FIRST APPEAL NO. 850 OF 2007

12th December 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. N. R. Saboo
Respondent Counsel: Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar
Act Name: Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Section :
Section 4 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Cases Cited :

JUDGEMENT

1. Heard.

2. This is the claimant’s appeal which challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 07/02/2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon in L.A.C. No. 18/1992.

3. Briefly stated, a land bearing Gat No. 189, ad-measuring 80 Are came to be acquired for extention of Gaothan vide L.A.C. No. 12/88-89. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘said Act’) was published on 28/10/1989. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs. 1,07,738/- which included market value of land, value of well and value of 60 trees alongwith other statutory benefits and interests.

4. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants filed Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Reference Court framed necessary issues, recorded evidence as adduced by the parties and enhanced compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,29,744/- @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare.

5. The claimant again dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation, filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment.

6. Shri Saboo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Officer as well as the learned Reference Court have failed to consider the material evidence on record with regard to market value of the subject land at the relevant time.

7. Learned Counsel further submits that it is not disputed that the subject land was acquired for extension of Gaothan which itself would reflect about the commercial and residential potentiality of the land.

8. Learned Counsel pointed out the relevant portions in the impugned judgment on the point that the learned Reference Court though observed about NA potentiality of the land, however, on the basis of guess work and without any sufficient reasoning assessed the market value @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare.

9. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jaipurkar, on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment and order. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the learned Reference Court has properly considered the evidence on record and assessed the market value prevailing on the date of Notification.

10. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties.

11. The following point arises for determination of this Court :
(i) Whether the appellant – claimant is entitled to further enhancement of compensation ?

12. At the outset, the appellant – claimants have brought on record certified copies of index 2 of the sale instances of the plots of land in the vicinity of the subject land (Exh. 78 to 83) and other related evidence on record to show that the market value of the subject land at the relevant time was atleast @ Rs. 5 to 8 per sq. ft. The learned Reference Court in paragraph No. 11 in the impugned judgment considered the sale instances which have been brought on record and reached to the conclusion that the plots in the close proximity of the acquired land were sold on Gunthawari basis @ Rs. 4000/- to 6000/- per Guntha.

13. Learned Counsel also pointed out that the part of the same Survey number of the acquired land has received non-agricultural status. The learned Reference Court refused to consider the sale instances brought on record mainly on the ground that the sale instances for small patches of lands cannot be considered to decide the market value of the acquired land. It is pointed out that the lands in the vicinity of the acquired land, which is adjoining to the Gaothan Sangrampur, received non-agricultural status and, therefore, the sale instances for the patches of land were not available.

14. There is no dispute that the acquired land is adjoining the Gaothan Sangrampur and the same was acquired for the extension of Gaothan. The said fact can also be perused from clause (v) of the copy of Award (Exh. 3). In the Award, it is further mentioned that village Sangrampur is situated on Jalgaon Warwat Bakal State highway and is 17 kilometers away from Jalgaon Jamod, a sub-division head quarter place. It has Tahsil office, Block Development Office, Treasury office, Police station, Electricity supply, weekly bazar etc. and the acquired land is adjacent to the existing Gaothan. The Award further mentions that the acquired land is a furtile land and has irrigation potentiality as well as the building potentiality and is situated in the middle of Sangrampur village and it is an irrigated land having a well and fruit bearing trees.

15. In the background of aforesaid facts which are reflected from the Award itself, the quality of the land and potentiality of the land can be guessed. The learned Reference Court on the basis of sale instances on record have already concluded that the lands in the vicinity of the acquired land fetches Rs. 4000/- to 6000/- per Guntha.

16. In the instant case, admittedly, the subject land has not received N.A. status. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is ready, to surrender for the purpose of development, one third of his land. The area of the acquired land is 80 Are i.e. 88,000 sq. ft. and one third of 88,000 is 29,333 sq. ft. and, therefore, the usable land for the purpose of calculation of market value is 58,667 sq. ft.

17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, in the view of this Court, atleast Rs. 5 per sq. ft. would be true and correct market value of the acquired land at the relevant time and the claimant / appellant is entitled for the same.

18. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to partly allow the appeal and the impugned judgment is to be modified to the extent that the State / acquiring body shall pay enhanced compensation to the claimant @ Rs. 5 for land ad-measuring 58,667 sq. ft. alongwith all statutory benefits.

19. It is further clarified that though the learned Reference Court refused to grant interest for around 13 years, on the ground that the appellant – claimant succeeded in delaying the adjudication as he sought frequent adjournment. This view of the learned Reference Court appears to be unreasonable as much as there are powers under procedural law to the Reference Court to take further steps if the party is un-necessarily and with malafide intention is trying to prolong the trial. The learned Reference Court without resorting to its power, as has been provided under the law, refused to grant statutory interest to the claimant which he is entitled under the law. Therefore, the aforesaid amount shall be calculated alongwith all statutory benefits and interests as per law.

20. The First Appeal No. 850 of 2007 is partly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.