Bombay High Court
Lildhar Pandurangi Pohane vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Collector Wardha ... on 7 July, 2017
343-J-FA-333-06 1/20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.333 OF 2006
Liladhar s/o Pandurangi Pohane
Aged about 52 years,
Occ. Service, R/o Ward No.4,
Khade Lay Out, Wardha,
Tahsil & Dist. Wardha. ... Appellant.
-vs-
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Wardha.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(General) Wardha, Tah. & Dist. Wardha.
3. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division,
Wardha. Tahsil and Dist. Wardha. ... Respondents.
Shri S. U. Nemade, Advocate for appellant.
Ms S. Haider, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : DR (SMT) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
ARUGMENTS WERE HEARD ON : JUNE 20, 2017 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 7, 2017 Oral Judgment :
By this appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, appellant-the original claimant is challenging the judgment and award dated 06/03/2006 passed by the 2 nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Wardha in LAC No.278 of 2001, being partly aggrieved by the said judgment ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 2/20 and award in so far as it relates to disallowance of his claim for enhancing the amount of compensation.
2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows :
Appellant is the owner of the field bearing survey No.10 admeasuring 7.35 hectare situated at village Pimpalgaon, Tahsil Arvi, Dist. Wardha. By virtue of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23/10/1997 which was published on 29/04/1998 and in pursuance of notification issued under Section 6 of the said Act on 29/04/1999, the land of the appellant was proposed to be acquired. Accordingly, notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued to the appellant, whereupon appellant filed his objection before the Land Acquisition Officer on 19/05/1998. The Spl. LAO, vide award dated 30/11/2000, granted compensation of Rs.23,29,614/- including the cost of land and cost of orange and other trees, in addition to the cost of stone bandhs and solatium at the rate of 30% and special component interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 29/04/1998 to 30/11/2000.
3. Being not satisfied with the meagre amount of compensation awarded by the Spl. LAO, the appellant approached the Reference Court contending inter alia that the market value of the land cannot be less than Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It was submitted that the acquired land of the ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 3/20 appellant is irrigated one as the well is situated therein. However, Spl. LAO has committed an error in classifying the land into three categories of dry crop land, seasonally irrigated land and perennially irrigated land. This classification was misconceived and not warranted. As a result the Spl. LAO has given different amounts of compensation by dividing the acquired land in these three categories. The said amount of compensation is totally against the actual market value of the acquired land and hence having regard to the evidence on record it should be enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare.
4. As regards compensation for orange trees, it was submitted that as per the joint measurement report, it was found that there were totally 475 orange trees in the acquired land. However at the time of passing award, Spl. LAO has considered only 362 trees and no adequate compensation was awarded in respect of those trees and in respect of remaining 126 trees amount of compensation was not awarded at all. Hence it was submitted that on this score also, the compensation amount needs to be enhanced.
5. Further, it was submitted that Spl. LAO has awarded a very meager amount of compensation of Rs.43,205/- for the well and hence the appellant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- towards the well. In respect of the baandh, he claimed Rs.70,000/- as compensation. It was submitted before the Reference Court that the compensation given by the ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 4/20 Spl. LAO for all these components being inadequate hence the total amount of compensation to which the appellant becomes entitled is to the extent of Rs.27,30,240/-
6. This reference petition came to be resisted by the respondent contending inter alia that valuation of the land, as made by the Spl.LAO is reflecting the correct market value of the same. It was submitted that admittedly the land of the appellant was of three categories viz. Murmali, seasonally irrigated and perennially irrigated. Hence Spl. LAO has not committed any error in awarding compensation of the land as per its respective category. Further it was submitted that when the valuation of the land was made on the basis of it being irrigated land, there was no question of paying any separate amount of compensation towards orange trees and the construction of well. As regards the baandh, it was submitted that Spl. LAO has already awarded the compensation of Rs.14,400/- which is the fair amount of compensation and hence no separate order needs to be passed towards the payment of compensation for the baandh.
7. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the Reference Court framed necessary issues for its consideration. In support of his case, the appellant examined himself and one witness by name Ranjana Purushottam Deshmukh to prove the sale deed (Exhibit-42) of the adjacent land to show ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 5/20 that even the market price of dry crop land in the said area was Rs.1,60,000/- per hectare. The appellant also led the evidence of two more witnesses from Sugar Factor at Jamani and one witness by name Purushottam Wasudeorao Sagane from Arvi Sahakari Kastakari Kharedi Vikri Sanstha, Arvi. Lastly he also relied upon evidence of Talathi of the village Ajangaon viz Raju Bakaraji Dehankar. All these witnesses were cross- examined on behalf of the respondents. The respondents however did not lead any oral or documentary evidence on record.
8. Thus on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the appellant and his witnesses, the Reference Court was pleased to allow the claim petition of the petitioner partly, thereby enhancing the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.75,000/- per hectare for dry crop land admeasuring 4.40 hectare; Rs.1,12,500/- per hectare for seasonally irrigated land admeasuring 1.63 hectare and Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for irrigated land, admeasuring 1.32 hectare. Learned Reference Court however did not accept the market price for the entire acquired land, as claimed by the appellant at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court also refused the claim of the appellant towards enhanced amount of compensation for orange trees, well and baandh. Hence being aggrieved, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant seeking enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.27,30,240/-.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 6/20
9. In this appeal, I have heard at length, learned counsel for appellant and respondent. In the light of submissions advanced by them, the only issue arising for my consideration in the present appeal is whether compensation awarded by Reference Court is just and fair ? For deciding the correct amount of compensation, which can be called as fair and reasonable, the initial burden always rests upon the claimant to prove that the claim for enhanced compensation is justifiable. However at the same time, it is necessary for Court also to evaluate the evidence, on the basis of all the material placed on record by both the parties and by closely scrutinising the evidence in proper perspective to arrive at conclusion regarding adequate and reasonable market value of the land acquired. The Apex Court has in the case of Special Deputy Collector vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and ors. AIR 1997 SC 2625, clearly observed in this regard that the attending facts and circumstances in each case would furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands and it is equally relevant to consider the neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special circumstances available in each case. The Court is required to take into account all the relevant considerations. It is further observed that in that process, though some guess work is involved, feats of imaginations should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided and even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 7/20 to draw from their experience, the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. At the same time misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimant's right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes. And therefore the fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact which depends upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case.
10. Law is also well settled to the effect that the Court should not place too much emphasis on the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant about the income from the land and the best evidence would be the evidence of sale instances of similar lands at about the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
11. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Mehrawalji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and ors. vs. State of Punjab and ors. (2012) 5 SCC 432, " when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bonafide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 8/20 bonafide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying different course."
12. In the backdrop of this legal position, if one considers the evidence on record in this case, perusal of the award of Spl. LAO reflects that he has classified the acquired land of the appellant in three categories viz. dry crop land, seasonally irrigated land and perennially irrigated land. Accordingly he awarded compensation at different rates to these three categories of land. For arriving at the market value of the land, he has considered three sale instances in the award as according to him, those were the only sale instances available from village Pimpalgaon during the relevant period from 26/02/1991 to 14/02/1996. Out of these three sale instances, he found that though the sale instance of 26/02/1991 was of adjacent land to the acquired land, considering that the said sale instance has taken place seven years prior to the notification and it was for a much lessor consideration, he did not rely upon it. Even in respect of another sale instance, dated 19/01/1993, he found that the said sale instance is also of about 5 years prior to notification and it was for the sum of Rs.15,501/- for ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 9/20 the land admeasuring 2H 45 R. Hence he considered the third sale instance of the land bearing, Gut No.17 admeasuring 4 hectare and which was effected on 14/02/1996 for consideration of Rs.58491/- per hectare. As this sale instance was nearer to the date of notification and it was for a higher rate, he considered the same for determining correct market value of the acquired land. However he has decreased the value of the said sale instance by 10% on account of the fact that the revenue assessment of the said land was at higher rate than of acquired land. Then he again granted 12% increase on the ground that from the date of sale instance till the date of notification, there must be increase in the price of the land and then held that for the land having revenue assessment of Rs.3.76 to 5.00, reasonable valuation can be Rs.66,000/- per hectare. However having regard to the revenue assessment of the acquired land, he fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.41,500/-.
