WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD Vs. SUBHASH DHONDOPANT DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Acquiring body Western Coalfields Limited has put to challenge the common judgment and award dated 30.4.2001 made in Land Acquisition Case Nos.73/1992 and 74/1992 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Yavatmal and dated 11.1.2002 In Land Acquisition Case Nos. 165/1992 and 166/1992 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalamb enhancing compensation to Rs.55,000/- per hectare and Rs.50,000/- per hectare respectively in respect of lands of the claimantsrespondents which were acquired.

(2.) In support of First Appeal Nos.327/2001 and 328/2001, learned Counsel for the appellant in all appeals argued that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 26.6.1988 and the acquisition was for construction of railway siding for Western Coalfields Limited (W.C.L.). The Land Acquisition Officer had granted rate of Rs.20,000/- per hectare but that has been enhanced to Rs.55,000/- per hectare by the reference Court which is totally illegal and contrary to the evidence on record so also the law that is applicable. He then argued that going by method of applying multiplier the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held the multiplier of 10 to be adequate and just compensation. For this purpose he relied on the following decisions.

(3.) He then argued that besides Income Capitalization Method; looking at sale instances has been found to be more accurate by the Hon'ble Apex Court and when sale instances are available nearby to the date of notification they should be the basis for awarding compensation. Inviting my attention to the sale instances (Exh.73 to 76) which are the index entries he argued that these entries relate to the same village, namely, Niljai and the reference Court ought not to have ignored them since they represented the correct price being of the same village and since the same were rejected on the ground that they were not admissible in evidence this Court should consider them in the light of the latest Supreme Court decision holding that the same was admissible in evidence and can be read without examination of vendor/vendee. According to learned Counsel for the appellant all these sale instances from Exh.73 to 76 show that the maximum average price per acre could be worked out at Rs.8,500/- i.e. Rs.20,000/- per hectare and therefore, the learned reference Court acted illegally in enhancing the compensation. Stressing his argument further learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Exh.73 to 76 are the entries which are most relevant in the sense that they are nearer to notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. 26.6.1988. He thus argued that this best piece of evidence has been ignored by the reference Court which is illegal. Learned Counsel for the appellant then argued that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants were related to the village Ukni and the said village being at some distance from Niljai the reference Court erred in placing the reliance thereon since the appellant had placed on record the sale instances from village Niljai and the cases in question are related to village Niljai only. Summing up his argument, learned Counsel for the appellant thus prayed for allowing the appeals by setting aside the judgment and award made by the reference Court impugned in these appeals.