STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GOVINDRAO NARAYANRAO GHORPADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the State of Maharashtra makes a grievance with regard to the order made by the Land Acquisition Court (i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division. Kolhapur), holding that for the acquired land, the State was liable to pay all the compensation as was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and directing the Government to refund the amount of Rs. 18,312.33 p.

(2.) Brief facts are that the respondent is the owner of Revision Survey Nos. 607 and 608 of Ichalkaranji, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. For the purpose of construction of tenements for the benefit of industrial workers, proceedings to acquire the lands were initiated with regard to 2 gunthas from Survey No. 607 and 7 acres and 15 gunthas from Survey No. 608. The Section 4 Notification was issued on October 31, 1961 followed by the proceedings by the Land Acquisition Officer to make an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Upon the evidence, he found that the lands were inam lands and, therefore, out of the compensation fixed, the claimant was not entitled to one-third of the market value determined by him and so he directed the payment less by that amount. A reference was sought and when the matter came up before the Land Acquisition Court, after hearing the evidence tendered by the parties the Land Acquisition Court came to the conclusion that as far as the value was concerned, there was fair assessment by the Land Acquisition Officer, but the direction with regard to Rupees 18,312.33 p. was unsustainable. The learned trial Judge rejected the argument that such a direction in reducing the compensation was available to the Land Acquisition Officer because the property was held on a restricted tenure. Rejecting that view, the trial Court has held that it was improper to deduct a particular amount of compensation. The trial Court has further pointed out that even to lift the restriction, the claimant would have been required to pay a sum of Rs. 370/-and that could have been deducted if at alt by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reasons for deduction having been negatived in this manner, the trial Court directed the further payment of Rs. 18.312.33 p. to the respondent- claimant.

(3.) A short and narrow question, therefore, arises to be determined in the present appeal as to whether this order by the Land Acquisition Court is or is not in accordance with law.