AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Mr. J. B. Kasat, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. M. A. Kadu, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. None appeared for the Respondent No.1, though served.
In the present Appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and Award dated 26/8/2016 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No. 138/2003.
The Appellant herein is the Acquiring Body, who has challenged the Judgment and Order passed by the Reference Court on the ground that the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation by relying upon the sale deed without lawfully assisting and evaluating the evidence on record and without confirming the fact that as to whether the land or trees were comparable to the lands involved in the sale instances as regards its nature, location, potentiality and productivity. Hence, it is the submission of the Appellants that the amount awarded is exorbitant, and therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary in the matter.
The undisputed fact of the present Appeal is that, the Respondent No.1/Claimant was owner of Gat Nos.73, 75, 77/1 and 78, out of which, the land Gat Nos. 77/1 and 78 were perennially irrigated. It is further undisputed fact that the land admeasuring 0.14 HR was acquired out of Gat No. 73; the land admeasuring 0.75 HR was acquired out of Gat No. 75; the land admeasuring 0.88 HR was acquired out of Gat No. 77/1; and the land admeasuring 0.93 HR was acquired out of Gat No. 78. It is also undisputed fact that in pursuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 18/7/1996 and the land acquisition proceeding was initiated. In the said acquisition proceeding the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.38,000/- per hectare for Gat No. 73 and at the rate of Rs.15,500/- per hectare for Gat Nos. 75, 77/1 and 78.
Being dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Respondent/Claimant has filed the reference proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the learned Reference Court, stating therein that at the time of acquisition proceeding, market value of the land was not less than Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. It is also pointed out that there were fruit bearing orange trees in Gat Nos. 77/1 and 78 and this fact was confirmed from the Joint Measurement Report (JMR). It is also the submission of the Respondent/Claimant that while awarding compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation for only 116 orange trees, though there were near about 241 fruit bearing orange trees. As such, on all these counts, the Respondent/Claimant has preferred reference proceeding before the Reference Court and argued the matter for enhancement of compensation.
In support of this submission, the Respondent/Claimant has examined himself at Exhibit-25, Nandkishor Bodkhe at Exhibit-48, and also the Officer of the APMC, Warud, District Amravati. On the basis of this evidence, the Respondent/Claimant has established his case and prayed for enhancement of compensation.
The learned Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 26/8/2016 enhanced the compensation in the matter at the rate of Rs.60,775/- per hectare for acquiring Jirayat /Koradwahu land and Rs. 30,387/- per hectare for acquiring barren/Potkharab land out of Gat Nos.73 and 75 situated at village Pusli, Tahsil Warud, District Amravati.
In the present matter, considering the grounds raised by the Appellant, I have perused the impugned Judgment delivered by the Reference Court in the matter.
It is seen from the record that the Respondent/Claimant has entered into the witness-box and proved fertility and potentiality of his land. So also he has established the fact that there were orange trees and to prove the market value of the orange trees, he has examined the witness namely, Nandkishor Bodkhe and also the Officer of APMC, Warud.
On the basis of this evidence, the learned Reference Court has considered the location of land and specifically relied upon the sale instances, more particularly Exhibit-34, and compared the same along with the land in question. He has specifically recorded the finding that the land in question i.e. Gat Nos.73 and 75, as per the entry in revenue record, are Jirayat land. The only difference in Gat No.75 is that two fields are away from the road joining Pusali-Khadki road, and therefore, the sale deed which is relied upon i.e. Exhibit-34 can be considered in the present matter.
The learned Reference Court has also recorded the fact that sale deed Exhibit-34 was executed on 2/6/1992, Notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 18/7/1996 and possession of the land was taken on 15/1/1996. Therefore, considering these dates, the sale deed, which is relied upon by the Respondent/Claimant, has justified the claim of the Respondent/Claimant for enhancement of compensation.
In the present matter, considering the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court, it is clear that the grounds, on which the Appeal is filed by the Appellant, is not justified, and therefore, I do not find any merit in the present Appeal, and more particularly, the grounds on which the present Appeal is preferred before this Court.
Hence, for the reasons stated above, present Appeal is devoid of merit and the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.