State of Maharashtra Vs. Bijendra Prasad S/O Trimak Prasad Pande and Others - Court Judgment

Oral Judgment

This appeal is arising out of the judgment and award dated 20.7.1991 passed by the Civil Judge, senior Division, Wardha in L.A.C. No.1/1986 whereby the reference sought by the land owners was allowed partly.

2] For the construction of Dham Irrigation Project the lands situated at village Masod, tahsil and district Wardha were acquired vide notifications dated 12.2.1976 and 15.7.1976. The Special Land Acquisition Officer held enquiry under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and declared its award. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the land owner sought reference for enhanced amount of compensation. The state opposed the reference on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was just and adequate.

3] Learned Reference Court formulated necessary issues. Evidence, oral as well as documentary was adduced before the Reference Court. After considering the same, the learned Reference Court fixed the value of the land in terms of square feet @ Rs.1./- per sq.ft. Aggrieved by this judgment and award the State has preferred this appeal.

4] Mr. Bhagde, learned A G P contended that the judgment and award granting compensation @ Rs.1/- per sq.ft. is not supported by material placed on record. Learned Reference Court ought to have made distinction between the lands covered under sale deed Exhibit 51 and the lands acquired. There is no evidence to the effect that the lands acquired had nonagricultural potential.

5] Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 1(a) to 1(e) supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6] It has come in the oral evidence of P.W.1 Dinendraprasad- land owner that even prior to publication of notification under section 4, they had prepared layout of the fields through one Mr. Sonak. Mr. Sonak was examined before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. They were about to take permission to use this land for non-agricultural purpose, but for notification issued under section 4 it could not be taken. It has come in his evidence that Bijendraprasad also possessed the land which was converted into 140 plots each admeasuring 2000 sq.ft. He had sold one plot for the consideration of Rs.2000/- vide sale deed dated 17.11.1975. Other plot admeasuring 900 sq.ft. was told to one Trivedi for Rs.900/- . He produced sale deeds as evidence of transfers. He further deposed that the gaothan land of village Masod was acquired by the State by paying compensation @ Rs.1/- per sq.ft. For that he relied upon judgment and awards in various reference numbers 11/1986, 12/1986 and 13/1986 copies of which are at Exhibit-44. He then made mention of acquisition of land of one Kanhaiyalal Rathi and in that Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation @ Rs.1.40 per sq.ft. in L.A.C. No.14/1987. Then he spoke about the facilities available in village Masod. It is brought in his cross-examination that main road is at a distance of one kilometer from this village. It has population of 4000. Exhibit 41 and 42 are the proposed layout plans which according to land owner were as prepared by Mr. Sonak who was examined before the Land Acquisition Officer. Because of his death he could not be examined before the Reference Court. Exhibit 48 is a copy of the award declared by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the land acquired of village Masod for the similar public purpose i.e. Dham project. The next witness is P.W.2 Siddhagopal Trivedi. According to him, he had purchased two plots one admeasuring 2000 sq.ft. and other of 900 sq.ft. @ Rs.1/- per sq.ft. form the land owner by registered sale deed dated 19.11.1975. The sale deed is at Exhibit 51. There is nothing in his cross-examination to suggest that the said transaction is not genuine.

7] The evidence discussed above appears to have been rightly appreciated by learned Reference Court. This is evident form the observations made by him in paragraph 9 of the judgment and award -

“9- From the evidence that laid on behalf of applicants, it appears that before acquisition, the applicant had prepared layout of the acquired land for making the plots and selling them and the said lay-out was prepared by retire Revenue Inspector by Mr. Sonak who is not alive but whose statement was recorded by S.L.A.O. in case proceeding No.30/LAQ-47/75-76, only as would reveal from the copy of the statement Ex.42. In the acquired land there were 140 plots as would reveal from the copy of the lay-out plan Ex.41 and 42 produced by applicant. Out of 140 plots two plots have been sold to Sinddhagopal Trivedi under sale-deed dated 17.10.1975 and the said plots were sold at the rate Rs.1/- per sq.ft. would further reveal from the copy of the sale-deed Ex.51-A and also from the evidence of Siddhagopal Trivedi who is A.W.2. The very sale deed was also referred by S.L.A.O. in L.A.C. No.11/LAQ-47/83-84, the copy of which has been produced at Ex.47. The applicant No.2 has stated on oath that acquired land is adjacent to Abadi land and this version has also gone unchallenged in cross. It appears from the copy of award Ex.48 produced by applicant that the S.L.A.O. rejected the sale deeds produced by applicant only on the ground that applicant did not obtain N.A. permission from the concerned authority and therefore, he treated the land as fallow land. I am of the view that the S.L.A.O. has committed error in treating the land of the applicants as dry land. The acquired land was adjacent to the Abadi land and had a building potentiality. The S.L.A.O. should have awarded the compensation at the rate Rs.1/- per sq.ft. to the applicants for acquired land.”

In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the judgment and award whereby the compensation was awarded @ Rs.1/- per sq.ft. There being no merit in this appeal, appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.