AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard M.A. Kadu, Advocate for appellant, Shir A. B.
Nakshane, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Cross-objector and Shri S.
M. Ghodeswar, AGP for State.
Admit appeal as well as cross-objection.
Heard forthwith with the consent of the the parties.
The present appeal and cross-objection concern the amount
of compensation payable to the claimant for acquisition of land
belonging to him in Gat No. 3, admeasuring 1 H 17 R and Gat No. 64,
admeasuring 1H 21 R situated at village Bhatmarg, tq. Babhulgaon,
District Yavatmal, for submergence of Bembla Project. The Notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on
17.12.1998 and upon conclusion of the proceedings before the Land
Acquisition Officer, the award was passed on 16.06.2001, wherein
compensation was granted to the claimant at Rs. 54,093/- per hectare
for Gat No. 3 and Rs. 57,835/- per hectare for the acquired land in Gat
No. 64. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred Reference
Application under Section 18 of the said Act, which has been decided by
the impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2012 passed by the
Reference Court. In its judgment and order, the Reference Court has
enhanced compensation to Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare for the acquired
land in both the aforesaid Gat numbers.
The State has filed First Appeal No. 890/2016 challenging
the said order, claiming that the enhancement granted by the Reference
Court is not justified, while the claimant/respondent No.1 has filed
cross-objection No. 44/2017 claiming that enhancement ought to have
been granted by the Reference Court.
My attention has been invited to the judgment and order
passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 632/2013 and connected
appeals dated 05.02.2016, concerning land acquired from the same
village pursuant to the very same notification under Section 4 of the
said Act dated 17.12.1998. In the said judgment and order, this Court
has granted enhanced compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs.
1,80,000/- per hectare for irrigated land and Rs. 1,20,000/- for dry crop
land.
On the basis of aforesaid judgment and order, it is
contended on behalf of the claimant that since his lands that were
acquired from the two aforesaid Gat numbers in the same village, were
both irrigated lands, he deserves to be granted enhanced compensation
for the entire land at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare.
On the other hand, Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State submits that even if the judgment and
order dated 05.02.2016 in the First Appeal No. 632/2013 and
connected appeals is to be accepted, the claimant deserves to be
granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare for his
land acquired from Gat No. 64, since it was irrigated land and that for
the land acquired from Gat No. 3, the claimant deserves to be granted
compensation only at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per hectare as it was
dry crop land.
Therefore, it would be necessary to appreciate as to what
material was placed on record by the claimant to show that both pieces of acquired lands could be terms as irrigated land. In this context, the
learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that in his evidence
placed on record before the Reference Court, he had categorically
stated that both the fields were irrigated from a big well situated in Gat
No. 64, which had an electric motor pump and oil engine. It was stated
in the evidence that both the lands were irrigated from water taken
from the said well and that such entry could be found in the records of
rights i.e. 7/12 extract of the said two fields.
Perusal of the relevant portion of the affidavit and evidence
filed by the claimant before the Reference Court shows that such fact
was indeed stated by the claimant and that there was no cross-
examination of much significance in this regard. Apart from this, the
learned counsel appearing for the claimant has invited my attention to
Exhibit-27, which is an electricity bill showing use of electricity, inter
alia, for electric motor pump on the said well. Learned counsel
appearing on behalf of State has disputed the said assertion and he has
stated that in the cross-examination, the claimant has admitted that he
had taken only one crop from both the fields. He submits that the claim
of the respondent No.1/claimant regarding the fields being irrigated,
was not supported by the evidence on record.
I have considered the evidence and material on record and I
am satisfied that both the fields belonging to the claimant could be said
to be irrigated. Therefore, following the judgment and order passed by
this Court dated 05.02.2016 in the First Appeal No. 632/2013 and
connected appeals, I hold that the claimant is entitled to compensation
at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare for both the fields situated in
Gat Nos. 3 and 64 in village Bhatmarg, tq. Babhulgaon, Distirict
Yavatmal. Accordingly, the order of the Reference Court is modified to
that extent and it is held that the claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation at the aforesaid rate along with statutory benefits.
Consequently, the First Appeal No. 890/2016 is dismissed and Cross-
objection No. 44/2017 is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that cheque for the amount of compensation granted by the
Reference Court has been received and that it would be deposited
within one week from today. Such permission is granted. Upon such
deposit of the amount, in the light of what has been held in this
judgment, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount
unconditionally. As regards the balance amount payable to the
claimants in view of further enhancement granted by this Court, the
proceeding may be undertaken before the Reference Court.