc. But, such examination is not done in the matter and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed and set aside.

In the meantime, both the Counsel have pointed out that one of the matters arising out of the same land acquisition proceedings of village Pahur was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasant Nanaji Patre Vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation and ors., in Civil Appeal No.5305/2025 decided on 17.04.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for open area of village Pahur, the claimants therein are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq. mtrs. The perusal of the judgment shows that this Court in the impugned judgment therein has reduced the compensation from Rs.900/- to Rs.715/-, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court by recording the reasons in the judgment has held that the land owner of village Pahur is entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq. mtrs. for open plot.

In light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no reason for me to take any other view in the matter and, therefore, the judgment which Hon’ble Supreme Court has determined the value of open plot, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment.

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.