MAKHARIA FACTORIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal No. 108/1987 is by land owners. While the other First Appeal No.46/1987 is by the acquiring body. Challenge in First appeals is to the judgment dated 3rd December, 1986 delivered in Land Acquisition Case No.7/1982 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khamgaon.

(2.) Land ad-measuring 2,65,999 sq. ft. from Nazul plot no.2 and 98,333 sq.ft. from Nazul plot no.3, out of sheet no.42 C of Khamgaon belonging to the present land owner came to be acquired by State Government for establishing market committee and market yard for Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khamgaon which is the acquiring body. The State Government is respondent no.1 in both these appeals. The land owners claimed compensation of Rs. 13,24,046/- before the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded them total compensation of Rs. 2,55,032.40, roughly @ 0.70 paise per square feet. Not satisfied with this, the land owners filed Reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Civil Court and claimed amount which was denied to them by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claim therefore 4 was for Rs. 6,58,450/- more. The learned Civil Court after adjudication granted amount of Rs. 1,43,667/- towards land and Rs. 1371/- towards structure with solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9%. In present appeals before this Court, the land owners are contending that when they proved that rate was Rs. 2.25 ps. per square ft., the said rate ought to have been given. In addition there is a demand of severance compensation contending that plot no.4 which had direct access to National Highway, had lost that advantage because of acquisition of plot nos. 2 and 3. Lastly, it is contended that the value of structure has not been properly fixed by the Civil Court and attention has been invited to the evidence of Engineer Mr. Mohan Chandak.

(3.) Advocate Mohta, learned counsel for land owners has contended that the impugned judgment of the Civil Court does not take into account all these aspects and is therefore, liable to be modified to the extent sought for by the appellant. He has placed reliance upon the judgment Kashinath Atmaram Kothavade .vrs. State of Maharashtra, 1992 2 MhLJ 987to state that the small plot or their valuation is also relevant for determining the correct value of large parts of land. He further states 5 that the Court below has not made any allowance for compulsive acquisition and he has placed reliance upon principle as followed in State of Maharashtra .vrs. Pandurang Patil and others, 2007 6 MhLJ 701 He further states that appeal filed by the acquiring body is in any way misconceived and needs to be dismissed and he seeks to rely upon the judgment of this Court reported at State of Maharashtra .vrs. Kathod Hasu Patil and others., 2007 6 MhLJ 711 He further points out that interest has not been awarded as required by Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.