SONOBA VISHNU GAUNKAR Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a First Appeal against the order and judgment of the Reference Court dated 31.7.2003

(2.) By the impugned judgment and order the learned Judge has held that the acquired land being agricultural land the land and the trees cannot be valued separately. It was noted that though the land was valued at Rs. 2/- per square metre, considering the valuation placed on the trees and the structures, the Appellants had in fact been granted compensation in excess of Rs. 15/- per square metre. Even the Appellants' valuer had valued the land at Rs. 10/- per square metre The learned Judge therefore rightly rejected the application for enhancement of the value of the property. The learned Judge upheld the application for additional compensation at 12% per annum on the market value of the land from the date of the Notification till the date of the award in terms of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The State has not challenged the award. We are in any event in agreement with the learned Judge in this regard as well. Mr. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants did not seriously press the Appeal in so far as the learned Judge refused to enhance the compensation by increasing the value of the land.

(3.) The judgment cannot be faulted for any reason. It must be upheld for the grounds it has dealt with. Mr. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants raised a new point before us. It was not taken before the learned Judge. The Reference Court cannot be faulted for not having dealt with it. However as the claim refers to a statutory benefit viz. interest under Section 28, we permitted him to raise the same before this Court.