13. Perusal of judgment of the Reference Court shows that Reference court rightly found that classification made by the Spl. LAO depending on the revenue assessment was correct and held that the market rate of dry crop land, having regard to the evidence on record, can be assessed at Rs.75,000/- per hectare, then allowing the increase at the rate 1.5% of the value of dry crop land, Reference Court has assessed the market value of seasonally irrigated land to Rs.99,000/- per hectare. So far as perennially ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 10/20 irrigated land was concerned, Reference Court has doubled market rate of dry crop land and held that it would be proper to consider the market rate of perennially irrigated land at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare.
14. To challenge this valuation as being inadequate, much reliance is placed by learned counsel for appellant on the evidence of witness Ranjana Deshmukh, who has purchased the agricultural land of village Natala for consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- from Raju Banarao Deshmukh in the year 1996. It is submitted that as per sale deed Exhibit-42, if the dry crop land can fetch the market price of Rs.1,60,000/- then in respect of the appellant's acquired land which is to a large portion irrigated one, as having a well situate therein, appellant must get the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare for dry crop land. However sale deed Exhibit-42 can not be of much help to appellant as it is not of the village Pimplegaon where the acquired land is situated but it is of village Natala. When admittedly the sale instances of village Pimplegaon were available and which are considered by the Spl. LAO and Reference Court, the sale instance of village Natala cannot be considered, without there being any evidence to show that both the villages are adjacent or even quality of both the lands is more or less similar. This witness Ranjana Deshmukh has also admitted in her cross-examination that her field is abutting to river. Her land is of good quality having black soil. As against it, about half of the filed of the ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 11/20 appellant was stony (murmali). According to her, only in two acres of land, the appellant was having orange trees. Further she has also stated that, village Pimplegaon is comparatively smaller one and it is about 10 km away from Anji (Mothi), whereas Arvi is about 35 to 40 km away from Pimplagaon. Thus considering her evidence and the fact that her land was not of the same village of the acquired land, the sale deed of her land cannot be considered as comparable sale instance.
15. The real grievance of the appellant is about the Spl. LAO classifying his land in three categories and Reference Court upholding said classification. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that when admittedly a well is situated in the acquired land, then whether the appellant irrigates or does not irrigate the entire land should not make any difference. The fact remains there is source of continuous water to his land and hence entire acquired land has to be assessed as irrigated land. To substantiate this submission, learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Dead) Thr. LRs. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon (2012(2) Mh.L.J. 530 wherein, in the facts of the said case, in para 13 it was held that, "when it was not in dispute that there were wells in the acquired land, the mere fact that the appellants had not cultivated sugarcane or wheat cannot lead to the inference that the land was not irrigated land." It has further held that, ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 12/20 "there was no valid reason therefore for the High Court to interfere with the finding recorded by the Reference Court that parts of the lands were Bagayat and for such land claimants were entitled for compensation at the rate of Bagayat land."
16. In this respect learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 13/10/2014 in F.A. No.41/2008 Gopichand Bhika Rathod vs. The State of Maharashtra with connected appeals, wherein also relying on the judgment of Chindha Fakira Patil (supra) it was held that as the existence of source of irrigation for the land in question is the common and it is from the river bed, merely because the claimants in the appeal were not taking crop of sugarcane, it would not mean that the land in question was not perennially irrigated. It was further held that if there is fluctuation in supply of water to the land from the river bed depending upon the gravity of rainy season in particular years and the availability of water flow in the river, it would not make any difference. The land remains an irrigated land having perennial source of water from the river bed. How much area of the land or to what extent the irrigation facility is provided would not make any difference while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded. It was further held that such land cannot be treated as dry crop land and the distinction made by the Reference Court to that effect being without any basis, cannot be accepted. ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 13/20
17. In my considered opinion, though there cannot be any two opinions about the legal proposition laid down herein above, facts of the present case need to be distinguished. Here in the case, not only the witness for appellant Ranjana Deshmukh has admitted that half of the portion of the land of appellant is 'murmali' that is 'stony' but even the appellant himself has admitted in his cross-examination that his land was of three qualities i.e. stony (murmali), black and moderate. Thus he himself is not disputing the fact that the quality of entire acquired land is not the same but it can be divided into three categories of good, moderate and stony. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that, either the Spl. LAO or Reference Court has committed any error in assessing the market value of the said land on the basis of three categories, depending on the quality. Moreover, It is one thing to say that the land is having perennial source of water like river bed but the land owner not taking every time the irrigated crop and it is another thing to say that though there is a well in the land, as in the instant case, the land owner is taking different crops in different portions of his land. It was necessary therefore for the appellant to show that there was sufficient water in the well or even if there was sufficient water, considering the murmali and moderate quality of land as he has admitted, he could not take, in the said land, irrigated crop. Appellant had admitted that he was taking non- irrigated crops in the said land along with irrigated crop like sugarcane. Therefore if he himself was treating the land and accepting the fact that it ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 14/20 was of three different qualities, the market value of such land has to be assessed on the basis of its different qualities. Therefore in the facts of the present case, it cannot be accepted that either Spl. LAO or the Reference Court has committed error in categorizing the land of the appellant and assessing its market value accordingly.
