LAWS(BOM)-2023-4-125

NUJHATBEGUM SYED WAJIR ALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On April 12, 2023
Nujhatbegum Syed Wajir Ali Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants who are original claimants in L.A.R. No. 68 of 2002 (Old No. 135 of 1998) have challenged the judgment and award dtd. 6/1/2004 passed therein by the 1st Adhoc Additional District Judge, Biloli (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Reference Court") for enhancement of compensation. Under the impugned judgment the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.80,000.00 per hectare from Rs.70,000.00 per hectare in respect of lands of the appellants under acquisition.

(2.) The backgrounds facts of the case are as follows :

(3.) The learned Reference Court submits that, lands of the appellants were situated within Municipal Council limit of village Kundalwadi and the adjoining lands were converted for the use of non-agricultural purpose. He further submits that, village Kundalwadi is a big market place, which is connected to the major cities. Further, according to him the lands under acquisition was adjacent to the A.P.M.C., Zilla Parishad Primary School, Government Hospital, P.H.C. from Northern side. Further, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants had produced Town Planning Map at Exh. 36 comparable sale instances namely, sale-deeds at exhibits 44, 46, 62 and 64, which clearly indicated that the market rate at the relevant time was much more higher than the rate granted by the learned Reference Court. Further, it was also revealed by the map at Exh.36 that the land under acquisition was residential land. He further submits that, land was surrounded by developed land which was being used for any purpose but the learned Reference Court did not consider all these aspects and granted very meagre amount of compensation. According to him, the learned Reference Court despite observing N.A. potentiality of the land, fnally concluded that the land under acquisition was only used for agricultural purpose and therefore, refused to grant more compensation. Besides the submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on following judgments :-