Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant to challenge the judgment and order dated 6th of December, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No. 875 of 2003 reversing the order dated 27th of April, 1994 of the Reference Court, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby the High Court had reduced the quantum of compensation, as enhanced by the Reference Court from Rs.83,000/- to Rs.40,226/-. The relevant facts as arising from the case made out by the parties, leading to filing of this appeal, and which will help us in understanding the controversy involved, can be summarized as follows. The property in acquisition belonged to the appellant, bearing House No. 100/5 at village Deolali, Tal. and District Osmanabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'acquired property'). The same was sought to be acquired by the State Respondent for the Ruibhor Medium Project. On 10th of September, 1985, the State Respondent issued a notification under section 4 of the Act regarding the need of the acquired property for pur- poses mentioned in the notification. This notification was published on 16th of October, 1985. On 17th of March, 1986, the State Respondent issued a notification under section 6 of the Act regarding the need of the acquired property for purposes mentioned therein. Thereafter, on 30th of March, 1988, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award of compensation under section 11 of the Act, granting an amount of Rs.40,226/- as compensation to the appellant, the said amount being inclusive of statutory benefits under Section 23 of the Act. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him, the appellant in 1991 filed a Reference case under section 18 of the Act. On 27th of April, 1994, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, on hearing the parties, held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inappropriate and, therefore, increased the same to Rs.83,000/-, in addition to Rs.5,000/- towards the loss and damages incurred by the appellant. He also awarded other statutory benefits under Section 23 of the Act. Being aggrieved by this order of the Reference Court, the State Respondent filed an appeal before the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Bombay in December 1996. By the impugned Judgment dated 6th of December, 2004, the High Court had set aside the order of the Reference Court and reduced the compensation in respect of the acquired property from Rs.83,000/- to Rs.40,226/- as granted by the Land Acquisition Officer.
(3.) FOR the purposes of deciding this appeal, it is pertinent to note the grounds on which the High Court had set aside the order of the Reference Court, so that the same is kept in consideration while appreciating the contentions of both the parties and finally adjudicating on the issues involved. The High Court was of the opinion that the evidence produced by the appellants for proving their claim of inadequacy of the compensation awarded was insufficient. The High Court also held that the witnesses produced for examination by the appellant were inconsistent in their testimony, especially Dattatraya Trimbakrao Tirthkar, father of the appellant, and Ramchandra Shankarrao Baraskar, an engineer and also the valuer in respect of the market value of the acquired property. As per the High Court, the father of the appellant was unable to show how the acquired property was mutated in the name of the appellant, whether by partition or purchase by his guardian. Further, the valuer was unable to say in his deposition the date of his visit to the acquired property for the purpose of valuation. The evidence on record adduced by the claimant was also unsatisfactory, as he could not prove the factum of having answered the notice under Section 9 of the Act and his claim for Rs.7000/- for the vacant plot. Moreover, the third witness, Tanaji Madhukar Kshirsagar, who claimed to have purchased property in the vicinity of the acquired property, was unable to prove that the property purchased by him was adjacent to the acquired property and that the transaction of its purchase could be considered similar to the acquisition of land of the appellant. Thus, the High Court was of the view that there was nothing to support reliance on his testimony.;