SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. LALIBAI DASU NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are arising out of same project and same Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Though the learned reference Court has given separate Judgments, yet, they were pronounced on the same day, and therefore, these two appeals are decided by this common Judgment. The acquiring body i.e. Government has preferred the present appeal challenging Judgment and Award passed in L.A.R. No.618/2005 and 622/2005 respectively decided by Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon on 10.10.2006 (the Court is referred as "reference Court" hereinafter).

(2.) The lands in both the appeals were acquired for the project "Percolation Tank, Minor Irrigation Tank" at Kalamsara, village Ambadi, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 30.05.1999. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO") had granted compensation @ Rs.56,000/- per hectare for the land in Land Acquisition Reference No.618/2005, whereas @ Rs.60,500/- per hectare in Land Acquisition Reference No.622/2005. Jirayat land of 40 R was acquired from Gat No.114 situated at village Ambadi, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon in L.A.R. No.618/2005, whereas bagayat land of 19 R in Gat No.3/2/1 and 22 R jirayat land from Gat No.3/2/2 was acquired in L.A.R. No.622/2005, and therefore, there is difference in the rate. Claimants in both the references were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the SLAO; preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference Court after having considered the oral and documentary evidence, which appears to be common, has determined the market value of the acquired land and it has been enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare in L.A.R. No.618/2005 as well as for the jirayat land in L.A.R. No.622/2005. Further, it was @ Rs.2,00,000/-per hectare for bagayat land in L.A.R. No.622/2005. Accordingly, the compensation has been enhanced. Hence, present appeals by the acquiring body.

(3.) Heard learned AGP Mr. B.V. Virdhe for the appellants. It was contended, that the reference Court has arbitrarily enhanced the amount of compensation without there was any cogent evidence. Two sale instances were produced in both the matters at Exhs.15 and 16. However, they were of the year 1996 and 1994 respectively. Exh.15 was in respect of Gat No.3/1 from village Shendurni and the area that was sold was 57 R for Rs.2,00,000/-on 27.02.1996. Exh.16 was in respect of 81 R land from Gat No.654 from the same village i.e. Shendurni, which was for Rs. 1,50,000/- and the date of sale was 09.05.1994. Though sale instances are from different villages and therefore they were not at all comparable, map has not been produced on record to show the distance between the villages nor it was brought on record by the claimants. Further, land in Exh.16 was purchased by one Ginning Presssing Society and it was a small piece of land. On that count also that sale instance was not comparable. Learned AGP, therefore, prayed for modification of the amount of restoration of the same as to the amount granted by SLAO.