ASHOK SIDRAMAPPA YENEGURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Jt. Civil Judge S.D.,Omerga,dated 6.4.2013 in LAR No.533/2005 (old No.383/1999),the original claimant has preferred First appeal No.2944/2013 and the respondents/State has preferred First Appeal No.3413/2015.

(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeals, are as follows :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, market price of the acquired land was Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- Gunthas or Rs.15/- to Rs.20/- per square feet on the date of notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel submits that, village Jewali is a big village in Omerga Taluka having population of more than 10,000 to 15,000 and there was demand from villagers to grant status of Taluka Place to village Jewali. Facilities like tar road, school, colleges, I.T.I. College, MSEB Sub Stations, Primary health center, Veterinary Hospital, Water Supply Office, Telephone Exchange, Marketing Federation, Banks, Saw Mills, Oil Mills, Hotels, small scale industries, post office, Khadi Gramodyog center, Government Offices etc are in existence at village Jevali. Moreover, there is big industrial unit of production of submersible pump set. Village jevali is adjacent to National High Way No.9. So also Akkalkot-Nagpur tar road is passing from this village and there was and is acute shortage of accommodation at village Jewali. Due to earthquake in the year 1993, 90% of the houses of the villager were collapsed at Jevali and, as such nobody was willing to reside in the old Gaonthan. There is a river towards south side of village. Therefore, except land of the claimant which is situated towards south-north corner of old village, there was no suitable land available for residential and commercial purpose. So, there was high demand of land and plots for residential and commercial purpose. Learned counsel submits that, acquired land is having N.A. potential value and also useful for construction purpose. The adjacent land holders of the acquired land i.e. land Gat no.4 Shri Ramesh Sakhare and one Mhadabai Karbhari who is owner of land gat no.3 have converted the lands in NA use. There was heavy demand for residential plots from the acquired land and as such, the claimant had agreed to sell some plots to the villagers. Claimant had executed agreement of sale in the year 1992 and 1994 of his land gat no.7 and out of the land S.No.8, some portion was converted into NA plots. On 2.2.1991 claimant has sold 3 gunthas of land for a consideration of amount of Rs.30,000/-. He has also sold one another plot to one Allahasani Tamboli for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- and agreement of sale came to be executed in writing on 3.3.1994. Even the claimant has also filed a proposal to Tahsildar on 19.1.1995 seeking permission for conversion of the land for NA purpose alongwith the map and other necessary documents. Said proposal was not specifically rejected. Learned counsel submits that, in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue code, such a permission shall be deemed to have been granted for proposed use of land for non agricultural purposes, if not rejected specifically within 45 days. N.A use of the land gat no.3 which was known as land Sy.No.3/4 came to be sanctioned by the Revenue authority on 25.9.1984. The land admeasuring 1H 88R out of the land gat no.3 came to be converted for NA purpose accordingly. Even, the owner Mhadabai Ankush Karbhari has sold out some plots and those plots are at a distance of 1000 feet away from the acquired land. Learned counsel further submits that, with reference to section 4 notification of the acquired land which came to be published on 8.8.1996, the claimant has relied upon the sale deed exh.52 dated 22.12.1989, sale deed exh.53 executed on 20.3.1993 and sale deed exh.54 executed on 9.12.1997 (as per agreement of 3.7.1996). These sale instances are from the same village, however, reference court has not considered the same. The learned Judge of the Reference Court in paragraph no.18 of the impugned judgment and award accepted the N.A. potentiality of the acquired land in unequivocal words. Learned counsel submits that, however, reference court has erroneously held that, claimant will be entitled to the compensation of 50 percent of the total area being rest of the area will be utilized for the developments like approach road to any main road, the sub roads and then for the open belts. Learned counsel submits that, even though, reference court has considered the non agriculture potentiality of the acquired land, discarded the sale instances for the reason that, those are the small piece of land and which were under development. Reference Court has thus awarded compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per gunthas to the whole acquired land.