VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. NANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH , this appeal and cross -objection are directed against the judgment and Award passed on 03.2.2007 in Land Acquisition Case No. 220 of 2005 by Ad hoc District Judge 1, Yavatmal. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal and cross -objection are briefly stated as under:

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 3, Special Land Acquisition Officer, acquired agricultural land bearing survey no. 43, admeasuring 3.64 hectares and another land bearing survey no. 93, admeasuring 2.84 hectares belonging to respondent no. 1 (Cross -objector) for submergence of these lands under Bembla Irrigation Project. The lands were situated in village Bhatmarg, Tq. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal. Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was published on 17.12.1998. The Special Land acquisition Officer, after completing the necessary formalities and following the procedure, passed the Award on 16.6.2001 granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 58,464/ - per hectare for Gat No. 43 and Rs. 58,164/ - per hectare for Gat No. 93 for the land admeasuring 2.79 hectares and at the rate of Rs. 1,500/ - per hectare for the land admeasuring 0.05 hectare, left out of Gat No. 93. The Special Land Acquisition Officer also fixed the value of 11 Berry trees at Rs. 440/ - and Two Bel trees at Rs. 3,074/ -. Since respondent no. 1 was not satisfied with the fixation of these rates of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, he preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court after considering the evidence available on record and hearing the rival parties, enhanced the rates of compensation so determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He enhanced the rate to Rs. 1,20,000/ - per Hectare for all the lands in these Gat Nos. and also enhanced the compensation rate for berry trees to Rs. 200/ - per tree and the rate of compensation granted for the Bel trees was confirmed. Not satisfied with the said judgment and Award the present First Appeal and Cross -objection have been filed.

(3.) SHRI Patil has taken me through the evidence available on record and argued that this evidence would show that the sale instance of village Panas upon which reliance has been placed by the Reference Court in recording a finding that it was a comparable sale instance warranting enhancement in compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is absolutely not justified. He submits that the map filed on record vide Ex. 29 in respect of various villages situated in Taluka Babhulgaon would show that village Panas is not only separated by two villages from Bhatmarg but also had different characteristics in the sense that on the two sides of village Panas, a river was flowing which was not the geological feature of village Bhatmarg. He submits that these features distinguish the lands situated in village Bhatmarg from those lands of village Panas and, therefore, the sale instance of a land situated in village Panas vide ex. 32 was of no use so as to determine the appropriate rate of compensation for acquisition of the land in village Bhatmarg. He further submits that no evidence has been adduced by respondent no. 1 in a specific manner establishing the fact that the lands situated in village Bhatmarg were similar in nature, grade and fertility with the lands situated at village Panas in respect of which sale instance was produced in evidence by respondent no. 1. He also submits that respondent no. 1 has admitted in his cross -examination that he did not adduce any evidence of expert so as to prove his contention that there was similarity of lands between the lands from village Bhatmarg and land from other villages, of which sale instances were produced in evidence. He, therefore, submits that in such a situation, the Reference Court should not have interfered with the rates of compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.