Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs Anil Wasudeo Kumbhalkar & Ors.

. Heard.

This appeal is arising out of the judgment and order passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal, dated 16.12.2014, in LAC No.247/2005.

It is the case of the original claimant/respondent is that in pursuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 11.05.2000, the land of respondent situated at village Pahur, Taluka Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal, Plot No.635 admeasuring 41.61 sq. mtrs. was acquired for the project of Submergence of Bembla Project. In the said land acquisition proceedings, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per sq. mtrs for the open plot and for built up area awarded Rs.67,892/-.

The respondent No.1 being dissatisfied with this megar amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer preferred the reference. In the reference proceedings, the submission of respondent No.1 is that as per the market value, his land can fetch the amount at the rate of Rs.550/- to Rs.560/- per sq. mtrs. and, therefore, considering this market value and the fact that this is compulsorily required for the public purpose, he is entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq. mtrs. and also stated that for built up area, he is entitled for a higher compensation at the rate of Rs.4858.17/- per sq.mtrs. In support of this, he has led evidence and also relied upon the sale instances in favour of his submission.

In light of the submission made before the Reference Court, the Reference Court has considered the entire evidence which was produced by the appellants and reached to the conclusion that respondent No.1 is entitled for Rs.900/- per sq. mtrs. for open land and Rs.2400/- per sq. mtrs, for the built up area and on that basis, enhanced the compensation amount in favour of respondent No.1.

The present appellant challenged the said judgment and order before this Court on the ground that the sale instances, which are relied upon by the Reference Court are not properly appreciated in the matter. While appreciating the market value, Reference Court is required to consider various factors such as whether the sale instance, which is relied upon, is of the same area, age of construction, amenities available within vicinity etc. But, such examination is not done in the matter and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed and set aside.

In the meantime, both the Counsel have pointed out that one of the matters arising out of the same land acquisition proceedings of village Pahur was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasant Nanaji Patre Vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation and ors., in Civil Appeal No.5305/2025 decided on 17.04.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for open area of village Pahur, the claimants therein are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq. mtrs. The perusal of the judgment shows that this Court in the impugned judgment therein has reduced the compensation from Rs.900/- to Rs.715/-, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court by recording the reasons in the judgment has held that the land owner of village Pahur is entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq. mtrs. for open plot.

In light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no reason for me to take any other view in the matter and, therefore, the judgment which Hon’ble Supreme Court has determined the value of open plot, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment.

In present appeal also the Reference Court has determined the value of open plot at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq. mtrs., the acquired property is also of same village and established on the basis of sale instances relied by claimant. Hence, there is more reason to upheld the value of open land as determined by Reference Court.

In respect of built up area, appellant did not raise serious dispute. Learned Reference Court has properly assessed the evidence and by recording cogent reasons determined the value of built up area. Perusal of finding, prima facie, shows judicial application of mind of Reference Court. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the present appeal stands dismissed.

The respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon, which is already deposited by the appellant to the Registry of this Court and in case, any balance amount is remained, same may be deposited by the appellant within a period of four months.