STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PANDIT UMASHANKAR CHANDRIKAPRASAD DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government and its officer viz. Executive Engineer have questioned the judgment and order dated 17.8.1989 delivered by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, in Land Acquisition Case No. 43 of 1986. The said case was filed by present respondent questioning the Notification published by Land Acquisition Officer in 1984 acquiring his house and courtyard surrounding it for total amount of Rs.33,357.61 ps. Initially amount of Rs.48,614/- was paid to present respondent as advance towards said compensation. As in actual determination, the price worked out to be less, the Land Acquisition Officer ordered recovery from present respondent. The respondent - land owner then approached under Sec. 18 and claimed total compensation of Rs.1,16,050/- for plot and also for surrounding land by placing reliance upon valuation report dated 23.4.1986 prepared by one B.R. Deshmukh, Civil Engineer. Before the trial Court, parties adduced evidence and the evidence of expert witness and other evidence is considered by trial Court in paras 9 and 10. The trial Court in paras 14 and 15 then found that evidence of land owner was totally unacceptable and at the same time, act of present appellants in calculating the compensation was also not acceptable. It, therefore, awarded amount of Rs.80,000/- to present respondent with 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 12% interest under Section 23(1-A) and 9% interest under Sec. 28 of the Act.

(2.) I have heard Shri Mandpe, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Shri Rizwy, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned Assistant Government Pleader in the above background has contended that challenge in reference proceedings was to the amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and burden to prove market value was, therefore, upon present respondent. He contends that bare perusal of impugned judgment is sufficient to hold that the respondent has failed to discharge that burden. He, therefore, argues that compensation of Rs.33,356.61 ps. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer needed to be maintained and could not have been interfered. He has taken the Court through relevant evidence and also through the judgment of the lower Court.