Bombay High Court
Sicom Ltd. Thr. Its Regional Manager, ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. The Collector Wardha ... on 13 July, 2017
fa160.06.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.160 OF 2006
Sicom Ltd. through its
Regional Manager,
Uddyog Bhavan,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] State of Maharashtra through
the Collector, Wardha.
2] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
[MIW], Wardha.
3] Gopal s/o Jagdishprasadji Mundada,
Aged about 28 years, Occ: Business
and Cultivation, R/o Beed, Tah. Khandwa
Dist. East Nimad (M.P. through P.A.
Holder Shri Govind s/o Kanhaiyalalji
Mundada, R/o Sindhi Railway,
Tq. Seloo, Dist. Wardha. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. Dharaskar, Advocate holding for Shri Anand
Parchure, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri M.A. Kadu, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: DR. (SMT.) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE: th
13 JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] By this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the appellant which is an acquiring body, is challenging the judgment and award passed by 4 th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Wardha on 20.10.2005 in Land ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 23:56:48 ::: fa160.06.J.odt 2 Acquisition Case No.92/1991, thereby granting additional compensation of Rs.63,181/- to the respondent No.3-claimant. 2] Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:
Respondent No.3 was the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.42/1 admeasuring 4.82 H.R. situated at village Parsodi, Tahsil Seloo, District Wardha. In pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and published on 12.06.1985 in the local newspaper and on 27.06.1985 in the Government Gazette, the said land came to be acquired by the respondents. As per the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 29.03.1988, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per hectare with statutory benefits.
3] Being not satisfied with the meagre amount of compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O., the reference was made by respondent No.3 to the Trial Court under Section 18 of the Act. It was the contention of the respondent that his land was fertile one and fetching him annual profit of Rs.25,000/-. It was also irrigated from the well water. The land was adjacent to Seldoh Kandhali metal road and was near to Sindhi Railway Station ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 23:56:48 ::: fa160.06.J.odt 3 town. It was having all the facilities including near by sugar factory. Hence, the market value of the land cannot be less than Rs.75,000/- per hectare. Respondent No.3 also claimed compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards the Well. 4] This reference petition came to be resisted by the appellant contending inter alia that the compensation paid by the S.L.A.O. is legal and correct. Respondent No.3 has not produced any evidence on record to prove the market price of the land and as the S.L.A.O. has passed the award considering the location, situation, potentiality of the acquired land and after having regard to the various sale instances, no interference was warranted in the award of the S.L.A.O. 5] In support of his case, respondent No.3 examined his power of attorney holder and also lead the evidence of one witness by name Shri Sudhakar Vishwanathrao Khedkar. As against it, on behalf of appellant the evidence of S.L.A.O. Shri Suresh Kalu Jadhav was led.
6] In the light of this oral evidence and other documentary evidence produced on record by both the parties, the ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 23:56:48 ::: fa160.06.J.odt 4 learned Reference Court was pleased to enhance the compensation for the acquired land to Rs.30,000/- per hectare from Rs.10,000/- per hectare, which was awarded by the S.L.A.O. As regards the compensation for the well it was held by the Reference Court that the respondent No.3 has not produced on record the valuation report of the Architect and hence in the absence of any evidence, respondent No.3 cannot be entitled for the said compensation.
7] This judgment of the Reference Court enhancing the amount of compensation for the acquired land is challenged in this appeal by learned counsel for appellant Shri Parchure, by submitting that there was no convincing, reliable or cogent evidence produced on record by respondent No.3 for enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per hectare. It was submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon the judgment delivered in L.A.C. No.102/1991 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in respect of the land purchased by Vijay Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha. However, it is urged that the acquired land bearing Survey No.49/1 is in interior area. Even in respect of sale-deed at Exh.80, it is submitted that the said sale transaction was also in respect of the land situate in Sindhi ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 23:56:48 ::: fa160.06.J.odt 5 Railway town, whereas the acquired land is outskirt of the Sindhi Railway town and hence, it is urged that the enhancement as granted by the Reference Court is not at all justified. 8] Respondent No.3 the original claimant was duly served with notice. However, he failed to remain present. It may be stated that he has not filed any appeal or cross-objection challenging the enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded by the Reference Court.
9] Hence the only point which arises for my consideration is whether the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court is just, legal and correct?
10] In this case, in addition to his own evidence, respondent No.3 has also lead the evidence of one witness by name Sudhakar Khedkar, the Secretary of Vijay Co-operative Housing Society. The said society had purchased 0.77 land bearing Survey No.49/2 for Rs.40,000/- by registered sale-deed on 19.02.1983 from one Bhalchandra Chavan. The society has also purchased another piece of land bearing Survey No.49/1 for consideration of Rs.80,000/- on 22.06.1983 from Ratansing ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 23:56:48 ::: fa160.06.J.odt 6 Chavan. The first sale-deed pertains to the land admeasuring 0.77 R, whereas the second sale-deed was of 1.80 HR. The Reference Court has considered both these sale instances and the evidence of this witness Sudhakar Khedkar and found that as his sale-deeds pertain to the lands situate at Sindhi Railway town, which was much more advanced, compared to the village Parsodi, which is interior area and 3 Km. away from Sindhi Railway town, the Reference Court has not relied upon the sale-deeds.
11] The Reference Court has then considered the fact that the S.L.A.O. has in his award taken note of 161 sale transactions and determined the market value of the acquired land as Rs.11,541/- per hectare. It is found that Reference Court has also considered the evidence of S.L.A.O. Shri Suresh Jadhav that village Parsodi is at a distance of 15 Km. away from Seloo. There was no market place and the acquired land was not having any industrial or non-agricultural potential. The Reference Court has then also considered that in another L.A.C. No.102/1991, the compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per hectare was awarded by the Reference Court. However, it was found that the said land was situate at Sindhi Railway station town where as acquired land ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 23:56:48 ::: fa160.06.J.odt 7 was situate at out skirts of the town and there was no evidence of any residential houses or layouts nearby. Hence, it cannot feth the market value of Rs.45,000/- per hectare and will fetch less market value.
12] Thus, taking into consideration the location of the acquired land, its potentiality and the comparable sale instances, the Reference Court has, in my considered opinion, rightly enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per hectare. The compensation awarded or enhanced by the Reference Court thus being just, reasonable and adequate, no interference is warranted therein. The Reference Court has also rejected the claim of respondent No.3 for compensation of Well finding that there was no evidence of expert Valuer or Architect to that effect.
13] Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court shows that it has taking a balance view of the matter, granted additional compensation of Rs.63,181/-. The appeal therefore, holds no merit and hence stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 23:56:48 :::