AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Mr. S. C. Joshi, learned AGP for the Appellant/State and Ms. Kirti Satpute, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
The State of Maharashtra has preferred this Appeal, thereby challenging the Judgment and Award dated 12/6/2009 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur in LAC No. 191/1997. According to the Appellant, compensation which is enhanced from Rs.20,520/- per hectare to Rs.85,329/- per hectare, is above four times of the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, and therefore, the present Appeal is preferred in the matter.
The learned Counsel for Respondent/Claimant has pointed out that in the present case, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 24/6/2004 and thereby the land admeasuring 24 R. was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of road. In the said acquisition proceeding, meagre amount of Rs.20,520/- per hectare was awarded to the Claimant. The Claimant, being dissatisfied with the said compensation, has preferred the reference proceeding in the matter and sought enhancement of compensation.
The learned Counsel for Respondent has relied upon the Judgment dated 27/3/1980 passed by the Reference Court in respect of land bearing Survey No. 2/2, wherein the land adjoining to the Claimant’s land, was acquired by the State Government. According to the learned Counsel, in the said proceeding the State Government has awarded the compensation of Rs.22,250/- per hectare in the year 1978. Therefore, considering the value of the land, Claimant is certainly entitled for enhancement of the compensation.
In addition to above, in support of her claim, the Claimant had examined herself before the Reference Court and established her case through oral evidence. In support of this submission, the Valuer of the land was also examined before the Reference Court. Therefore, according to the Claimant, she has discharged the burden and established that her land is located adjacent to the land Survey No.2/2, which is already acquired, and therefore, she is entitled for enhancement of compensation.
It is clear from the record that in rebuttal of the contention of the Respondent/Claimant, the State Government has neither led any evidence nor placed anything on record to contradict her submission made before the Reference Court.
It is well settled position of law that if the Claimants have discharged their burden by proving the same by filing necessary documents and oral evidence on record, it is for the Respondent to discharge the said burden. But, here in the present case, no evidence is available on record to state that whatever submission and evidence placed on record, it is denied by the State Government. So also it is neither the case of Appellant that Judgment of the Reference Court relied upon by the Respondent is anytime altered or modified by the Appellate Court nor it is proved that how the same is not applicable in the matter.
In the light of this factual position, the learned Reference Court, by considering the settled position of law, has held that if no sale instances are available, the value determined by the State Government in one of the land acquisition proceeding which is admittedly besides the land in question by giving escalation at the rate of 10% of the value of the land can be determined. Applying this principle, the learned Reference Court has determined the value of the land, and accordingly, reached to the conclusion that Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.85,329/- per hectare. I find no perversity in the conclusion drawn by the Reference Court while determining the correct market value of land.
The bare perusal of the Judgment of the Reference Court clearly shows that evidence as well as provisions of law and the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court was rightly applied by applying the judicial mind and thereby determined the correct market value of the land.
Hence, I do not find merit in the present Appeal. The same stands dismissed.
The Appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount and in case any balance amount remained to be deposited same should be within a period of three months.
The Respondent/Claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount which is already deposited before this Court along with interest accrued thereon after depositing the balance amount.