ASHOK GULABCHAND BHUTADA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 16.09.1988 delivered by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 32 of 1982. By very same judgment, the Lower Court has also decided Land Acquisition Case No. 33/1982 and appeal filed by the land owner therein by name . Omprakash, vide First Appeal No. 83 of 1990 is reported to have been dismissed in default.

(2.) Advocate Shri M.K.Kulkarni, appearing for appellant . Ashok, has contended that the field having black cotton soil and more fertile came to be acquired and for it the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a paltry compensation. He contends that its value was more than Rs. 10,000/- per acre and this aspect has been lost sight of by the Land Acquisition Officer. He contends that similarly, there were more than 200 trees standing in the acquired land and though a moderate amount of Rs. 2,400/- was only claimed towards these trees, the Court below has awarded only Rs. 1,000/-. He further points out that there were total 5 Kothas used for occupation and also for tying cattle in survey no.17 and they were built up with stones and rubble. Their value was about Rs. 12,000/-. The Lower Court has by trying to apply depreciation in the matter reduced the cost considerably and has awarded only Rs. 2,000/-. He further states that loose stones were collected and kept in the field for construction of cattle shed and those loose stones are used by the respondents for constructing the Dam. Amount of Rs. 1,600/- was claimed towards those stones, but, that has not been allowed. He points out that there were hedges on the land and claim of Rs. 500/- was made for breaking it. It is further contended that as part of land was not acquired, 25% of the entire compensation granted was demanded on account of severance compensation. He points out that the Court below has only granted Rs. 3,000/- to the appellant towards the trees and kothas and rest of the claims are erroneously rejected. He has taken me through the claim statement (Exh.22) filed under Section 9 before the Land Acquisition Officer and also through the evidence of the relevant witnesses to substantiate his contention. At the end, Advocate Shri Kulkarni, argued that interest awarded is also not in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) Shri O.D. Kakde, Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents on the other hand contends that the Court below has correctly appreciated the entire evidence. It noticed that the appellant could not produce any sale instances and Land Acquisition Officer had relied upon 4 sale instances. He further states that even in relation to the trees, though there was absolutely no evidence, by taking sympathetic view amount of Rs. 1,000/- each came to be given to the present appellant and other land owners. He further points out that about existence of Kotha itself there was doubt, but still giving some weight to the evidence of P.W.3 . Vyankati Mankar, the court below has again given some compensation. In relation to other claims he states that there is absolutely no evidence at all and hence the same have been rightly rejected. In relation to the argument about rate of interest after expiry of period of one year, under the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, Shri Kakde, learned Assistant Government Pleader has contended that law has been applied correctly by the Court below.