SHRINIVAS S/O BABARAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD
LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-342
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on December 18,2017

Shrinivas S/O Babarao Patil Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Osmanabad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.K. Sonawane, J. - (1.) In these two appeals, the controversy lies within a narrow compass relating to the valuation of lands acquired for submergence area of Lower Terna Project at village Bhatangali, Taluka Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. As the points in issue in both the appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are dealt with together for its adjudication on merit by this common judgment.
(2.) The lands of appellant bearing Surve No. 166, 28/1 and 28/2 admeasuring 12.36 R, 0.19R, and 1.22 R respectively, located at village Bhatangali were acquired by the respondent/State for lower Terna Project. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as, "Act 1894") was published on 13.10.1984. After completion of procedural formalities, the SLAO declared the award under Section 11 of the Act 1894 and awarded compensation @ 130 per R, for lands of the claimants under acquisition. The appellants/claimants did not accept the compensation determined by the SLAO and the Reference Applications were made on their behalf under Section 18 of the Act 1894. The learned Reference Court considered the evidence adduced on record and fixed the compensation of land Survey No. 166 @ Rs. 14,000/- per Acre, i.e. Rs. 350 per R and compensation for land Survey NO. 28/1 and 28/2 @ Re. 1 per Square Feet. Despite enhancement of compensation, the appellants/claimants did not satisfy with the market value quantified by the Reference Court for their acquired lands. Therefore, the present appeals came to be filed on behalf of appellants/claimants to redress their grievances.
(3.) The learned counsel Shri B.N. Patil for appellants in both the appeals vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is erroneous, imperfect and against the principles of natural justice. The Reference Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. According to learned counsel Shri Patil the prices of all the agricultural lands within the precincts of village Bhatangali were more than Rs. 20,000/- per Acre during the period of notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894, which was published in the year 1894. The acquired land Gat No. 166 was of rich and black cotton soil. There was irrigation facility available in the lands. The village Bhatangali was within the command area of sugar factory located at village Killari, Taluka Ausa. The claimants were taking yield of sugarcane crops from the acuired land and supply the same to the sugar factory. The acquired lands Survey No. 28/1 and 28/2 were located nearby the residential area and these lands were having NA potentiality. The Reference Court did not consider all these facts in proper manner. According to learned counsel Shri Patil, there was pipeline, cattle shed, well for irrigation purpose in the acquired lands. But, these improvements were not taken into consideration by the Reference Court. The learned counsel Shri Patil submits that the comparable sale instances produced on record were not appreciated by the Reference Court in its proper perspective and meager compensation was awarded.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.