STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAHAMODIMIA AHMADSAHIB PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 2 of published in the months of September 1973 and April 1974. Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short the L.A.O.) awarded compensation by taking the fair market value of the land at Rs. 6,000/- per acre. In reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the trial Court accepted the applicants contention that the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per acre was inadequate and that it would be reasonable to award compensation taking the fair market value of the land at Rs. 500/- per guntha, i.e. Rs. 20,000/- per acre. Accordingly, he awarded an additional amount of compensation of Rs. 9.236/- and additional soletium of Rs. 1.385/- totalling to Rs. 10, 621/- with interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the amount of the compensation from the date of award till realisation.

(2.) It is the case of the State that the instance of acquisition cited by the claimant was not comparable and that the instance given by the Government, even though of the year 1980, were in fact comparable. It was argued that the additional compensation granted by the learned Judge was not justified and was in any event highly excessive. Shri Limaye, the learned Counsel for the claimant, on the others hand, on the others hand, strongly relied on the judgment of the learned Judge.

(3.) The trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record at great length in paragraphs 10 to 19 of his judgment. It may be true that the instance of acquisition cited by the claimant of 2 gunthas of land out of Survey No. 26/3/4-A in the year 1964 was not really comparable. It, however, cannot be forgotten that facts in no two cases are going to be identical. What is to be borne in mind is whether the facts in two cases are broadly similar and whether the difference in the facts has been taken due note of. Considering the impugned judgement in this background, the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court appears to be quite reasonable. The Judge has taken due note of all such the suit land in the year 1973. For instance, he has taken due note of the facts that as against acquisition of 2 gunthas of land in that case, the land required in this case is about 26 gunthas and that though there is a gap of about 9 years between the acquisition of that land and the land in the instant case, no material was produced to show that the land price had gone down during the intervening period. As regards three sale instances given by the opponent State, the Judge rightly held that they could not form the basis for holding that the compensation awarded was adequate and proper. In this regard, the Judge noted that the lands involved in those cases were away from the suit land which had a distinct advantage of frontage of Pen Khopoli Road. He also noted that compensation at the rate of Rs. 600/- per guntha for some land out of the survey number from which the suit land was granted by competent Court. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the trial Court that the fair market value of the suit land required to be and was taken at Rs. 500/- per guntha.