STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HARSHDEEPSING KISANSINGH SIDDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above First Appeals take exception to the judgment and award dated 3rd August, 1994 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 61 of 1992. By the said judgment and award the Reference Court fixed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 77,133/- per hectre and granted all the benefits under section 23(1 A) and (2) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. First Appeal No. 694 of 1994 is filed by the State challenging the enhancement granted by the Reference Court whereas First Appeal No. 127 of 1995 is filed by the claimants being dissatisfied by the Award passed by the Reference Court.

(2.) The facts in brief in the above appeals can be stated thus : Subject-matter of the acquisition was land admeasuring 21 Ares from Survey No. 6/1 of Pandharkawada which was acquired for the purpose of National High Way No. 7. The Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 19th December, 1988 was published on 7th September, 1989. In the award which came to be declared the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- Per Hectre and based on the said rate granted the claimants Rs. 9450/- as the compensation for the acquired land. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the claimants sought a reference. In the reference the claimants sought the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. and on the said basis claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 22,86,900/-besides solatium and interest as per the provisions of the said Act. The Reference Court on the application of the well settled principles to be applied under section 23 of the said Act to arrive at the market value of the land under enhanced the compensation to Rs. 77,133/- Per Hectre with all the statutory benefits as mentioned hereinabove. The Reference Court did not take into consideration the two sale instances produced on behalf of the claimants which were of the year 1988 as according to the Reference Court the said sale instances were not proximate in time. The Reference Court also did not accept the case of the claimants that the land had non agricultural potential as there were shops, petrol pump etc. in the near vicinity. The Reference Court was of the view that the claimants could have produced the transaction of the sale of plots from S. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 which are adjacent to the acquired land in support of their case for enhancement. The Reference Court was of the view that since the river is flowing by the side of the acquired land the said factor would have to weigh while considering the market value of the acquired land. As indicated above the Reference Court on consideration of the material that was adduced in the said reference fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 77,133/- per hectre. As indicated above First Appeal No. 127 of 94 has been filed by the claimants being dissatisfied by the award of the Reference Court as according to claimants they are entitled to compensation at Rs. 100/- per sq.ft.

(3.) I have heard the learned AGP for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants i.e. the respondents in First Appeal No. 695 of 1994 and the appellants in First Appeal No. 127 of 1995. Though the learned AGP and learned counsel for the claimants advanced submissions for and against the enhancement the learned counsel for the claimants Shri Deshpande drew my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court Moreshwar Shankar Phatak and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2003 3 MhLJ 127, (for short Moreshwar Phatak's case) the land concerned in the said proceedings was the adjacent land bearing S. No. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in an appeal filed against the award of the Reference Court, in that case accepted the compensation fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. Para 7 of the said report is material and is reproduced hereunder :