SATCHIDANAND KAKODKAR Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants by this Appeal partly challenge the Award dated 18th April, 1991 in Land Acquisition Case No.69/88. THE State Government has also filed cross-objections which are dated 23rd September, 1991. In the Appeal Memo the main contention of the appellants is that interest ought to have been paid to the appellants from the date of taking possession of the land which was 29th September, 1979 and further special compensation under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, also should be paid from the said date. In the cross-objections the State Government challenged the enhancement of the market value.

(2.) THE Government by Notification dated 13th August, 1984, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Government Gazette dated 14th August, 1984, acquired several pieces of land at Kakora, Quepem Taluka, for the purpose of construction of Nanda lake at Kakora. Amongst the plots required, two plots belonged to the appellant herein which were parts of survey no. 380/1 admeasuring 290 sq. mts. and survey no. 379/1 admeasuring 1150 sq. mts. THE Land Acquisition Officer in his Award fixed a flat rate of Rs. 3/- sq. mt. THE appellants herein sought a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, regarding enhancement of compensation and which was referred to the District Judge and came to be numbered as Land Acquisition Case No.69/88. THE Reference Court allowed the Reference and fixed the value of the acquired plot in Survey no. 379/1 at Rs. 9,332/ -. Insofar as plot bearing Survey no. 380/1, the reference Court was pleased to fix Rs. 30/- per sq. mt. To this the Reference Court added solatium at the rate of 30% and additional compensation of 12% from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of the Award of the Collector or till the date of taking possession of the land, whichever was earlier. Some severance charges at the rate of 3.60 per sq. mt. for non-acquired land has also been paid. THE State Government was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of taking possession of the land and 15% for subsequent period till the date of final payment. It may be mentioned that the appellants had claimed that possession had been taken from them in the year 1978. THEy had also produced an Award passed in Land Acquisition Case No.70/88 where the Reference Court held that possession had been taken over on 29th September, 1979.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel, let me deal with the point as to whether there is material on record to sustain the enhancement of compensation as done by the Reference Court. The Reference Court insofar as plot surveyed under No.379/1 admeasuring 1150 sq. mts. has been pleased to fix compensation at Rs. 9332/- based on the yield of the land. The Reference Court relied on the expert evidence of the Deputy Director of the Department of Agriculture. The objection of the Additional Government Advocate Shri Bharne to the said evidence is that the Report was prepared much later after the Notification, and as such, it is the contention that the said Report should not be considered. Shri Jose Rebello is a Registered Valuer. he has retired as Deputy Director of Agriculture. In his evidence he has deposed to the nature of the land. He states that he inspected the property in August, 1989. It has further come in evidence that his first posting in Quepem was in 1939 and tanks of Sheldem and Kakora were coming within his jurisdiction; that on many occasions he had been to the site and therefore, he knew the paddy fields as well as the tanks. He has given his assessment of the yield. The Reference Court has accepted this evidence and fixed the compensation based on the yield. To my mind it is not possible to say that the said findings of the Reference Court are based on no material and/or are so perverse which a Court could not have arrived at. The finding by the Reference Court in respect of Survey no. 379/1 is therefore sustained. Insofar as the compensation regarding survey no. 380/1 is concerned, the Reference Court referred to the evidence of the expert who had fixed the compensation at Rs. 25/ -. The Reference Court for the bund considering all the material fixed the value at Rs. 30/- per sq. mt. Taking the value of the land as assessed and the evidence of the expert, the sum of Rs. 30/- fixed for the bund cannot be said to be unreasonable. I have therefore, no hesitation in accepting the findings by the Reference Court in respect of Survey no. 380/1 is concerned, that being the compensation for the bund only.