STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GORKHI TUKARAM MASRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is part heard. It was adjourned yesterday as nobody appeared for the respondents-land owners. Today again there is no appearance for them.

(2.) The appeal by the State Government is under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and challenges judgment delivered on 07/12/1985 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No. 20 of 1983. One Gorkhi s/o Tukaram Masram, the original respondent before this Court has filed the said application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Civil Court. He owned land survey No. 215/2 at mouza Masod admeasuring 11.61 acres and it was acquired by the State Government for settling project affected persons by establishing a new Gaonthan. The villages Masod and Mahakali were then going to be submerged because of irrigation project of Dham river. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 26/7/1979 and additional notification was published on 27/3/1980. The possession of land was taken by the Government in May, 1979 and the award has been published on 23/02/1981. As per the award, total amount of Rs. 18,137.94 came to be granted to Gorkhi. In his proceedings before the Civil Court, Gorkhi claimed that lands in the vicinity were sold at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre and hence, he should have been given at least the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. He stated that his land was dry crop land and of the same type as that of witnesses. He examined three witnesses i.e.; his son Sakharam, a neighbouring land owner Hiralal, cultivators Shionandan and Kashiram Varhade. After appreciation of this evidence, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha found that Gorkhi was entitled to get amount of Rs. 46,440/- as claimed by him. He has also granted him 15% solatium on the same as also interest @ 12% amounting to Rs. 8,512/-. This judgment is being questioned in the present appeal.

(3.) The learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Mandpe has argued that the Civil Court has not tried to ascertain or work out the rate per acer prevailing on the date of Section 4 notification and further the question whether lands of other person in relation to whom sale instances were being cited were same or similar as that of Gorkhi has also not been gone into. He has invited attention of the Court to the pleadings of Gorkhi in this respect and also evidence on record. He states that burden to prove the alleged market value was upon Gorkhi and that he has failed to discharge it, the compensation as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer deserves to be maintained.