BRIJMOHAN GHANSHYAM CHOUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the land owners have challenged the judgment dated 13.02.1992 delivered by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana in L.A.C.No. 25/1982. The facts are not in dispute. Plot no.8 admeasuring 7600 sq. ft. located at town Chikhali and purchased by the present appellants for Rs. 7000/- on 22.09.1970 has been acquired by the respondent no.2 M.S.R.T.C. for extension of its bus station. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 05.08.1971 and on account of opposition to its acquisition by the land owners, final award in this matter has been published on 25.02.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation @ Rs. 7000/- only. The land owners by filing Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act have claimed compensation @ Rs. 20/- per square feet. The Reference Court has found that there was no change in the situation between the date of purchase by the present appellants and date of Section 4 notification. It therefore maintained the award and grant of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved thereby the present First Appeal has been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) I have heard Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate for appellants, Shri T.A. Mirza, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent no.1 and Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for Respondent no.2.

(3.) After pointing out the facts as mentioned above, Advocate Shri Mohta, has contended that the Court below has held that in present award the Land Acquisition Officer has considered various sale instances and has accepted the application of mind by the Land Acquisition Officer. He contends that there is no such application of mind by the Land Acquisition Officer who has merely chosen to rely on the earlier adjudication. He points out that the solatium awarded is only at 15% and that has been maintained by the Reference Court. He invites attention to various sale instances placed on record and also to the fact that land acquired because of its location had commercial potential. He states that the appellants purchased the said land only because it was situated on Chikhali-Khamgaon metal Road and appellants wanted to have their commercial establishment on that plot. He states that the contractor who is running canteen in the M.S.R.T.C. premises has been paying rent at more rate than the rate of compensation awarded to the present appellants. He argues that the Court below has found that for the purpose of acquisition, lands were divided in three zones and land of the present appellants falls in Zone-A, to which rate of Re.1/- per square feet was sanctioned. He states that, that rate has not sanctioned to the present appellants by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the Reference Court. He further contends that the subsequent sale instance were also relevant and by making allowance for the number of years after Section 4 notification, the rate of land prevailing on section 4 notification date could have been worked out. He further states that even as per settled law as there was time of one year between the date of purchase and section 4 notification, 10% increase ought to have been allowed to the present appellants. He further relies upon provision of Section 23[1][A] and Section 23[2] as also Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and contends that these benefits to which the appellants are statutorily entitled, are also not given to them. He therefore states that rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. which has been established on record, ought to have been allowed by the Reference Court.