NARAYAN YASHWANTA KAPSE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The instant appeal calls-in-question the quantum of compensation amount determined by the learned Reference Court, Aurangabad, in LAR No. 136 of 2006 filed by the appellant-original claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Act of 1894").

(3.) The factual aspects relevant to the present appeal in brief are that the agricultural lands Gut Nos. 171, 172, 190 and 191 admeasuring 00.46 R, 00.81R, 00.43 R and 00.92 R respectively of the appellant-claimant located at village Leha (Jahagir) Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad were placed under acquisition for submergence area of Wakod medium project. The notification under section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was published in the official Gazette on 13-02-1997. After compliance of procedural formalities, the 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 lands, fruit bearing trees and other improvement carried out in the field. Therefore, he accepted the compensation amount offered by the SLAO under protest and filed the Reference petition under Section 18 of Act of 1894 for indulgence of the Court to determine the just and reasonable market value of the lands under acquisition. The learned Reference Court dealt with the Reference petition of appellant-claimant and on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence adduced on record partly allowed the Reference Petition and agreed to enhance the market price of acquired lands from Rs.494 per R calculated by SLAO to market price @ Rs. 2100/- per R. But, the learned Reference Court found reluctant to allow any enhancement in the valuation of fruit bearing trees as well as the improvements carried out in the lands. Therefore, the claim of appellant - claimant for enhancement of compensation for fruit bearing trees, improvement etc. was rejected by the learned Reference Court. Being aggrieved by refusal of learned Reference Court to enhance the compensation for fruit bearing trees, improvements etc. and also the improper determination of market price of acquired lands, the appellant-claimant rushed to this Court and preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1894 for redressal.