BABURAO GANPATRAO KAKADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are arising from the common award passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.221 and 224 of 1983, on 30.4.1990 and, therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) ALL the appellants were owners of agricultural land in Survey No.529/1 of Parbhani. Land admeasuring 1 hectare 56 R from the ownership of the claimants in Land Acquisition Reference No.221 of 1983 and land admeasuring 2 hectares 19 R from the ownership of claimants came to be acquired by the State Government for the construction of residential buildings and industrial purpose at the instance of the Municipal Council, Parbhani. Section 4 Notification was issued on 8.12.1981 and possession was taken on 7.9.1982. However, the award came to be passed on 3. 3.1983 by granting compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per hectare by the Land Acquisition Officer. Pursuant to the said award, the claimants received the compensation amount on 14.3.1983, but under protest. Being dissatisfied with the compensation amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, they sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which came to be registered as Land Acquisition Reference Nos.221 and 224 of 1983. The reference court fixed the market value of the said land at Rs.55,000/- per hectare and thus, a difference of Rs.45,000/- per hectare alongwith other components like solatium and 12% increase under Section 23 and interest under Section 28 of the Act, has been granted. The land owners are obviously not happy with the enhancement and, therefore, they have filed these appeals. In support of their claim for enhancement, the land owners had placed reliance on three sale instances i.e. Exhibits 32, 33 and 34. However, it was noticed by the reference court that the sale deed at Exhibit 32 was dated 31.1.1981 in respect of a small plot of land located in Survey No.517/1 and it was a non-agricultural plot, which was not located adjacent to the land under acquisition. Similarly, the said instance at Exhibit 33 was of 12.2.1981 and it was again a small plot, which was declared non-agricultural. It was far away from the acquired land. The sale instance at Exhibit 34 was of 8.6.1981 in respect of a plot admeasuring 40 x 13 ft. and it was from Ward No.11 (Mondha area - Plot No.350). This Mondha area is in the heart of the town and the land under acquisition is located about 2 Kms.away from the said area. The learned Judge of the reference court, therefore, did not accept these three sale instances as comparable and the same were discarded for deciding the market value of the subject land.

(3.) BY considering the location of the land, the surrounding areas, as well as lack of development on the agricultural land, the reference court recorded a finding that the claimants could be granted compensation at the rate they had claimed for before the Land Acquisition Officer and nothing more. The court passed an award granting Rs.55,000/-per hectare and allowed the reference partly accordingly. However, Section 25(1) and Section 25(2) have been substituted by Section 25 by Act 68 of 1984 and Section 25, which is applicable in the instant case, reads thus :