STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH COLLECTOR Vs. SOU SHANTABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four appeals are arising out of judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court -Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in the matter of references sought by the land owners under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. These references were sought disputing the compensation awarded for the lands acquired for the public purpose i.e. for establishing Amravati University Campus being L.A.C. No. 87/1987, 09/1987, 15/1987, 7/1989 and 23/1987.

(2.) Details like survey number, area acquired, compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer are reproduced below in tabular form: <p><table class = tablestyle width="60%" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" align="center" style="font-family: Verdana"> <tr> <td>Sr<br> No</td> <td>Case <br> No</td> <td>Survey <br> / Gat<br> No.</td> <td>Total<br> area<br> (H.R.)</td> <td>Area<br> acquired<br> (H.R.)</td> <td>Name of owner</td> <td>Compensation<br> awarded by<br> S.L.A.O.</td> <td>LAC<br> No.</td> <td>Date of<br> Decision</td> <td>Compensation by<br> Reference<br> court</td> <td>Name of<br> Advocate for<br> Respdt.</td> <td>Appell<br> ant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>525/96</td> <td>12/2<br> 12/3</td> <td>2.43<br> 2.88</td> <td>2.43<br> 2.88</td> <td>Sou. Shantabai w/o.<br> Sachhidanand<br> Agrawal...(Resp)</td> <td>35,000/-</td> <td>87/87 </td> <td>24/04/96</td> <td>1,25,000/-<br> P.H </td> <td>Adv. P.N. & P.P.<br> Kothari, <br> S. Ansari,<br> V.S. Kolhatkar</td> <td>State</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>684/96 2</td> <td>28</td> <td>3.88<br> 0.34</td> <td>3.88 <br> 0.34</td> <td>Jagdishraj Harikisan<br> Chhabda and others<br> (village-Mhasla) (Resp)</td> <td>40,000/-<br> P.H</td> <td>09/87<br> 15/87</td> <td>18/04/96</td> <td>1,25,000/-<br> P.H </td> <td>S.V. Bhutada,</td> <td>State</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>320/97</td> <td>17/32</td> <td>2.97</td> <td>2.97</td> <td>Surjerao Yashvant<br> Ghurde & Another<br> (Wadali) ... (Resp)</td> <td>12,000/-<br> P.H.</td> <td>7/89</td> <td>21/12/96</td> <td>1,50,000/-<br> P.H </td> <td>Adv.<br> A.M.Gorde,<br> K.S. Narwade, /<br> R1 &2<br> J.S.Mokadam,J<br> .Y. Ghurde /<br> R.1 &2</td> <td>State</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>354/97</td> <td>14/1A</td> <td>5.26</td> <td>1.21</td> <td>Raghunath Krishnrao<br> Tupat and others<br> (Wadali)(Resp)</td> <td>45,000/-<br> P.H </td> <td>23/87</td> <td>28/4/95</td> <td>1,50,000/-<br> P.H</td> <td>Adv.<br> A.M.Gorde,<br> K.S. Narwade, /<br> R1 &2<br> J.S.Mokadam,J<br> .Y. Ghurde /<br> R.1 &2</td> <td>State</td> </tr> </table>

(3.) Mr. Yengal, learned A G P for the State contended that the learned Reference Court was not justified in applying same yardstick without considering the situation of the land. Neither the sale instance relied upon can be called as a comparable sale instance, nor the decision of this court in case of State of Maharashtra ..vs.. Aniruddha Shriram Ganorkar & ors can be applied to the lands acquired in the instant reference.