Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2116 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Radhabai Punaji Gedam

2012-11-02

M.N.GILANI

body2012
Judgment : These appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 11.2.2007 passed in L.A.C. No.216/2002 to 218/2002. 2] Lands situated in village Dabha, Tal Kelapur, district : Yavatmal were compulsorily acquired for construction of canal of Khemkund Irrigation Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 31.3.1996 awarding compensation @ Rs.12,000/-P.H. and Rs.14,400/-P.H. Dissatisfied with this, the land owners / respondents herein sought separate references. They relied upon the decisions rendered in earlier references which were sought in respect of the lands acquired for the same project. The evidence about the income derived from the land was adduced. On that basis, the learned Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/-P.H. Aggrieved by this judgment and award State has preferred these appeals. 3] The learned A G P criticised the judgment and award mainly on the ground that the enhancement to any extent was not justified because of lack of evidence. According to him, the onus which lies upon the land owners to seek enhancement, has not been discharged. 4] Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment and award. She contends that the rate of compensation @ Rs.50,000/-P.H. or Rs.20,000/-per acre on its face is very much on lower side. In that view of the matter, the appeals are liable to be dismissed with cost. 5] Point that arises for my consideration is : Whether any interference with the judgment and award impugned is warranted? 6] In all these appeals respective land owner entered the witness box and deposed about the quality of the land and placed on record the 7/12 extracts at Exhibits 35, 36, 44, 45, 49 & 50. All these documents reveal that the lands were under cultivation and crops like cotton, toor (pulses) jwar were grown. Evidence was led to the effect that per year profit from each acre of the land was Rs.5000/-. However, the learned Reference Court assumed it at Rs.2,000/-per acre. This aspect of the matter has been discussed in paragraph 20 and 22 of the judgment and same is reproduced below: “20-Now, we have to consider the claim of the petitioners lands on the basis of income capitalization method (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). However, the learned Reference Court assumed it at Rs.2,000/-per acre. This aspect of the matter has been discussed in paragraph 20 and 22 of the judgment and same is reproduced below: “20-Now, we have to consider the claim of the petitioners lands on the basis of income capitalization method (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). The petitioners stated on oath that they used to take crops of cotton, jowar, tur and used to get annual net income worth Rs.5000/-per acre excluding expenses. The petitioners also submitted on record the 7/12 extracts (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). On the basis of these 7/12 extracts, it reveals that the petitioners used to take crops of cotton, tur and jowar in the acquired lands. It is matter of record that the petitioners failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of their annual net income and various yield of crops. It is to be mentioned that the petitioners being an agriculturists it is not expected or desirable from them that they should submit the account about their annual net income and various yield of crops that too before 9/10 years. Considering the crop statement shown in 7/12 extracts (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50), by memory of petitioners and by guess work, it can certainly be said that the petitioners should have getting annual net income worth Rs.2000/-per acre i.e. Rs.5000/-per hectare from the acquired land. 22-Thus, by applying the above said principles and taking resources of the method of income capitalisation, the then market value of the lands of the petitioners would be Rs.5000/-per hectare X 10 = Rs.50,000/-per hectare on the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act.” 7] These observations cannot be faulted with. Even by considering all the minus factors, and considering the cost of cultivation income from each acre of the land in any circumstance can not be less than Rs.2000 -2500/-. Learned Reference Court was right in choosing multiplier of 10. In that view of the matter there lies no scope for interference with the judgment and award. In the result appeals fail. 8] Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Learned Reference Court was right in choosing multiplier of 10. In that view of the matter there lies no scope for interference with the judgment and award. In the result appeals fail. 8] Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. In case there is any deposit made by the appellant, the Registry or the Reference Court, as the case may be, shall disburse forthwith the amount amongst claimants in terms of award and in any event within 3 months from the date of this order. If required, intimation be given to them. In the event of any withdrawal was permitted during the pendency of the appeal on furnishing undertaking or security, such undertaking or security, as the case may be, shall stand discharged.