Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs Abhishek Chandrakant Deshmukh & Ors.

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and award passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal, dated 18.02.2019 in Land Acquisition Case No.930/2012.

In the present matter, the undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent no.1-claimant was owner and in possession of agricultural land bearing Gat No.29/1, ad-measuring 0.62 HR out of 02.52 HR of village Chikna, Tah. Ralegaon, District-Yavatmal. The present appellant, in pursuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, published on 01.01.2009, initiated the acquisition proceeding for the construction of canal under Bembla Project. The land was accordingly acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer has paid compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hectare to respondent-claimant.

It is pointed out in the present matter that initial owner of this agricultural land was one Smt. Subhadra Mahadeo Deshmukh. However, during her lifetime, she has executed registered Will Deed dated 24.06.2006. It is further undisputed fact that the respondent no.1-claimant, who are not satisfied with the compensation which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hectare, has preferred the reference before the Civil Court. The learned Reference Court, after considering the evidence which were recorded in the matter, has enhanced the compensation in the matter at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per hectare in favour of the respondent no.1-claimant along with statutory benefits.

In the present appeal, the acquiring body raised the ground that the land which was acquired was the dry crop land and same was wrongly considered as seasonally irrigated land. Therefore, the compensation which is paid by the learned Reference Court is in excess without considering the correct factual position in the matter and, therefore, seeks indulgence of this Court in the present appeal.

In the present matter, the perusal of the record shows that the respondent no.1-claimant has entered into the witness box and established that he is entitled for enhancement of compensation and also filed on record the certified copy of 7/12 extract. The certified copy of 7/12 extract clearly shows that there was a well in the agricultural field which was acquired by the appellant. Not only this, the appellant has also examined one Sanjay Narayan Shendre, who was working as a Talathi at village Chikna, Tahsil-Ralegaon. The said witness before the Reference Court has categorically stated that he has obtained 7/12 extract from the record room of Tahsil Office and on that basis, he has deposed before the court. Accordingly, relying on this evidence, the learned Reference Court reached to the conclusion that the land which was acquired was seasonally irrigated land and on that basis awarded the compensation in favour of respondent no.1-claimant.

The appellant, who approached before this Court, has strongly objected the 7/12 extract which was relied upon by the learned Reference Court. According to the appellant, the 7/12 extract which was produced on record vide Exh.26 of year 2014-15, nowhere shows that there was any entry of well as source of irrigation in the acquired land. According to him, the said 7/12 extract only shows kharip crop of cotton and soyabean on that extract. Hence, according to him, considering this document, it is clear that there was no well in the acquired land.

It would be pertinent to note that in the present matter, vide Notification dated 01.01.2009, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the matter. The present respondent no.1-claimant to prove the fact that it was an irrigated land, has produced the evidence of a competent person from Talathi office namely, Sanjay Shendre and he has categorically stated that on the basis of documents obtained from the record room of Talathi Office, relied upon the 7/12 extract which was of the year from 1998-99 to 2007-08. From the said 7/12 extract, it is clear that there is an entry of well in the revenue record. The said document was also exhibited at Exh.38 before the Reference Court.

It is necessary to note in the present matter that the submission of appellant is based upon the entries of 7/12 extract of year 2014-15. According to him, the entries which are relied upon by the learned Reference Court is not justified in the matter. According to him, the learned Reference Court ought to have considered the entry which was recorded vide Exh.26 for the year 2014-15 and not of the document which was produced vide Exh.38 through the Talathi of village Chikna. However, to substantiate this submission, they have not entered into the witness box to establish their case that there was no well in the acquired land by leading any kind of evidence before the Reference Court.

It is well settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Others, reported in MANU/SC/0071/1988, that a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to seat in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference proceedings are independent in nature and the parties have to prove their own case before the Reference Court.

In the present case, from the judgment of the Reference Court, it is clear that the Reference Court has applied its judicial mind and by recording specific findings, more particularly in para 32 of the judgment, has reached to the conclusion that the entries produced through Exh.38 i.e. 7/12 extract is required to be accepted as a correct position of law in view of presumption available under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Therefore, the findings which are recorded by applying the judicial mind cannot be set aside, merely on the basis of the presumption of the appellant that the subsequent entries of 7/12 extract should have been relied upon in absence of any cogent evidence.

In the circumstances, in my considered opinion, the learned Reference Court has considered the controversy involved in the matter in a proper manner and by adjudicating the issue which was raised before him, has rightly reached to the conclusion that the land acquired was seasonally irrigated land and thereby awarded just and fair compensation in favour of the respondent no.1-claimant in the matter.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.