ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR Vs. GAJANAN S GHANTKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment in view of the fact that the evidence led before the trial Court in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 33 of 1987 and 68 of 1988 was made part of the evidence in Land Acquisition Case No. 68 of 1988 and the deposition of witnesses and documents were treated as common by order dated 24th February, 1998.

(2.) THESE appeals have been filed by the appellants Additional Deputy Collector and Director of Agriculture challenging the order of the Additional District Judge dated 28th February, 2000, by which enhancement of compensation has been granted from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 34/- in respect of the acquired lands. It is vehemently urged on behalf of the appellants that the respondents had not produced any material on record to justify the enhancement and further the lands acquired were large pieces of lands having an area of 1,72,275 sq. metres in the case of Land Acquisition No. 33 of 1987 whereas in the case of Land Acquisition No. 68 of 1988 it was 1,64,150 sq. metres. It is also urged on behalf of the appellants that the learned Additional District Judge failed to consider the nature of the acquired lands and the land under the Sale Deed dated 30th March, 1983, which was not comparable and, hence, it is urged on behalf of the appellants that the enhancement could not have been granted on the basis of the said Sale Deed. It is also urged on behalf of the appellants that the Expert, who has been examined by the respondents, had visited the acquired properties after publication of the notification and his evidence was not to be considered. It is further urged that the enhancement by the Additional District Judge on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 30th March, 1983 by granting a deduction of 15% is illegal and the Award has to be set aside.

(3.) SO far as the impugned order is concerned, reference was made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as an objection was raised by the claimants/respondents herein as regards the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation awarded was Rs. 15/- per sq. metre whereas the claimants claimed that the amount should be fixed at Rs. 80/- per sq. metre. The claimants had also challenged the award of the Land Acquisition Officer as regards the value of trees, structures and wells. In support of their claim the claimants had examined 15 witnesses whereas the respondent/appellants herein had examined one witness. It is necessary to note that the claimants had examined witnesses from the Government Offices of Collectorate and Forest Department to support their contention that the lands under reference had development potentialities.