The central legal point established in the judgment is that possession and receipt of compensation qualify a person as 'interested' under the Land Acquisition Act, and just compensation must be awarded based on comparable cases.

JUDGMENT

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J. - By preferring this appeal, the appellant has challenged the common judgment passed in Land Acquisition Case No.144 of 2002 along with Land Acquisition Case No.141 of 2002, by which the land reference filed by the present appellant bearing Land Acquisition Case No.141 of 2002 came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 24.07.2008 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad, District Yevatmal on the ground that the appellant has not proved his ownership or his right to claim compensation.

2. As per the contentions of the appellant, Survey No.34/1B admeasuring 1.83 H.R. situated at village Dongargaon, Taluka Mahagaon, District Yevatmal is originally owned by Smt. Parvatabai Shankarrao Deshmukh and Smt. Mankarnabai Taterao Deshmukh. They both entered into an agreement with the present appellant and agreed to sell the said survey number to the present appellant. Since the date of the agreement the present appellant-Ganeshrao Deshmukh is in possession of the said land. Before execution of the sale-deed, the land was acquired by the Government vide Land Acquisition Case No.34/47/96-97 for Jam Nala Project. Accordingly, award was declared on 19.06.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer has published notification under Section 4 on 22.05.1997 and notification under Section 6 on 11.06.1998. It is the contention of the appellant that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.37,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, he along with other land owners preferred Land Reference before the Collector, Yevatmal. The said Land Reference was referred to the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division for disposal. As per the contention of the appellant, he is in possession of the said land since date of the agreement. He had also received the notice under Section 12 for receiving compensation. Thus, he is the 'person interested' to claim the compensation. The notice under Section 9 is replied by him by raising an objection. The amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is received by him. But, his Land Reference is dismissed by the Reference Court by holding that he failed to prove his ownership or 'person interested' to claim the compensation. Being aggrieved with the same, present appeal is preferred by the appellant on the ground that the learned Reference Court has not considered that original owners namely; Smt. Parvatabai Shankarrao Deshmukh and Smt. Mankarnabai Taterao Deshmukh have not raised any objection. The notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6; and notices under Sections 9 and 12 bears his name. He has raised objection to the notice, which was under Section 9 and thereafter filed this reference. He further contended that his name is appearing in 7/12 extract as a cultivator. Thus, the land is in possession since the date of agreement. He is person interested but his land reference is wrongly and erroneously dismissed by the Reference Court.

3. Heard Shri S.G. