STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHIMABAI BHIKA GONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal No. 841 of 2005 has been preferred by the State against the judgment and award dated 30th September, 2000 passed by the Reference Court in LAR No. 88 of 1990 titled as Babu Rama Gandal vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.8. The State has filed Appeals in each of the references as the Reference Court had disposed of 24 References vide the impugned judgment.

(2.) The necessary facts are that the State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 19th November, 1981, proposing to acquire land at village Bibi, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune. In furtherance to this notification, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13th May, 1982. The Government took possession of the land and after granting opportunity to the claimants, the Special Land Acquisition Officer ("SLAO") made his award on 15th September, 1986. In the Award, various sales instances were considered by the SLAO from village Bibi and adjoining villages viz. Vetale, Kadadhe, etc. The sale instances which were examined by the SLAO were from the years 1975 to1981 and he grouped the lands into 5 classes and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000/-to Rs. 12,000/-per hectare, depending upon the nature of the land. On the basis of the land revenue assessment and while even considering the valuation, the market value payable on the principle of valuation by income capitalization method, he determined the compensation payable for the entire acquired area of 285 hectares, 46.6 ares at Rs. 75,22,608/-.

(3.) The claimants, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded for acquisition of their respective lands, preferred references under Section 18 of the Act, which were referred by the SLAO in accordance with law and were finally adjudicated by the Reference Court. Before that court, in LAR No. 89/90, the claimants claimed that their lands were bagayat lands and the market value of the land was Rs. 40,000/-per hectare. They produced sale instances at Exhibits-24, 26, 28, 32 and 34, 7/12 extracts at exhibits-41 to 45 and also examined six witnesses including the claimant and the parties to the sale deeds. On the basis of this oral and documentary evidence, the Claimants had claimed a sum of Rs. 40,000/-per hectare. However, by way of an amendment before the Reference Court, they amended the claim petition to claim Rs. 80,000/-per hectare. In LR No. 88/90 and the other connected references, the claimants tendered the judgment in LR No. 89/90 as Exhibit-33 and led oral evidence. Exhibit-26 was the oral evidence of the claimants and no other documentary or oral evidence was led by the parties.