MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HAVING ITS OFFICE Vs. CHAMPAT GANPAT KHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is preferred by the the M.I.D.C. an acquiring body, challenging the judgment and order of 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Amravati delivered on 19/09/2005 in L.A.C. No.604 of 1999, granting additional amount of compensation of Rs.81,180/ to respondents/claimants.

(2.) Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows : Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the original claimant who was the owner of the agricultural lands bearing Gat No.92 admeasuring 3.8 hectare and Gat No.127 admeasurinng 1.6 hectare situate at village Wagholi. The said land was acquired by the appellant as per provisons of Sections 33 and 34 of the Maharasthra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and the award was passed in L.A.C. No.1/1 to 12/47/9394 by respondent No.2 on 20/03/1997. By the said award, the LAO has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.31,678/ per hectare to Gat No.127 and Rs.37,900 per hectare to Gat No.92. He had Therefore he claimed Rs.6,51,000/ for Gat No.127 and Rs.1,62,000/ for Gat No.92. Thus his total claim was for the amount of Rs.8,13,000/. As a result of award passed by the LAO, he received on the amount of Rs.1,79,044/ as total compensation and therefore being not satisfied with the said award, he has preferred reference seeking difference of Rs.6,33,956/ towards enhanced amount of compensation. However, he restricted his claim for Rs.1,50,000/.

(3.) This claim came to be resisted by the present respondent Nos.4 and 5 by filing written statement Exhibit16, interalia stating that while determining the amount of compensation, the LAO has taken into consideration sale transactions of respective villages for the period from 1989 to 1994 and on the basis of the same, he has determined market value at the rate of Rs.31,678/ per hectare which is just, reasonable and adequate. It was submitted that the land of the claimant consists of major portion as Potkharab land which was valued by the LAO separately. The amount of compenstion claimed by the petitioner/claimant was exorbitant. The LAO has considered the potential value of the acquired land and hence it was requested that the reference of the petitioner be dismissed.