AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned AGP and learned Advocate Khairnar for the Respondents.
The Reference Court as per the impugned judgment dated 30th July 1998 has disposed of two land references, they are LR Nos. 605/1991 and 606/1991. The present Respondents were the claimants in Land Reference No.605/1991. The land belonging to the respondents is bearing Gat No.862 ad measuring 0.80 Ares. It is acquired for the purpose of S.T. stand. It is situated at Village Vinchur, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has offered a compensation of Rs.47,300/- per hectare and that is why the present Respondent has filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court as per the impugned judgment has enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,90,308/-. According to the State this is excess compensation and present appeal is filed.
Learned AGP has taken me to the contents of the Award and he submitted that the two sale instances referred by the claimants were relating to the non-agriculture land whereas land under acquisition was an agriculture land. According to him the judgment requires interference. Whereas according to learned Advocate Ms. Khairnar even though the use of land is different, the Reference Court has granted a deduction of 30% and no interference is required.
I have gone through the impugned judgment. On behalf of the Respondents one Rajendra B. Chaudhary who is one of the claimant has entered into the witness box and also exmined PW No.2 - Suresh Deshmukh and PW No.3 - Santosh Dagade. They are the persons who have purchased the lands in the Village Vinchur. They have also produced the supporting documents which include the sale deeds. The Reference Court has discussed about their evidence in Para No.9 onwards. The land under acquisition are situated near Gathan of Vinchur on Nashik-Aurangabad State Highway. At the time of acquisition the land adjoining the land under acquisition were the non-agriculture land. The Reference Court has also referred about layout plan of their land. The Sub-Divisional Officer has sent the letter for converting their land into N.A. purpose. The Reference Court has also considered the consolidation documents.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer opined that the soil of land was inferior being barad land, however, the Reference Court has opined that these lands are having N.A. potentiality. It is no doubt true even though the claimants have applied for N.A. permission, it was not granted because till that time lands were notified for the purpose of acquisition.
The Reference Court has appreciated the evidence on the point of sale instance in Para No.10. Witness No.2 Suresh Deshmukh was Promoter of housing Society and the land was purchased for constructing the house for the purpose of members. The distance in between the land which is acquired is about ½ to ¾th km whereas another witness Suresh Dagade has purchased the land from one Ashok Kale. The consideration of the sale deed is Rs.21,000/- The Reference Court has also concluded that acquired lands are abutting to the road and having N.A. potentiality. After appreciation of evidence the Reference Court has concluded that the sale instances pertain to the period which is having proximity in time and situation. However, the learned Reference Court was conscious of the fact that the land under acquisition was an agriculture land and that is why while fixing the market value has granted deduction of 1/3rd. That is how the Reference Court concluded that the rate of Rs. 4,69,000/-per hectare should be fixed for Gut No.862 in L.A.R. No.605/1991. That is how the land value assessed by the Reference Court was Rs.3,75,200/-. Accordingly, the Reference Court has granted solatium of 30% and 12% component.
If all the factors are considered, I do not think that the compensation fixed by the Reference Court is on higher side. It is true there are several factors which can be considered for determining the market value which is prevailing on the date of the notification. Rate fixed by the Reference Court in connected matter or the sale instances for contemporaneous period will certainly help the Court to decide the market value. In this the claimant has produced sufficient evidence about the sale instances so as to assist the Reference Court in arriving at the correct market value. So no interference is required. The Appellant to pay deficit amount if any. Further claims, if any, to be made before the Executing Court.
Appeal stands dismissed.