SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE Vs. CHINDHA FAKIRA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These ten appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth, "the said Act") read with Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (by virtue of Section 53 of the said Act), challenge composite judgment delivered by Reference Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division), Jalgaon, on 4.4.2000, thereby disposing of ten Land Acquisition References i.e. LAR Nos.478, 461, 495, 465, 485, 477, 468, 491, 466 and 481 of 1999. All the appeals are preferred by the State, feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation granted in favour of respective Respondents claimants, by the Reference Court.

(2.) The Respondents are the owners of lands, which were agricultural lands from village Deoli Bhoras (8 lands) and Bilakhed (2 lands), Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. Their lands are acquired by regular land acquisition proceedings through Special Land Acquisition Officer (henceforth referred to as "SLAO") for the purpose of Minor Irrigation Tank, Deoli Bhoras. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act, was published in Government Gazette on 14.3.1996, in local newspaper on 17.4.1996 and at Grampanchayat office, on 29.4.1996. Declaration under Section 6 was published in the gazette on 10.4.1997, it was published in the local newspapers on 7.4.1997 and 8.4.1997. The SLAO declared the award on 31.3.1999. The land owners claimed that they received compensation under protest, because SLAO had awarded the compensation on the lower side. According to them, the SLAO did not consider the proper market value as on the date of notification under Section 4, he took into consideration only those sale instances, which were transactions of low prices, he also neglected rich quality and potentiality of the lands under acquisition. The SLAO failed to appoint any expert for doing proper valuation of the lands and trees therein. On the contrary, he arbitrarily classified the lands on the basis of revenue assessment, which was not just and proper. The Respondents -claimants, therefore, submitted aforesaid land acquisition references, requesting for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 3.00 lacs to Rs. 400 lac per acre of jirayat land.

(3.) From the copy of the award declared by the SLAO (Exhibit 44, all references to exhibits are from Land Acquisition Reference No. 465 of 1999), it can be seen that the lands of seven claimants are from village Bhoras (Budruk) and one from Bhoras (Khurd) i.e. of Indubai (LAR No. 477/1999), and two lands are from village Bilakhed (Shankar and Dharma) (i.e. LAR Nos.481 and 478 of 1999 respectively). From the table pertaining to demands placed by claimants before SLAO, it appears that, eight claimants placed their demands and there is no demand placed on behalf of Indubai and Shankar. Claimants Santosh, Dharma and Sahebrao claimed compensation of Rs. 2.00 lacs per hectare, whereas claimants Chintaman, Arjun, Kubabai (Kushabai), Laxman and Nimbabai on behalf of Daga, claimed compensation at Rs. 3.00 lacs per hectare. (Here itself, it must be noted that the reference court has granted compensation to all claimants at Rs. 6.00 lacs per hectare, holding their lands to be Bagayat (irrigated) lands, except to Santosh Tukaram, whose land is held to be jirayat (dry) and hence, he is awarded compensation of Rs. 3.00 lacs per hectare. Claimant Chintaman Gangadhar (LAR No. 491 of 1999) also claimed Rs. 80,000/= towards valuation of the well and Rs. 1,35,000/= towards valuation of the trees. Claimant Arjun (LAR No. 465/1999) claimed Rs. 70,000/= each towards compensation for well and trees. Claimant Kubabai (Kushabai) (LAR 495/1999) claimed Rs. 70,000/= towards well. Dharma Chindha (LAR No. 478/1999) claimed Rs. 1,40,000/= towards compensation for well and Rs. 2,10,000/= for the trees. Claimant Sahebrao Rajaram (LAR 461/1999) prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/= for structure and another Rs. 50,000/= for trees. Claimant Nimbabai on behalf of Daga (LAR No. 466/1999) claimed Rs. 70,000/= for well, Rs. 2,20,000/= for trees and Rs. 50,000/= for construction. Claimant Santosh and Laxman (LAR No. 485 and 468 of 1999) have not claimed any additional compensation, except prices of the lands at desired rate.