STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. YASHWANT KAHNU SHIRSATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two appeals were taken as lead cases out of the bunch of 159 First Appeals listed together for hearing. Various learned counsel appearing for the respective parties advanced their arguments by referring to the evidence in these two cases. Thus, by this common judgment, we will dispose of all these appeals as they are based upon common evidence and on somewhat similar facts.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, exercising his powers on behalf of the Government, issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), intending to acquire the land for the project of Mukane Dam from different villages as they were adjacent to each other. This also included the land from village Kavanai, Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik. The notification was issued on 25th May, 1994 acquiring nearly 460.92.81 hectors of land. After issuance of this notification, undisputedly the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act was followed whereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his award dated 20th October, 1995, awarded compensation to the claimants in respect of the acquired lands at different rates of Rs. 35,000/-, 40,000/-, 45,000/-, 50,000/-, 55,000/-, 60,000/- and 65,000/- per hector depending upon various factors. The claimants being dissatisfied from the award of the said Officer preferred references under Section 18 of the Act which, in turn, were sent by the Collector to the Court of competent jurisdiction and the 5th Additional District Judge, Nashik, vide his judgment and award dated 31st August, 2004, granted additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/-, 1,30,000/- and 1,50,000/- per hector depending upon the revenue to which these lands were assessed. Though the original claimants had accepted the compensation on 16th November, 1995, still they preferred references under Section 18 of the Act which were filed by them on 23rd December, 1995. They claimed compensation at the rate of (i) Rs.4,00,000/- per hector for bagayat/Tari (paddy) land, rabbi land and jirayat land and Rs. 1,00,000/- for pot kharaba land. The possession of the land was also taken by the acquiring authority on 1st July, 1994. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31st August, 2005, the State filed the above First Appeals before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment of the Reference Court passed in L.A.R. Nos. 88 of 1998 and 528 of 1997.

(3.) The impugned judgment is challenged by the State primarily on the ground that the compensation granted by the Reference Court is unduly excessive and, in fact, there is no evidence on record to support the finding recorded by the Court. It is also the contention raised on behalf of the State that the claimants had miserably failed to discharge their onus placed upon them for claiming any higher market value of the acquired land than the one awarded by the Collector. No instances which are comparable and have the same potential, were proved by the claimants. In order to substantiate their submission, it was vehemently argued on behalf of the State that Exhibit-19 could not form the basis for determining the fair market value of the land as it relates to a small piece and there should have been a deduction of at least 50 per cent from the reflected value. Exhibits-30 and 39 again could not be made the basis for determination of the market value as they related to different villages which were located more than two kilometres away and the land covered under those exhibits was paddy land having a different potential than the acquired land. In order to justify their claims for enhancement, the claimants refuted the submissions made on behalf of the State to argue that, in fact, the compensation should have been granted on the basis of Exhibit-24 where the land in the same village was sold at the rate of Rs. 2 lakhs per hector, Exhibits P-14 and P-15 relating to the adjacent village where the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 2,12,000/- and even on higher prices. These instances were comparable and were having the same potential as stated by P.W.1. Even the awards pronounced by the Court in relation to notification under Section 11 of the Act for acquiring the lands covered by L.A.R. No. 109 of 1997 decided on 29th September, 2004, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The claimants also relied upon the sale deed dated 14th October, 1993 (Exhibit-17), where the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000/- per hector. While referring to this documentary evidence read with the oral evidence led by the claimants, the claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in one of the cross objections being Cross Objection (Stamp) No. 13417 of 2007 which was even barred by time.