WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD Vs. ZITRU VITHAL PIMPALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are filed under Section 20 of Coal Bearing Ares (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1957) by the acquiring agency i.e. Western Coalfields Limited. It is not in dispute that first seven appeals mentioned above have been disposed of by Special Tribunal by common judgment while remaining appeals have been disposed of by separate but identical judgments. The matters were, therefore, placed for final hearing together. The necessary paper book for consideration of these matters is placed in First Appeal No. 636 of 1992. The lands of respective respondents have been acquired under the above mentioned Act of 1957 and initial Notification under Section 4 was published on 2.5.1987 and then final notification under Section 9 was published on 15.2.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer delivered the award and determined the compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per Hectare for Wawari (dry crop land) and @ Rs.20,000/- or Rs.25,000/- or Rs.30,000/- for Paddy land and irrigated land depending upon its quality. The Special Tribunal in proceedings filed before it under Section 14 of Act of 1957, has enhanced the rate further and granted different rates. These rates are being questioned by the appellants by pointing out that sale instance at Exh. 19 was not relevant and further by contending that the awards published by the Land Acquisition Officer vide Exhs. 24 and 25 on 20.4.1988 have not been considered.

(2.) In this background, I have heard Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Thakare, Advocate holding for Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the respondents in all the appeals.

(3.) Shri Mehadia, learned counsel has contended that the appreciation of evidence by the Special Tribunal is erroneous and reliance upon sale deed Exh. 19 by it is unwarranted. He has invited attention to consideration of this aspect in paragraphs 17 & 18 by the Special Tribunal. According to him, 10% annual rise as granted is unwarranted considering the location of the area. He also invites attention to consideration of this aspect in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 to point out the relevance of two awards published by the Land Acquisition Officer. He states that the rates were comparative and ought to have been accepted by the Special Tribunal.