AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Mr. M. A. Kadu, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Ms. D. V. Sapkal, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. None appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, though served.
In the present Appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and Award dated 10/6/2021 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Kelapur, District Yavatmal in LAC No. 415/2015.
The undisputed facts of the present Appeal are that, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants are owners of the agricultural land bearing Gat No. 251, admeasuring 0.64 HR situated at village Kumbha, Tahsil Maregaon, District Yavatmal. The Appellant/Acquiring Body, in pursuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was issued on 2/7/2009, initiated the land acquisition proceeding for the purpose of Bembla Main Canal Project. In the said acquisition proceeding, final Award dated 16/7/2010 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,03,500/- per hectare to the Respondents/Claimants.
The Respondents/Claimants, being dissatisfied with the said compensation, has preferred the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of compensation. In support of the claim of Respondents/Claimants, the Respondent No.1 has examined himself at Exhibit-18 and Valuer namely, Chandrashekhar Panjabrao Wankhede at Exhibit-24 before the Reference Court. Whereas, no one has been examined on behalf of the Appellant/Acquiring Body before the learned Reference Court.
In addition to the evidence led by the Respondents/Claimants, the learned Reference Court has also relied upon the reference proceedings bearing LAC No. 419/2015 decided on 30/4/2021 and LAC No. 418/2015 decided on 3/5/2021, and thereby considering the fact that the land in question is identical to the land involved in the aforesaid reference proceedings, has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5,37,000/- per hectare. It is also recorded by the learned Reference Court that the acquired land is seasonal irrigated land and the reference proceeding, in which, the lands are involved, are also same irrigated land and thereby held that the Respondents/Claimants are entitled for the same compensation. In nutshell, it can be said that the learned Reference Court, on the ground of parity, has decided the reference proceeding.
It is pertinent to note that the evidence, in rebuttal, is not available on record to state that the land in question was not an irrigated land and the learned Reference Court has committed an error while deciding the reference proceeding.
After going through the record as well as Judgment delivered by the Reference Court, I am satisfied that the learned Reference Court has considered the controversy involved in the matter with right perspective and rightly evaluated the evidence as well as reference proceeding, which was made available on record, and thereby awarded just and fair compensation to the Respondents/Claimants.
In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present Appeal. The same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.