AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.N. Gilani, J.—These appeals and cross appeals are arising from the judgment and award passed in between 28.9.2006 to 20.10.2006 by the Reference Courts at Kelapur - Pandharkawada, district : Yavatmal. The particulars of the survey numbers, land acquired, compensation granted by S.L.A.O. and by Reference Court are reproduced in the following chart:
Mr. Patil, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there being no evidence produced on record, the learned Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation from Rs. 27,000/- per hectare granted by the S.L.A.O. to Rs. 85,000/- per hectare. According to him, the learned Reference Court adopted erroneous approach while entertaining these references.
Learned AGP, appearing for the State supported the contention advanced by Mr. Patil.
Mrs. Deshpande, appearing for the respondents/cross-objectors, contended that whatever the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is very much on the lower side. According to her, by producing on record overwhelming evidence, the land owners satisfactorily discharged the burden which lay upon them. In that view of the matter, no interference with the judgment and award impugned is warranted, she urged.
Point that arises for my consideration is :
Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and fair?
Sale instance i.e. exhibit 41 relied upon by the land owners relates to the land of the same village i.e. Navargaon it being just 21/2 years prior to the date of notification, learned Reference Court was justified in fixing the market value after considering the same. However, from the observations made in paragraph 13 of the judgment and award it appears that the learned Reference Court felt hitch in relying upon the Index II in view of the provisions of section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act. However, in later part of the judgment, the learned Reference Court observed that there was no challenge to the genuineness to the sale transaction and therefore, he proceeded to draw presumption about its genuineness and then considered it as a cogent evidence. In fact, after the decision of the Apex Court in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Purya and Others, , this issue remains no longer res-intigra. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Shaikh Khatinabi, The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer, The Collector and The State of Maharashtra, relying upon the decision in Cement Corporation''s Case supra observed thus:
It is not in dispute that Shri Ladekar''s land was purchased by Shri Dwivedi and that copy of Index II in respect of the sale is placed on record at Exh 32. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that for relying on the sale instances the party ought to have been examined. Such a view undoubtedly held field even after insertion of section 51(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. In Special Deputy Collector and another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, etc., the Apex Court held that the sale instance can be proved only by examining the vendor or vendee. However, subsequently, in State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, the Apex Court held that the registered documents can be seen even without examining the parties. In Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Purya and Others, , all these authorities, were considered and it was held that certified copy of document registered under the Registration Act, including copy given u/s 57 of the Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded. In view of this objection of non-examination of the vendor or vendee cannot be sustained.
In that view of the matter, the evidence in the nature of the certified copy of the Index II is very much admissible even without examining vendee and vendor. This transaction shows that for the area of 1.21 H.R. value fetched was Rs. 74,300/- P.H. and this happened 21/2 years earlier. If 10% increase per year is added, the value would be more than Rs. 90,000/- P.H.
Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out admission given by land owner A.W. 1 Ragho [L.A.C. No. 132/2004] to the effect that 3 to 4 years prior to application of notification u/s 4 there was rumour that the Bembla Project was going to be implemented and for that lands would be acquired. This does not mean that whatever the sale transactions were effected were not bonafide or deliberately the price was inflated. To a specific suggestion A.W. 1 Ragho denied that transaction Exhibit 25 is a bogus and was prepared with an eye on the proposed acquisition. It is pertinent to note that the appellant did not undertake any exercise to point out some more sale instances, at least to raise a doubt that they were deliberately made to claim higher amount of compensation. In absence of such evidence the sale instance Exh. 41, which prima facie, appears genuine, cannot be discarded.
Mrs. Deshpande, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/cross-objectors relied upon the sale transaction at exhibit 45 [in F.A. No. 165/2009] to claim enhanced amount of compensation than whatsoever has been awarded by the learned Reference Court. This transaction is dated 24.12.1990 which was made in pursuance to the agreement of sale. Frankly speaking no importance can be attached to the agreement of sale exhibit 46 which was not registered. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove its genuineness. Thus what appears is that on 24.12.1990, the land in the village, which is adjoining to village Navargaon fetched value of Rs. 1,10,000/- i.e. about Rs. 55,000/- per acre. Having regard to date of notification issued u/s 4 i.e. dated 6.2.1997, this sale instance does not appear to be proximate from time angle.
In that light of the matter, there appears no scope for interference with the judgment and award impugned. Accordingly, the appeals as also the cross-objections are dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.