Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs Smt. Lilabai Wd/O Pandurang Kodape & Ors.

. Heard Mr. Raunak Kurani, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Hemlata Dhande, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. None appeared for the Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d).

The Appellant/Acquiring Body has questioned the Judgment and Order dated 15/3/2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 573/2005 on the ground that the learned Reference Court has wrongly relied upon the evidence of the Valuer, and accordingly, granted enhanced compensation in the matter.

In the present matter, it is undisputed fact that after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the State Government on 18/8/1998, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had acquired the open plot along with construction thereon, admeasuring 292 sq.mtr. and house admeasuring 60 sq.mtr. situated at village Nagargaon, Tahsil Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal for submergence of Bembla Project. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded only Rs.85,902/- towards compensation to the Claimant/Respondent No.1.

The Claimant being dissatisfied with the compensation amount, has preferred the reference proceeding before the District Judge, Yavatmal. In the said Reference Proceeding vide Judgment dated 15/3/2008, the compensation amount has been enhanced at the rate of Rs.292/- per sq. mtr. for plottable area and Rs.2500/- per sq.mtr. for house property. As such, total enhanced compensation was awarded was Rs.1,37,098/-.

As per the settlement policy adopted by the Appellant/Corporation in case of house property for the said village i.e. Nagargaon is Rs.500/- sq.mtr. for open plot and 25% rise over and above the rate granted by the Land Acquisition Officer for construction. Accordingly, the Respondents/Claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,27,840/-.^{11.Correction in Para No.5 is carried out vide Court’s order dt.17.12.2025.} Applying the said principle in the present case, it is clear that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.85,902/- and the Reference Court vide impugned Judgment has awarded Rs.1,37,098/-, therefore, prima facie I am of the opinion that considering the policy framed by the Government, no interference is required in the Judgment of the Reference Court.

Apart from above, I have gone through the entire case papers to verify as to whether the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court are in consonance with the evidence available on record or not. After perusal of record it is noticed that the learned Reference Court has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence made available by the parties, before him.

The learned Reference Court has specifically relied upon the evidence of PW-2 Deulkar (Exhibit-26), who deposed before the Court in the capacity of Valuer of the land. In his evidence, he has categorically stated that foundation of house was made by stones and mud and walls were constructed in mud and mortar, having GI sheets and country tiles roofing. It is also recorded that door and windows of the house are of teak wood. On the basis of this, he has determined the cost of the construction at the rate of Rs.2500/-per sq. mtr. in the year 1999.

The learned Reference Court, in spite of determining the value of plot, has also taken into consideration the sale instances of the nearby village i.e. Nagargaon and Babhulgaon. According to him, village Nagargaon is located interior to the main roads. The said village is situated at a distance of 1 km from the main road from Babhulgaon to Ner. Hence, it is recorded that market value of the plot cannot be considered more than Rs.25/- per sq. ft.

The learned Reference Court has recorded its specific finding in paragraph Nos.8 to 10 as to how the learned Tribunal has determined the market value of open land as well as constructed area. All these findings are not seriously contested by the Appellant in the matter. So also no adverse record is available to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse in nature.

In my view, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court cannot be faulted in the matter. Rather I am of the opinion that the learned Reference Court, by taking judicial note and by applying its judicial mind, has rightly considered the market value of the open land as well as the constructed area.

Therefore, I concur with the finding recorded by the Reference Court and of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present Appeal. The same stands dismissed.