18. However, there appears some substance in the grievance raised by the appellant about the Spl. LAO holding only 1 H 32 R land as perennially irrigated and categorising a major portion of 4 H 40 R land as dry crop land and 1 H 63 R land as seasonally irrigated land. In this respect, I find much substance from 7/12 extract of the acquired land produced on record, which shows that the appellant was cultivating sugarcane crop in the area of 1 H land in the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1995-96 whereas in the year 1993-94 he has cultivated sugarcane only in 80 R land. But in the year 1995-96 and in the year 1996-97 sugarcane crop was taken in the area admeasuring 2 H 10 R and 2H 50 R respectively. Therefore the larger area in which the irrigated crop like sugarcane was taken, which was to the tune of 2 H 50 R, needs to be considered for assessment of the market value, it being a beneficial piece of legislation. The appellant, therefore, becomes entitled to get rate for irrigated land which is at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for perennially irrigated land admeasuring 2 H 50 R instead of 1 H 32 R . As regards the area of 1 H 03 R considered by Spl. LOA and by the Reference ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 15/20 Court, as seasonally irrigated land, there need not be any interference. However, as the portion of perennially irrigated land is increased to the extent of 2 H 50 R, proportionally the portion of dry crop land would be reduced and compensation needs to be assessed and paid accordingly. Thus to the extent of holding the appellant entitled for compensation at the rate of 1,50,000/- per hectare for perennially irrigated land admeasuring 2 H 50 R and proportionally modifying and reducing the portion of dry crop land, the appeal needs to be allowed and to that extent the impugned order of the Reference Court is required to be modified.
19. The second head on which the appellant has raised grievance pertains to the compensation awarded for orange trees. It is undisputed that at the time of joint measurement, total 475 orange trees were found in the acquired land. However, according to Spl. LAO at the time of acquisition of land, only 364 orange trees were found and he has valued the compensation for those 364 trees only. Appellant has claimed compensation for the remaining 111 orange trees also. Moreover, according to him, the compensation awarded to him towards orange trees is very meagre. As against it, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that if compensation was paid considering the land as orchards, then no separate compensation can be awarded towards the orange trees.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 16/20
20. However, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (dead) Thr. LRs and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra 2012(1) Mh.LJ 9, this submission cannot be accepted. In this decision, in paragraph 22, it was clearly held that if the land value had been determined with reference to the sale statistics or compensation awarded for a nearby vacant land, then necessarily, the trees will have to be valued separately. But if the value of the land has been determined on the basis of the sale statistics or compensation awarded for an orchard, that is land with fruit-bearing trees, then there is no question of again adding the value of the trees. It was further held that if the market value has been determined by capitalizing the income with reference to yield, then also the question of making any addition either for the land or for the trees separately does not arise.
