BAYAJI TATYA KALUNGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal (No.264/ 1992) is directed by the Appellant (original claimant) in Land Acquisition Reference No.95/ 1985. feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, on 30-6-1989, thereby enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmednagar.

(2.) The important facts of the petition may briefly be stated as under: The lands from Gat Nos.412/2, 412/3, 412/4 were of the ownership of the Appellant (claimant). These lands were acquired by the respondent-State, for the purposes of construction of Minor Irrigation Tank, in village Ratnapur. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, called "Act of 1894") was published on 24-9-1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmednagar, followed the due procedure and passed the award under Section 11 of the Act ,on 13-6-1989 and awarded compensation at the irate of Rs. 3,700/- to Rs. 8,500/- per Hectare for Jirayat Land and, at Rs. 5,050/- to Rs. 12,750/ - per Hectare, in respect of Bagayat land. The Appellant (claimant) felt aggrieved by the said order and, therefore, made reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 to the Civil Court, Ahmednagar. The learned Judge of the Reference Court decided this reference and awarded compensation of Rs. 13,000/- per Hectare, in case of Jirayat Land and, Rs. 19,500/ - per Hectare in case of Bagayat Land and thus, allowed the Reference.

(3.) Even then, the Appellant (claimant) felt himself aggrieved by the said order passed by the Reference Court and preferred appeal mainly on the grounds that, firstly, the learned Judge of the Reference Court did not properly consider oral and documentary evidence adduced on record and, arrived at wrong conclusion. Secondly, the learned Judge was wrong in not accepting the award passed by the Reference Court earlier in Land Acquisition Reference No.101/1985. Thirdly, the order passed by the learned Judge is not only contrary to the principles of law but, against the facts and circumstances brought on record.