Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs Sau. Pushpabai w/o Prakashchandraji Raka & Ors.

. Heard Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Sakshi Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, Mr. S. A. Mohta, learned Counsel for the Cross Objector and Mr. H. D. Futane, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

In both the proceedings the challenge is to the Judgment and Award dated 10/2/2011 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No. 35/2005.

In the present Appeal, the Appellant/Acquiring Body has challenged the Judgment and order passed by the Reference Court on the ground that while considering the sale instances, particularly, Exhibit-42 to 44, which according to the Appellants are of different villages, and therefore, same were required to be independently assessed, however, without doing that exercise, the learned Reference Court has passed impugned Judgment. It is, therefore, submission of the Appellants that indulgence of this Court is necessary in the matter.

In the Cross Objection, the original Claimant has challenged the Judgment and order of the Reference Court on the ground that in the other proceeding arising out of the same land acquisition, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at higher rate, and therefore, considering the rule of parity as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the catena of Judgments of this Court, he is entitled for enhancement of compensation.

In the light of grounds raised by both the parties, the Judgment and Order passed by the Reference Court is perused. The perusal of the Judgment delivered by the Reference Court clearly demonstrates that by applying the method of comparative sale deeds, the market value of the acquired land has been determined. The Reference Court, while considering the said aspect has relied upon the certain sale deeds which were brought on record by the parties. Hence, the entire Judgment is passed by applying the method of comparable sale deeds.

The learned Counsel for Cross Objector has specifically relied upon the Judgment of the Reference Court in LAR No. 150/2005. The perusal of this Judgment clearly shows that land acquired in the said proceeding is acquired for the same project i.e. submergence of Bembla Project vide Notification dated 12/7/1998 and it was published in the Government Gazette on 19/11/1998. In the said proceeding the learned Reference Court has considered various sale deeds, and by applying the same method i.e. comparable sale deed method, has considered the relevant sale deed immediately before the date of Notification issued by the State Government and thereby determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare.

It is pertinent to note that the Judgment which is delivered on 14/3/2022 by the Reference Court is accepted by the Acquiring Body and no appeal is preferred, either before this Court or any other competent court of law. Therefore, it is clear that the Acquiring Body has accepted the rate granted by the Reference Court, hence, the Claimant/Respondent No.1 herein cannot be deprived from enhancement of the compensation. 8. In the present matter also on the basis of sale deed, the market value has been determined. But, in LAR No. 150/2005 the sale deed, which was of higher rate, brought to the notice of the Reference Court and on the basis of same Reference Court has enhanced the compensation, therefore, I am of the opinion that Claimant/land owner is also entitled for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass following order.