SHALINI VAMAN GODBOLE Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arise from the common award dated 29/4/1995 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, S.D. at Solapur in L.A.R. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1992. First Appeal No. 182 of 1996 has been filed by one of the claimants in LAR No. 65 of 1992 praying for further enhancement in the market rate as well as for building/structures and severance. Whereas the Solapur Municipal Corporation has filed First Appeal Nos. 471 of 1996 and 212 of 1997 challenging the market rate fixed at Rs.600/per sq.mtr. by the Reference Court and similar challenge has been raised by the State Government in First Appeal Nos. 678 and 679 of 1996. Hence, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) SHRI Daji Umbrajkar was the owner of agricultural land in Survey No. 464, which subsequently became a part of the Municipal limits of Solapur. The said land was granted by Shri Daji Umbrajkar to Shri Ganesh Mate in the year 1875, on the condition that he would construct a Shiva Temple and would pay rent equal to the land revenue. Shri Daji Umbrajkar died shortly after the permanent lease was made in favour of Shri Ganesh Mate and Daji's son Venkat Umbrajkar had filed a Civil Suit for taking over possession of the subject land as the main condition of construction of Shiva Temple was not fulfilled. In the suit proceedings, Mate family agreed to construct the Temple and the suit was compromised. The Temple was constructed in the year 19021903 and the land remained with Mate family and came to be known as 'Mate Baug'. On the demise of Shri Ganesh Mate, the land came to be mutated in the name of his sonShri Ramchandra who begot three sons i.e. Mahadeo, Shankar and Vishnu. On the demise of Shri Ramchandra, the names of his legal representatives were entered vide Mutation Entry No. 1518 certified on 29/12/1952 and this clearly indicated that Mahadeo, Shankar and Vishnu, the three sons of Shri Ramchandra, succeeded to the property and their ownership was confirmed in Second Appeal No. 1278 of 1964 and Mahadeo's 1/3rd share was determined in a suit for partition i.e. Civil Suit No. 284 of 1980 decided on 23/9/1982.

(3.) IT was submitted by Mr. Shah the learned counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No. 182 of 1996 that though only one of the claimants has filed an appeal for further enhancement of compensation, by taking recourse to the provisions of Order XLI Rule 33 of C.P.C. the Appellate Court has powers to enhance the compensation amount even in the absence of any appeals by the other claimants. In support of these submissions he has placed reliance on the decision in the case of S. Nazeer Ahmed vs. State Bank of Mysore and ors. [AIR 2007 SC 989]. Mr. Jamdar the learned counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that the sale instances considered by the Land Acquisition Officer were just and proper and at any rate when the sale instance of 1986 from the neighbouring plot indicated the market rate at Rs.100/per sq.mtr., the Reference Court fell in error in discarding the said sale instances and relying upon the valuation report at Exh. 55 submitted by PW 2 and the ready reckoner (Exhs. 78 and 79). He also submitted that the G.R. Dated 31/10/1994 was not applicable and the Reference Court could not have placed reliance on the said resolution. As per Mr. Jamdar the financial condition of the Corporation is weak and it cannot bear the financial burden as imposed by the impugned award. In support of the challenge to the impugned award, Mr. Jamdar has placed reliance on the following decisions :