Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1120 (BOM)

Collector & S. D. O. v. Kiran Madhav Vaidhya

2012-06-25

F.M.REIS

body2012
Judgment : Heard Ms. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the Appellants and Shri Gawas, learned Counsel holding for Shri N. K. Sawaikar, Advocate, appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed in Land Acquisition Case no. 77/2001 whereby a reference preferred by the Respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.70/-per square metre. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land belonging to the Respondents situated in Village Bethora of Ponda Taluka was acquired by the Appellants for the proposed Ponda bye-pass road from Dhavli to Khandepar pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 18.10.1999. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, dated 15.12.2000, the Land Acquisition Officer offered a compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.10/-per square metre in respect of the land surveyed under no. 191/1 (part), a sum of Rs.5/-per square metre in respect of property surveyed under no. 191/2 (part) and at the rate of Rs.5/-per square metre in respect of property surveyed under no. 190 (part). 4. Being dissatisfied with the said Award, the Respondent filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a compensation @ of Rs.850/-per square metre. The Reference Court by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 27.04.2006, partly allowed the reference filed by the Respondent and enhanced the compensation to Rs.70/-per square metre. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal. 6. Ms. Linhares, Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants, has assailed the impugned Judgment on the ground that the Reference Court has not given any reasons to arrive at the compensation at the rate of Rs.70/-per square metre. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no appreciation of evidence by the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned Judgment and, as such, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no appreciation of evidence by the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned Judgment and, as such, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has not ascertained the comparability of the land acquired with the sale instances produced on record and, as such, the compensation arrived at by the learned Judge at the rate of Rs.70/-per square metre, cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Respondents have failed to discharge the burden to establish that the amount of compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, Shri R. Gawas, learned Counsel holding for Shri Sawaikar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel further pointed out that for the reasons stated in the impugned Judgment, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment. 8. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of evidence on record, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.70/-per square metre? 9. On perusal of the impugned Judgment as well as the evidence on record, I find that the learned Judge has not scrutinized minutely every piece of evidence adduced by the parties to hold that the market value of the land acquired on the relevant date is Rs.70/-per square metre. But, however, on perusal of the records as well as the impugned Judgment, I find that the Reference Court has relied upon an earlier Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 24.05.1995 which is at exhibit Aw.1/J. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the land acquired therein and the land which was subject matter of the above acquisition was part and parcel of the said property. On perusal of the Award at exhibit Aw.1/J, I find that the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act in the said case was issued in the year 1992. In the present case, the Notification was issued in the year 1999. On perusal of the Award at exhibit Aw.1/J, I find that the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act in the said case was issued in the year 1992. In the present case, the Notification was issued in the year 1999. Considering the gap of nearly seven years and taking note of the fact that the evidence on record adduced by the Respondent suggest that there were residential houses in the vicinity of the land acquired and as the land acquired is in the vicinity of the Ponda Town, I find that the compensation arrived at by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.70/-per square metre cannot be said to be unjust or exorbitant. Aw.1, in his deposition, has categorically stated that the land acquired pursuant to exhibit Aw.1/J, is part and parcel of the same property which has been acquired in the present case. There is no dispute on that count raised by the Appellants in the cross examination. Once an instance is produced determining the compensation for the land acquired, the Reference Court was justified to consider such instances as the basis to arrive at the market value of the land acquired. Taking into account the escallation from the year 1992 to 1999 on cumulative basis, the compensation cannot be said to be in excess. Considering the overall evidence on record and taking note of the evidence of Aw.1 and the expert examined by the Respondent, I find that there is no case made out for any interference in the impugned Judgment passed by the Reference Court. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that there is no merit in the above appeal which stands accordingly dismissed.