Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah. Thru. Collector & 2 Ors vs Mehandra Radhyshyam Singhaniya on 26 February, 2019
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
1 FA416.09(j)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.416/2009
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
2. The Special Land Acqusition Officer,
Road Project, Zilla Parishad,
Yavatmal.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Yavatmal. ..APPELLANTS
--Versus ---
1. Mahendra s/o Radhyshyam Singhaniya,
Aged about 35 years, Occupation : Legal Practitioner &
Agriculturist,
R/o Dhamangon Road, Yavatmal.
Tq. And District Yavatmal. ..RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Mrunal Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants.
None for respondent sole though served.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR,J.
DATED : 26.02.2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short, the said Act) seeks to challenge the judgment of the Reference Court in L.A.C.No.165 of 1999(165/1995) dated 12.10.2004.
2. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published on 24.04.1997 so as to acquire 0.24 R land for construction of by-pass road. The Land Acquisition Officer ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 20:48:53 ::: 2 FA416.09(j) passed his award on 14.05.1999 and granted compensation @ Rs.4,00,302/- per hectare. In the reference proceedings, this amount has been enhanced to Rs.4,75,302/- per hectare. Hence this appeal.
3. Mrs. Mrunal Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants after referring to the evidence on record submitted that the evidence led by the claimants was not sufficient warranting any enhancement in the amount of compensation. The sale instances at Exhibit 35 to 37 were in respect of layout plots while the land acquired was a part of an agricultural field. The same was surrounded on all sides by other agricultural fields and the said land did not have any non-agricultural potentiality. It was thus submitted that without properly appreciating the evidence on record, the enhancement has been granted by the Reference Court. The respondent is duly served but he has not chosen to contest the appeal.
4. With the assistance of learned Assistant Government Pleader for appellant, I have perused the records and I have given due consideration to her submissions. The following point arises for determination :
Whether the judgment of the Reference Court deserves to be interfered with ?
5. On hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for appellants and after perusing the records of the case, it is seen that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is reasonable not warranting any interference. The land in question has been acquired for laying down of a by-pass road. The Reference Court found that the prices of ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 20:48:53 ::: 3 FA416.09(j) lands adjoining the highway were having a rising trend and these lands were at a distance of about one kilometer from the city. The acquired land was also having irrigation facilities which could be seen from the 7/12 extracts at Exhibit 42. The documents at Exhibits 43 to 51 indicate sale of agricultural produce by the claimant. It is on that basis that there has been marginal enhancement of Rs.75,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. It is found that this enhancement is reasonable not warranting any interference. The point as framed is answered accordingly.
6. As a result, the judgment of the Reference Court in L.A.C.No.165/1999(165/1995) stands confirmed. First Appeal No. 416/2009 is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
The claimant is at liberty to withdraw the amount of compensation lying under deposit along with accrued interest.
JUDGE Andurkar ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 20:48:53 :::