Uddhav Zapru Bhivgade & Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

. Heard Mr. Rohan Chhabra, learned Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. M. A. Kadu, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and Mr. H. D. Futane, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

By the present Appeal, Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 13/7/2010 passed by the 2^nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha in LAC No. 516/2005.

According to the Appellant/Original Claimant, he has discharged his initial burden before the Reference Court by producing the relevant evidence. The same was duly considered by the Reference Court, but while determining the value of the land, without recording any cogent reasons has discarded the evidence. Hence, he seeks enhancement in the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

In the present matter, it is admitted fact that in view of Notification dated 18/10/2001 the Respondent No.2 has acquired the land admeasuring 4.42 HR owned by the present Appellant. In the said land acquisition proceeding the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.69,000/- per hectare only.

Being dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the Appellant has preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. The Appellant has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,51,000/- per hectare. The submission of the Appellant before the Reference Court was that sale deeds of the same village produced by him demonstrate that prevailing rate of the agricultural land was in between Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,16,500/-. He also established before the Reference Court that there was a well in his agricultural land and the same was confirmed from 7/12 extract. On the basis of this evidence, which he has produced on record before the Reference Court, has sought enhancement in the compensation amount.

The Respondent/Acquiring Body has disputed the documents, on which, the Appellant has placed reliance before the Reference Court. According to them, unless and until the vendor of the sale deed is examined, veracity of the document cannot be decided merely because same was produced on record. According to them, the Appellant has merely produced on record the copy of the sale deed, but failed to establish the same by producing the concrete evidence on record. Hence, according to them, the conclusion drawn by the learned Reference Court cannot be disputed in the matter.

In the background of abovesaid factual position, the learned Reference Court has specifically recorded in the impugned Judgment while deciding the issue whether the Appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and recorded that Appellant has produced on record the sale deeds which are duly exhibited at Exhibit-38 and 39, wherein the market value of the land has been determined Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,16,500/- respectively. It is also recorded in the impugned Judgment that as per the 7/12 extract it is found that there is a well in the agricultural field of the Appellant and various crops were taken by the Appellant. In spite of these facts recorded in the impugned order, the learned Reference Court without recording any reasons only by recording that it will be justified to award the enhancement at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hectare, determined the compensation of acquired land.

It is the submission of the Appellant that once the evidence was brought on record, same was considered by the Reference Court and also recorded in the Judgment that market value of land as per the sale exemplar are between Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,16,500/-, there was no reason for the Reference Court to lower down the market value at the rate of Rs.90,000/-, that too, without recording any reason. Hence, according to him, the impugned Judgment is prima facie illegal and the Appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation as claimed in the matter.

In the background of abovesaid factual position, I have perused the record and gone through the sale deeds which are the part and parcel of the record. It is seen from the record that the sale deeds are certified copies which are placed on record by the Appellant. Same were duly exhibited by the Reference Court. As per Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the certified copies placed on record can be considered as the valid document. Therefore, once it is established by the Appellant on record by adducing evidence and by filing the documentary proof, there was no reason for the Reference Court to hold that the Appellant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000/-per hectare, particularly, when the sale deeds specifically shows the valuation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- (Exhibit-38) and Rs.2,16,500/- (Exhibit-39).

It is submitted on the part of Acquiring Body that no contrary evidence had been placed on record. As per the settled principles of law, if the Appellant has discharged his burden and established on record that he is entitled for compensation, it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation to the agriculturist, whose land is acquired for the public purpose.

Hence, I am of the opinion that considering the evidence which is available on record, the Appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,32,000/- per hectare by considering the sale deed (Exhibit-38) dated 20/5/1998 and sale deed dated 19/5/1998 (Exhibit-39), which are relied upon by the Appellant. It is further pertinent to note that the Notification was issued on 8/10/2001, in that view of the matter, Appellant is also entitled for escalation charges at the rate of 10% per annum. Hence, the Appeal deserves to be allowed. Resultantly, I proceed to pass following order.