NARAYAN @ CHIMA YESHWANT SHENDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award under Sec. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 29.03.1979 as amended on 15.06.1979 is questioned in this appeal under Section 54 after reference under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1894 which came to be rejected vide judgment dated 02.05.1987 delivered in Land Acquisition Case No. 17 of 1980 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. Though the Civil Judge, Senior Division found that the claimants could not establish their claim for enhanced market value, they were paid solatium @ only 15% and has further granted them additional solatium of 15% more with interest @12% as per amended provisions of Sec. 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act, 1894. It appears that claimants had some dispute with one Eknath about the share of land in question and hence amount of Rs. 69,576.38 was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Civil Court and Civil Judge found that the present appellants are entitled to receive it.

(2.) It is not in dispute that 41.53 acres of land of the present appellants at village Junewani, tahsil Saoner, district Nagpur came to be acquired by the State Government and notification under Section 4 was published on 28.04.1976. The Land Acquisition Officer found that the rate of land at the relevant time was roughly @ Rs. 12,000.00 per acre and has worked out total entitlement of present appellants to Rs. 2,79,025.51. At the time of acquisition, one Eknath @ Chindhu was claiming 1/4 th share in the said land and his claim was dismissed by 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 219 of 1977 on 11.08.1977. It appears that some matter was pending before this Court or Honble the Apex Court hence, the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the amount of Rs. 69,756.38 in the Civil Court to meet the share of Eknath and the appellant was paid the balance amount.

(3.) Advocate Shri Badiye has contended that the lands of appellant were under valued as much as the rate taken into consideration was of dry crop land but, the land of the appellant was situated adjoining to Kolar river and the river water was used for cultivation of the land for horticulture purpose. He contended that, therefore, the rate at least Rs. 22,000.00 per acre ought to have been applied for and the appellants have pointed out the sale instances in which the price fetched was up to Rs. 21,053.00 per acre. He contended that there were two wells in the field of the appellants and their value was Rs. 25,000.00 and it was also claimed in proceedings under Sec. 18. He further states that as the wells were used for irrigation purpose, there were bandhis (bunds) in the field, the amount of Rs. 3,000.00 was also claimed for the said bandhis. He argued that none of these items are considered by the Civil Court and the reference has been allowed only in relation to legal aspect without considering the factual demands.