(1.) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra as it is aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court dated 30/03/1992 thereby granting compensation for acquired land at the rate of Rs.2000/- per acre.
(2.) By Notification dated 13/09/1984 land admeasuring 64 R belonging to the respondent herein was acquired by the Irrigation Department for construction of a building for Government office. Prior thereto the possession was taken on 16/08/1982. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 10/06/1987 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per acre for about 0.43 acre land and at the rate of Rs.2/- per acre for 0.21 acre land which was potkharab land. The respondent being aggrieved filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. The claimant examined himself in support of the reference application. By the impugned judgment the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs.2000/- per acre. Hence this appeal.
(3.) Shri A. R. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant/State submitted that the evidence on record brought by the claimant was not sufficient to warrant enhancement in the amount of compensation. According to him sale instances at Exhibits-34, 35 and 36 were photocopies of the sale-deeds and in absence of there being any certified copy of those sale-deeds, they could not have been taken into consideration for enhancing the amount of compensation. In that regard he relied on the decisions in Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. vs. Purya and ors., 2004 8 SCC 270. and R. L. Jain (D) by LRs. vs. D.D. A. and ors., 2004 AIR(SC) 1904. It was further submitted that in the light of adjudication of Land Reference No.14/1984 the enhancement as awarded was on higher side in view of the fact that the Notification dated 13/04/1981 was under consideration in those proceedings. The Reference Court therein had granted compensation of Rs.1000/- per acre. It was then submitted that under provisions of Section 23 (1A) of the said Act, as possession was taken prior to the Notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act, interest would be payable from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the said Act and not from the date when possession was taken. On these counts it was submitted that the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.