AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard.
By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and award dated 04.03.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana, in LAC No.44/2006. The undisputed fact in the present matter is that under the Notification dated 24.10.2001, the land owned by respondent No.1 bearing Gat No 55 admeasuring 3.17 R of village Mehunaraja, taluka Deulgaonraja, District Buldhana, was acquired for Khadakpurna project. In the said acquisition proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation of Rs.74,677/- per hectare and separately towards well, fruit-bearing trees and construction.
The respondents/claimants being dissatisfied with the compensation amount preferred the reference for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court by its judgment and order dated 04.03.2010, has awarded the compensation to the respondents at the rate of Rs.1,40,000/- per hectare for 1.49 hectare land, Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare for 1.60 hectare, by treating the same as a seasonally irrigated land and Rs.20,000/- per hectare for 8 R, which is uncultivable land.
The appellant-Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation challenged the said judgment and order in the present appeal on the ground that the Reference Court has committed an error in relying on the sale instances, which are produced by the claimants.
It is further stated that there was no sufficient evidence available on record to substantiate the fact that claimants are entitled for the enhancement of compensation. Hence, according to the appellant, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court while awarding the compensation are not just and proper in the matter.
No one appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the matter.
In light of above said factual position, I have gone through the judgment delivered by the Reference Court as well as the record, which is available in the matter. The perusal of the judgment shows that the learned Reference Court has relied upon Exhibit 22, which is a judgment delivered by the Reference Court in another reference proceedings. Accordingly, Reference Court has recorded the fact that as the Reference Court has determined the market value of the land on the basis of sale instances dated 17.12.1999 at the rate of Rs.1,22,448/- per hectare, it will be relevant to consider the same while deciding the market value of the land acquired in the matter. So also, the Reference Court has confirmed the compensation awarded towards the well and one Gotha amounting to Rs.30,120/- and Rs.7,581/- respectively.
As such, the learned Reference Court by considering the entire controversy in a proper manner has recorded this finding as to how it reached to the conclusion of entitlement of claim in the matter. The said findings are specifically recorded at paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the judgment.
In light of the above said factual position and the fact that the cogent reasons are recorded while relying upon the judgment of another reference, which is not controverted in the matter. Hence, I find no merit in the present appeal and the present appeal stands dismissed. No order as to the costs.