BHAVANI SHRIPAT JADHAV Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 3rd April, 1981 passed by the Assistant Judge, Chalisgaon dismissing the Land Reference bearing Misc. Civil Application No.8 of 1980, filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeal, stated in brief, are that before the acquisition the appellant was owner of land bearing Survey No.399 admeasuring 22 Acres 28 Gunthas plus 13 Gunthas of pot kharab land situated at Chalisgaon. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued for acquisition of the land. After declaration under Section 6 of the Act, a notice under Section 9 of the Act was also served on the appellant. He did not file any reply to the notice under Section 9. However, his statement was recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer on 16th August, 1976, in which the appellant stated that he may be paid compensation calculated as per Government Rules. No specific amount of compensation was claimed by the appellant. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 20th August, 1976 and awarded a sum of Rs.2,250/- per Acre towards cultivable land and an amount of Rs.80/- per Acre for pot kharab land. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the appellant moved the Collector, Jalgaon to refer the matter to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, reference was made by the Collector to the Court of District Judge who assigned the matter to the Assistant Judge for decision. Before the Assistant Judge, it was inter-alia contended that the reference was void and/or the appellant was not entitled to compensation in excess of the compensation awarded by the Collector in view of Section 25 r/w Section 31(2) of the Act. The learned Assistant Judge accepted the contention of the State that the reference was barred under Section 25 r/w Section 31(2) of the Act and that the petitioner was not entitled to claim compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, I find no error in the view taken by the learned Assistant Judge in dismissing the reference. There is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. However, in the peculiar circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs through out.