ANNASAHEB SHANKAR DESAI Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. The appellants take exception to judgments and awards dated 29th December, 1994 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Sangli on references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) made at the instance of appellants in these appeals. The appellant in First Appeal No.1300 of 1996 and 1348 of 1996 is the same. The acquisition relates to the lands at village Narwad, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli. The notification under section 4 of the said Act in all the three cases is the same which was issued on 16th September, 1989 notifying the lands for acquisition for the public purpose of Krishna-Koyana Lift Irrigation Scheme. The award under section 11 was made on 31st March, 1990. The compensation at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per hectare was offered to the appellants. As the appellants did not accept the award, the references were made at their instance under section 18 of the said Act of 1894.

(2.) The land subject matter of First Appeal No.1300 of 1996 admeasures 99 Ares out of Gat No.311. By the impugned judgment and award, market value has been awarded at the rate of Rs.31,500/- per hectare. The learned Judge held that the said land was a jirayat land of good quality. The claim made by the appellant in the reference was at the rate of Rs.85,000/- per acre. The land subject matter of First Appeal No.1348 of 1996 is Gat No.286 admeasuring 29 Ares. In the said case, the claim in reference was at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per hectare. The reference Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.47,250/- per hectare. The learned Judge held that this land was a seasonally irrigated land. The land subject matter of First Appeal NO.1262 of 1996 admeasures 87 Ares out of Gat No.219. The claim in reference in the said case was at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre. The reference Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.47,250/- per hectare. This land was also held to be a seasonally irrigated land. In all the three cases, apart from granting enhancement in market value as aforesaid, the reference Court granted statutory benefits under section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act.

(3.) The learned advocate for the appellants has taken me through exhibited documents on record as well as oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellants. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellant in First Appeal No.1300 of 1999 is that there was no basis for holding that the acquired land subject matter of the said appeal was a jirayat land. He submitted that there was an evidence of comparable sale instances which showed that the market value of the acquired land was more than Rs.34,000/- per acre. He submitted that no distinction could have been made between price of a jirayat and bagayat land considering the fact that the acquired land had non-agricultural potentiality. The learned advocate in support of First Appeal Nos.1348 of 1996 and 1262 of 1996 submitted that the sale instances on record showed that market value of similar lands was more than Rs.47,250/- per hectare. He criticised the learned trial Judge for taking average price reflected from different sale instances produced by the appellants. He place reliance on a decision of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and another Vs. Hansraj (Dead) by legal representatives and others (1994 (5) Supreme Court Cases Page 734).