Oral Judgment:
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.1.1992 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in L.A.C.No. 4/1988 whereby the reference sought by the land owner/ appellant herein came to be rejected.
2] The appellants owned agricultural lands bearing no.22/1 and 22/4 area 1.51 HR situated at Mouja Chichala, tahsil and district : Wardha. For construction of overhead Railway Bridge land area of 0.20 HR was acquired vide notification dated 19.9.1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 12.3.1987 and fixed market value of the acquired land @ Rs.120/- per square meter.
3] Being aggrieved by this award the reference was sought. The learned Reference Court rejected the reference.
4] Mr. Bhattad, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the material placed on record has not been considered by the learned Reference Court. Further the learned Reference Court ignored the fact that because of the acquisition of 0.80 H.R. of land out of the total area of 1.61 HR there remained fragment of land area 50,000 sq.ft. which has been rendered useless for all purposes. Therefore, the compensation for the area of 50,000 sq.ft. ought to have been awarded by the learned Reference Court.
5] Mr. Yengal, learned A G P appearing for the State supported the judgment and award.
6] Only point that arises for consideration is:
What is the just and fair amount of compensation for the lands of the appellant acquired?
7] The appellant relied upon few sale instances. Two plots area 3,000 sq.ft. were sold by Shriram Poddar to two different persons namely Madhav Indurkar and Harprasadsingh Thakur on 16.6.1982 and 7.6.1982, respectively. Both these plots are located at Mouja Chichala. The third sale instance is dated 17.8.1982. One Hemlal sold plot area 1400 sq.ft. to one Indubai for consideration of Rs.12,000/-. The first two sale instances Exhibit 30 and Exhibit 31 reveal that vendor fetched the value of the plot @ Rs.5.50 per sq.ft. i.e. approximately Rs.55/- per square meter. Considering the area of sale, if 15% increase per year is added, value of the plot could be Rs.70-75 per square meter. The appellant has already received compensation @ Rs.120/- per square meter.
8] In the third sale instance the price fetched by the vendor was Rs.8.50 per sq.ft. i.e. approximately Rs.85/- per square meter. Assuming 15% increase, since the said instance is one year prior to the date of notification, the price at the most would be Rs.100/- per square meter. In that view of the matter, the learned Reference Court was justified in not enhancing the amount of compensation over and above Rs.120/- per square meter granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
9] Mr. Bhattad, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that because of the acquisition of the land a fragment of remaining portion of the land is created and it is useless for all purposes. The appellant who entered the witness box, deposed that due to acquisition the piece of land remained is a small fragrant of 50,000 sq.ft. Ex-facie, a piece of land admeasuring 50,000 sq.ft. cannot be treated as a fragment. Except the vague evidence that whatsoever the land remained with him is a small fragment, there is no evidence. To claim compensation on the ground of severance there has to be some evidence to show that whatsoever piece of land is left is a small fragment, particularly with reference to its probable use and same has been rendered useless. No such evidence is forthcoming. On the contrary, during cross-examination of D.W. -1 Puroshottam who is Talathi of village Chichala, no suggestion was put to the effect that because of acquisition, small fragment of land remained with the land owner and same has been rendered useless, particularly because of its smallness.
10] Feeble attempt has been made to claim enhanced amount of compensation by relying upon the judgment and award in L.A.C. No.5/1988 decided on 3.10.1997. This is produced as an additional evidence. It is contended that for the agricultural lands owned by the mother of the appellant and acquired for the same purpose, the compensation was fixed @ Rs.100/- per square meter. Perusal of the judgment and award shows that evidence which was relied upon in that case was nothing else than the award passed on 12.3.1987 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which is the subject matter of this appeal. In that case the learned Reference Court relied upon the same while determining the compensation @ Rs.100/- per square meter. It seems that a very novel method has been adopted in the sense that : firstly the award dated 12.3.1987 was relied upon in L.A.C. No.5/1988 as a basis for seeking enhanced amount of compensation and then the judgment rendered in LAC No.5/1988 is being relied upon in this proceeding which is in fact arising out of the award dated 12.3.1987. Be that as it may, the appellant cannot get any assistance form the judgment and award passed in LAC No.5/1988. It cannot be the foundation for seeking any enhanced amount of compensation than the amount fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and confirmed by the reference Court.
In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.