Bombay High Court
V.I.D.C. Thru. Executive Engineer vs Niranjan Narayan Hukare & 2 Ors on 27 February, 2019
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
FA 939/07 1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL No. 939/2007
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through its Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1. Niranjan s/o Narayan Hukare,
Aged about 40 years, Occ.: Farmer,
R/o Malapur, Distt. Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.B. Patil, counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent no.1.
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
The Acquiring Body has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the said Act') as it is aggrieved by the judgment in L.A.C. No.110 of 2004.
2. By notification dated 26.11.1998, the plot and the constructed portion of the property situated at village Malapur, Taluka and District Yavatmal came to be acquired for construction of Bembla Dam. By passing an award, the Land Acquisition Officer granted an amount of Rs.70/- per square meter for the open plot and Rs.74,059/- for ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 03:53:02 ::: FA 939/07 2 Common Judgment the constructed portion. Not being satisfied with the said amount of compensation, claimant filed reference proceedings. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per square meter for the open plot and has granted Rs.1,50,000/- for the constructed portion. Hence, this appeal.
3. Shri A.B. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the enhancement as granted by the Reference Court was on a higher side without there being sufficient evidence on record. He referred to the deposition of the claimant's witness to indicate that the evidence on record did not warrant grant of enhancement at the rate of Rs.200/- per square meter for the open plot as well as an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the constructed portion. It was thus submitted that by misconstruing the evidence on record, the Reference Court has granted higher compensation which deserves to be reduced.
4. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent no.1 on 25.02.2019. Today also, there is no appearance. Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
5. The following point arises for determination:-
"Whether the judgment of the Reference Court deserves to be interfered with?"
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 03:53:02 :::
FA 939/07 3 Common Judgment
6. Heard the learned counsel and perused the records of the case. The evidence on record placed by the claimant includes the adjudication with regard to village Dighi which was at a distance of two kilometers from village Malapur. Similarly, there is reference to the rate of land prevalent at village Pahur. After considering the report of the Valuer at Exhibit 34 alongwith the said sale instance, the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation for the open plot to Rs.200/- per square meter. In the light of the evidence on record and its consideration in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, that enhancement is found to be reasonable.
7. As regards the compensation for the constructed area, the report of the Valuer at Exhibit 34 indicates market price of the constructed portion to be Rs.3,16,440/-. As per the report at Exhibit 34, there are about seven rooms in the acquired structure. Considering the contents of the report at Exhibit 34 alongwith the cross-examination of the Valuer, it is found that the Reference Court was justified in granting an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the constructed portion. It is thus clear that the entire evidence on record has been considered while partly enhancing the amount of compensation.
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 03:53:02 :::
FA 939/07 4 Common Judgment
8. It is however pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, the compensation that has been paid to the claimant has been wrongly mentioned as Rs.1,22,528/-. That figure ought to be Rs.77,549/-. Thus from the amount of Rs.1,67,400/- an amount of Rs.77,549/- is liable to be deducted giving the additional compensation to be Rs.89,851/-. To that extent, the judgment of the Reference Court is liable to be corrected. The point as framed is accordingly answered.
9. As a result, the following order is passed:-
I. While maintaining the rate of compensation granted for the open plot as well as for the constructed area, an additional compensation to which the claimant would be entitled is Rs.89,851/-.
II. Aforesaid amount shall be payable alongwith all statutory benefits.
10. The First Appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 03:53:02 :::