RATNAPRABHABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the said Act') takes exception to the judgment of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case (LAC) No.944/2004 decided on 19.10.2013. By the said judgment, the Reference Court partly enhanced the amount of compensation from that which was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimant not being satisfied with the same has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Land admeasuirng 2 Hectares 54 R from Gat No. 185 situated at village Harsul, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal was the subject matter of acquisition for submergence of Arunavati Project. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published on 18.01.1996 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 23.04.1997. He awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.93,281/- per hectare for the acquired land. Compensation was also granted for 468 sweet lime, 394 orange and 99 other fruit trees. In the reference proceedings preferred under Section 18 of the said Act, the claimant examined her husband and an expert valuer. The acquiring body did not examine any witnesses. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. It further enhanced the amount of compensation that was awarded for the fruit trees. It is in the aforesaid backdrop the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Shri V.N.Patre, learned counsel for the appellant in support of his prayer for enhancement in the amount of compensation submitted that before the Reference Court a sale instance dated 10.09.1991 from village Chincholi (Exh.54) was relied upon. Land admeasuring 0.85 R was sold for Rs.80,000/- and the rate per hectare therefore was Rs.1,00,000/-. According to him, as the sale deed was of the year 1991 by granting an increase @10% per annum for every year, the claimant would be entitled to an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. Though the Reference Court took into consideration this sale instance, it committed an error by deducting 50% amount from Rs.3,00,000/-. There was no legal justification for making such deduction and on that count the claimant was awarded lessor compensation. He further submitted that the acquired land was near the State highway and had good potential. 7/12 extracts at Exhibits 49 and 50 indicated that the land was irrigated land and considering the nature of fruit trees in the said land, the amount of compensation was liable to be enhanced. He further submitted that the valuer as examined had visited the acquired land and had prepared the valuation report. The said report at Exhibit 57 was not liable to be discarded and the reasons given by the Reference Court in that regard were not correct. By leading cogent evidence, the claimant had discharged the burden and was therefore entitled for higher compensation. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238 and Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through LRs Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon AIR 2012 SC 481. It was thus submitted that the claimant be awarded further amount of compensation.