SHARADCHANDRA NARAYANRAO PADGILWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2.5.1990 passed by Additional District Judge, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No.2/1984.

(2.) The appellant and respondent nos. 4 to 7 were coowners of property bearing Survey No.134 admeasuring 114345 sq. ft. situated within the municipal limits of Digras, District Yavatmal. State of Maharashtra published Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) on 2.7.1981 for acquisition of the said land for construction of Tahsil Office, Digras. The Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23.7.1982. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant claimed compensation @ Rs. 10/-to Rs. 15/-per sq. ft. The possession of the land was taken by the Government on 29.10.1982 . On 29.8.1983 the Land Acquisition Officer passed award granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.54 sq. ft. per square. Being aggrieved, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.2/1984, the appellant produced four sale deeds (Ex.50 to 53) and maps (Ex.54 and 55). The appellant examined Vendor in the sale deed (Ex.50)dated 27.5.1980, the vendor of the sale deed (Ex.51) dated 10.7.1981 and sale deeds (Ex. 52 and 53) dated 5.6.1982 and 13.5.1982. The Reference Court deducted 25% of the area and for an area of 85758 sq. ft. granted compensation @ Rs. 6/ per sq. ft.

(3.) Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court has erred in fixing compensation @ Rs.6/-per sq. ft. after reducing total area acquired by 25%. He further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have awarded compensation @ Rs. 12.50 per sq. ft. in respect of the entire area acquired. Mr. Agnihotri urged that the Reference Court has erred in making double deduction in respect of area as well as sale price. He further urged that since the State of Maharashtra had not utilised entire acquired land for construction purpose, the Reference Court could not have deducted 25% area towards development. In support of his submissions, Mr. Agnihotri relied upon the following judgments: