STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SUDAM GANGARAM DANGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These First Appeals are taken together, as in all these appeals, the judgment and order dated 30th June, 1992 passed by the learned Extra Joint District Judge, Pune in Land Reference Nos.110 of 1987, 107 of 1987, 109 of 1987, 111 of 1987, 112 of 1987 and 114 of 1987 respectively are under challenge. However, all the lands in these Appeals are situated at village Vadgaon Budruk, Taluka Haveli, District Pune and they were acquired for the purpose of Bombay Pune National Highway No. 4. The notification dated 27th December, 1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 17, Pune was published on 17th February, 1983. The notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 7th January, 1986 and the Award under Section 11 of the said Act was passed on 18th June, 1986 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 17, Pune. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had classified the lands as Jirayat and Bagayat and fixed the amount of compensation of Rs. 460/- per acre and Rs. 540/- per acre respectively. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the original claimants approached the District Collector and thereafter, land references were filed before the District Court, Pune for enhancement of the amount of compensation. These land references were made under Section 18 of the said Act. The original claimants have asked for fixing the rate of compensation upto Rs. 5000/- per Acre mainly on the ground that the lands are fertile and having all potentiality of development. The amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is too meager compared to market value and is to be increased. The Appellant/State had filed Written Statement in land references and denied the claim of the original claimants. It was contended that the amount of compensation was adequate and proper and the claim of the claimants is very excessive. The ground of limitation was also raised. The Reference Court framed the point of determination. The original claimants have tendered evidence of four witnesses. The Appellant/State did not lead evidence before the Reference Court. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge of the Reference Court partly allowed the claim of the claimants and enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.1,000/- per acre for Bagayat land and Rs. 800/- per acre for Jirayat land.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellant/State has filed these Appeals. In the said Appeals, the original claimants have filed Cross Objections and demanded enhancement of the amount of compensation. On the point of determination, only two factors are to be considered

(3.) Learned AGP for the Appellate/State while arguing these Appeals, has submitted that the Reference Court has erred in fixing the amount at a higher rate than the amount of compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He has further submitted that the claimants have not tendered sufficient evidence to support the findings of the Reference Court of increasing the amount of compensation. The Reference Court should have properly considered that the lands under acquisition do not have a very good non-agricultural potential and the claimants did not produce any documentary evidence to support their pleadings for enhancement. He has further submitted that the certified copies of three sale instances, which are now produced before the Court, are not sale instances which can be accepted as they are, for fixing the amount of compensation in these Appeals. He has further submitted that from the sale instances, it is not clear whether the lands under the sale deeds are of Jirayat or Bagayat lands. He has argued that mere pleadings of potentiality of non-agricultural lands are not sufficient. The claimants have failed to tender necessary evidence specifying what type of potentiality the lands have, so that enhancing the amount of compensation can be justified.