LAWS(BOM)-2020-2-204

SHAIKH NOOR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 28, 2020
Shaikh Noor Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. The matter is taken up for finality on merit with consent of both sides.

(2.) The instant appeal put in question quantum of compensation amount determined by the learned Reference Court in LAR No. 425 of 2010 filed by the appellant - original claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Act of 1894").

(3.) The factual aspect of the matter in nutshell is that, the agricultural land Gut No. 197 admeasuring 1H.61 R located at village Panwadi, Ta. Phulambri, District Aurangabad belonging to appellant-original claimant was put under acquisition for construction of percolation tank No. 6 of village Panwadi. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was published on 13-01-2006 in the official Gazette. After due compliance of procedural formalities the Special Land Acquisition Officer ("SLAO") proceeded to make award as contemplated under Section 11 of Act of 1894. The appellant-claimant did not accept the price determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer ("SLAO") for his acquired land as well as valuation of fruit bearing trees located in the field. Therefore, he accepted the compensation amount offered by the SLAO under protest and filed the Reference Petition, taking recourse of provisions of Section 18 of Act of 1894, for enhancement of compensation amount. The learned Reference Court dealt with the Reference Petition filed on behalf of appellant-claimant for determination of just and reasonable market value of the land and fruit bearing trees under acquisition. Thereafter, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence adduced on record, the learned Reference Court proceeded to partly allowed the Reference Petition and agreed to enhance the market price of acquired lands from Rs.965/- per R calculated by SLAO to market price @ Rs.2605/- per R. The learned Reference Court also pleased to allow the enhancement of compensation for fruit bearing trees of appellant-claimant. The Reference Court placed reliance on the report of claimant's Valuer. However, the learned Reference Court did not allow the entire amount of compensation calculated by the claimant's valuer Dr. V. K. Patil, but allowed to enhance the valuation of fruit bearing trees @ 40% of report of claimant's valuer.