BABARAO BHIMRAO SHISODE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed on behalf of the claimant against the order dated April 5, 1983 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Parbhani, in Land Reference Case No. 34 of 1978.

(2.) THE appellant-claimant owns land bearing Survey Nos. 192/1,3,6,10 and Survey No. 200 in all admeasuring 5 Hectares 24 Acres situated in village Makani, Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani. The said land was acquired by the respondent-State Government for the purpose of submergence under Masoli project. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on March 4, 1974 whereas, the notification under section 6 of the Act was published on November 7, 1974. It appears that the possession of the land acquired was taken before the award could be passed. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated March 13, 1976 valued the land at the rate of Rs. 300/- per Are and granted compensation of Rs. 18,305. 50 including solatium at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 2,395. 50 together with a sum of Rs. 250/- being value of two mango trees. The appellant-claimant did not satisfy with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, at his instance, reference was made to the District Court.

(3.) IN support of the reference, the claimant adduced oral and documentary evidence. The oral evidence, however, consists of his own testimony at Exhibit 15. The documentary evidence comprises certified copies of statements of various witnesses and the sale instances in another Land reference Case No. 48 of 1978. The documents have been read in evidence as Exhibits with consent of the respondent State. The claimant has claimed enhanced compensation for Jirayat land at Rs. 5,000/- per Acre, whereas for bagayat land at Rs. 7,000/- per Arcre. The evidence furnished by various sale instances relied on by him, can be catalogued as below :<FRM>JUDGEMENT_277_BCR1_1995Html1.htm</FRM> It may be stated that the claimant has also relied on certified copy of the deposition of witness Manohar (Ex. 29) to disclose that he has purchased 3 Acres of land from one Namdeo and Laxman for Rs. 15,000/- in the month of January, 1976. He has, however, not produced the certified copy of sale deed, and therefore, the evidence of the witness will have to be excluded from consideration.