PRALHAD TUKARAM PANDHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, land owners are challenging rejection of their application under Section 18 registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 33 of 1982 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon on 30/11/1985. This judgment dated 30/11/1985 appears to be common judgment in land acquisition case Nos. 33 and 34 of 1982. Both learned Counsel are not in position to point out whether land owners in land acquisition case No. 34 of 1982 had approached this Court at any point of time. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation for land at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per hectare and for 3 wells Rs. 18,247/-. In application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the present appellants claimed rate of Rs. 37,500/- per hectare and total amount of Rs. 60,000/- for three wells. They also pointed out that there were about 150 orange trees, 150 Mosambi trees, one fruit yielding mango tree and one lemon tree in the field and hence they also claimed compensation for those trees. The Reference Court has answered the reference in negative and has upheld the grant of compensation by Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) I have heard Advocate Shri Chavan for the appellantsland owners and Shri Mandpe, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.

(3.) Advocate Chavan has contended that rate per hectare awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low and arbitrary. He contends that available sale instance was proved on record and the reasons given by the Reference Court for not accepting it are not correct. He argues that opportunity of cross examination to the land owner as also Shri Shamrao Gurav to whom said sale instance related was given to the State Government but they could not being out anything on record to disregard that sale instance. In the alternate, he argues that extent of land was before the Court and also presence of three wells was not in dispute. He contends that in such circumstance, the Court below could have very easily found out annual yield and employed capitalization method to work out compensation payable. He therefore, argues that there is failure and refusal on the part of the Court below.