STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ANNAJI GANESH KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties were heard on the last date. The challenge in the First Appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 16th January, 1987 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sangli in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1894). A notification under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 was issued on 1st January, 1979. The Award was made on 30th April, 1982 under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned trial Judge granted enhancement in market value by holding that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 7200/- per hectare. The learned Judge also granted statutory benefits under the said Act of 1894 in favour of the respondent.

(2.) The learned A.G.P. submitted that a notice under Section 9(2) of the said Act of 1894 was duly served to the respondent-claimant but he did not file any claim. Her submission is that in view of Section 25 (unamended) of the said Act of 1894, the respondent was not entitled to claim enhancement in the compensation. The second submission is that the market value awarded is on the higher side. The learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that notice allegedly served on the respondent was not a proper notice giving time of 15 days as required by law. He submitted that the case is covered by the decision of this Court in case of Abdulla Kadar Husseinbhai Lakdawala v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Thane 1989, 1989 MhLJ 230. He submitted that in fact the market value fixed by the trial Court is on the lower side. He pointed out that the respondent has filed a cross-objection claiming market value at the rate of 10,000/- per hectare. He submitted that the cross-objection deserves to be allowed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions. I will deal with the first submission of the learned A.G.P. as regards the effect of not filing a claim. I have perused the record. I have perused the Appendix VI along with its schedule forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Reference Court along with the Application under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894. The schedule records that notice under Section 9(3)(4) of the said Act of 1894 was served to the interested persons on 21st November, 1979 and the date of enquiry was fixed on 27th November, 1979. It records that on the date of enquiry, the respondent remained absent and he did not file any claim. The respondent-claimant in his cross-examination admitted that he received notice under Section 9 of the said Act of 1894. However, no suggestion was given in the cross-examination as regards date of receipt of the notice. Thus, the date of service of notice will have to be taken as 21st November, 1979 as mentioned in Appendix VI forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It also records that the date of hearing was fixed on 27th November, 1979. The said date was obviously for holding an enquiry as contemplated by Section 11 of the said Act of 1894. There is nothing on record to show that the date of enquiry was extended or postponed to enable the respondent to file a claim.