PRABHAKAR SHRINIVAS DHARMADHIKARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common judgment was delivered by the IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Amravati on 1st October, 1984 in three References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants before this Court in the two First Appeals were claimants before the Reference Court in the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) IN First Appeal No. 34/1986, two parcels of land have been acquired and they are Survey No. 8 admeasuring 24 acres and 12 gunthas corresponding to 13. 80 hectares and Survey No. 17/2, comprising of 10 acres and 92 gunthas corresponding to 4. 12 hectares. The lands are situated in village Shimbhora, Teshil Morshi, District Amravati. The lands were acquired under the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 31st March,1977. The purpose for which the lands were acquired was the Upper Wardha Project and the lands were stated to be required for the dam seat of the project. Possession of the lands was taken on 26th April,1978. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant had claimed compensation in respect of Survey No. 8 at the rate of Rs. 8,000/-per acre (Rs. 20,000/per hectare) and in respect of Survey No. 17/2, at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per acre (Rs. 15,000/- per hectare). The total claim for compensation was in the amount of Rs. 5,42,353/- and Rs. 1,23,600/ respectively in respect of the two survey numbers. The award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12th November, 1980 and under the Award an amount of Rs. 1,07,124/ and Rs. 32,258/came to be awarded in respect of the said two survey numbers. IN the Reference under Section 18 of the Act, additional compensation was claimed in the amount of Rs. 1,98,418/-. The reference in the case of the appellant in First Appeal No. 34/1986 came to be dismissed by the Reference Court by its judgment and order dated 1st October, 1984.

(3.) NOW, in so far as the merits of the claim for enhancement is concerned, the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the appellants can be considered. Mr. Pendharkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged that the Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands which form the subject matter of the acquisition into various groups depending upon the revenue assessment payable in respect of each of the lands. The lands comprised in Survey nos. 8 and 17 were assessed to fall in Ground-III, which consists of lands whose assessment was between Rs. 2. 01 to 2. 41 per acre. In so far as the lands falling in Group-III are concerned, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer noted that there were only two sale transactions, which had taken place neither of which could be regarded as representing a correct statement of the market value. One of the two lands had been purchased by an adjoining owner. The second transaction was for a meagre amount of Rs. 500/- which was too low to be realistic. The Land Acquisition Officer then adverted to the fact that in the adjoining village of Nasirpur lands falling in the same assessment group had been acquired for the project. A statement showing the sales of lands falling in the assessment group was appended to the award and on the basis of those transactions, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at a valuation of Rs. 3,200/- per acre as on 31st March, 1977 in respect of the lands falling in group-III. The award notes that as village Simbhora is a village which adjoins Nasirpur and the date of the Section 4 Notification was the same in both the cases, this value would be reasonable for the lands falling in assessment Group-III.