The importance of considering earlier evidence and the market value of the land in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 19/04/2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim in Land Acquisition No.98/2002.

3. The facts of case in brief are as under :

The State of Maharashtra decided to construct a Dam at village Haral and for that reason started to acquire the land from the villagers. The appellant’s land in Survey No.372 admeasuring 2.74 H.R. land in Haral came to be acquired by the respondent no.2 vide Land Acquisition Proceedings No.12/47/96-97. The Section 4 Notification came to be published on 13/11/1997. Section 6 Notification published on 12/01/2000 and the final award came to be published on 02/06/2000. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded an amount of Rs.1,45,314/- for the acquired land.

4. The appellants preferred reference against the aforesaid award and claimed for compensation @ Rs.3,00,000/-per hector and an amount of Rs.90,000/- for the trees and well. The Reference Court by its order dated 05/04/2010 enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,28,800/- for acquired land. It has also awarded amount of Rs.80,253/- for the trees and well. The entire compensation awarded was Rs.16,03,613/-. The respondent no.3 (Land Acquisition Officer) challenged the said judgment before this Court, on the ground that though it is an acquiring body, it was not made a party before the learned Reference Court and therefore, prayed for quashing of the judgment and award dated 05/04/2010.

This Court by its judgment dated 29/04/2016 allowed the appeal and remanded it back with directions to implead the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation as party respondent and with liberty to the parties to prosecute the proceedings in accordance with law. After remanding back the matter, the learned Reference Court passed the impugned judgment without giving proper opportunity to the appellants nor considering the evidence adduced by the appellant in Reference Case No.49/2002. The said judgment and order is being challenged in the present appeal.

5. The learned Counsel for appellants contended that the appellants used to take double crops in a year. They used to earn annual income Rs.8000/-per annum from fruit bearing trees. He also used to take Kharip as well as Rabbi crops in the acquired land. The land is a black soil land and having superior quality and having perennial source of water and substantial potentiality.

6. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for appellants that the learned Reference Court has committed patent illegality in holding the matter to be decided in time bound manner. Reference came to be decided without giving an opportunity to appellants of hearing or to produce additional evidence on record. The joint measurement report clearly show existence of a well in the field of appellants. The learned Reference Court committed illegality in observing that there is no evidence about the well and not awarded compensation for the same. The acquired land of the appellants was fertile black soil and irrigated land. The rate of such land was much higher. The learned Reference Court has not properly assessed valuation of acquired land on the basis of its productivity, non-agricultural potential and thus impugned judgment needs to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned Counsel for appellants relied on citation in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (N) and another Vs. Gracinda Braganza(D) Thr. L.Rs. reported in 2018 (5) Mh.L.J. 529.

8. It is contended by the respondent no.1 that the land acquired is not black soil or fertile or irrigated land. It is also denied that the land is near to the village. The acquired land is dry Kharip crop medium quality land having no potentiality value. The applicant has not produced any evidence to prove the presence of trees in the acquired land. The grounds are not raised by the applicant for enhancement of compensation which are rais