21. In the instance case, the Spl LAO has not determined the value of the land on the basis of it being an orchard i.e. the land with fruit-bearing trees but he himself has awarded a separate amount of compensation towards the orange trees, as can be seen from the E-statement wherein it is stated that the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,20,513/- towards the value of orange and other trees. In such situation, no question arises of holding that the land was valued as a orchard.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 17/20
22. Now the question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Spl LAO for orange trees and confirmed by the Reference Court is just, reasonable and correct ? If one considers E-statement which is part of award, it goes to show that Spl. LAO has considered the yield from the orange trees. Upon considering the approximate market income therefrom, he has fixed he market value of the orange trees. Appellant has not produced on record the evidence of any horticulture expert or other witness to show that the value assessed by the Spl. LAO for the orange trees is in any way not fair or just.
23. As regards the grievance of the appellant, that he has been awarded compensation for only 364 orange trees though at the time of joint measurement 475 orange trees were found in the acquired land, appellant himself has admitted that every year some trees become dry. There is no evidence to show that after joint measurement of the trees, all the trees remained alive and not a single tree became dry. Appellant's witness Ranjana Deshmukh has also admitted in her cross-examination that every year 'Tan' is required to orange trees and due to 'Tan' about 10% trees die every year. Therefore in the light of this evidence on record, if at the time of acquisition, only 364 orange trees were found in existence, then it cannot be held that appellant is entitled for compensation of 475 orange trees. Hence no interference is warranted, as regards the amount awarded by the Spl. LAO ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 18/20 or by the Reference Court under that head.
24. The last submission of learned counsel for the appellant pertains to the inadequate compensation awarded towards the well. According to appellant, the value of well was Rs.1,25,000/-, whereas the Spl. LAO and Reference Court has awarded compensation Rs. 43, 205/- only towards the well. Per contra, according to learned counsel for respondent, if the compensation amount is arrived at on the basis of it being an irrigated land, then no separate compensation can be paid towards the well. In this respect learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra and anr. vs. Arvind R. Bhalerao 2001(3) Mh.L.J. 156, wherein it was held that, "as regards the compensation of Rs.1000/- awarded by the Reference Court in relation to the well, the learned Government advocate is justified in contending that once the market value is determined on the basis of nature of the crops grown in the land taking into consideration the water facility available from irrigation wells, further determination of compensation for the well on the basis of construction costs etc. cannot arise. Therefore it was proper for the Reference Court not to grant any compensation towards well".
25. As against this, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Tejumal Bhojwani (Dead) Thr. ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 19/20 Lrs. And ors. vs. State of UP. (2003) SCC 525, wherein in paragraph 7 while deciding the question as to whether the claimants were entitled to separate compensation for the tubewell as well as for the structure standing on the land, it was held that "when amount of compensation is determined by capitalization method, there can be justification for claimant being not given separate compensation for land and building separately. However where there was no capitalizing of value of land and structure by LAO in his award, and LAO has himself given compensation separately for the land, building and tube-well, then the claimants are entitled to get the same.
26. In the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, if the market value is determined by capitalizing the income with reference to yield and other structures on the land, then separate compensation need not be paid towards those head. In this case, admittedly the market value of the acquired land was not fixed by adopting capitalization of the value of land and the structure therein. Therefore the appellant becomes entitled to get compensation for the baandh and well.
It is pertinent to note that Spl.LAO has also awarded compensation separately for the baandh and well. As regards baandh, appellant is not making any grievance on that score. The statement of compensation awarded by the Spl LAO for well, which is enclosed with the award of the Spl. LAO, shows that appellant has been awarded Rs.43,205/- ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 ::: 343-J-FA-333-06 20/20 towards the valuation of well. Considering that the well was having pucca UCR masonry structure, the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court being just and reasonable, in my considered opinion, no inference is warranted on that score also, particularly because, though appellant has claimed Rs.1,25,000/- towards the acquisition of well, he has not produced any evidence on record to that effect.
27. To sum up therefore, this appeal is allowed partly, to the extent of modification in the area of irrigated land. It is held that the appellant is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for the perennially irrigated land which is held to be admeasuring 2 H 15 R. Proportionately the area of dry crop land will stand reduced.
Respondent to calculate the amount of compensation accordingly and pay the same to the appellant with all statutory benefits within six months from the date of this order.
Rest of the judgment and award of the Reference court is confirmed.
Appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE Asmita ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:06:46 :::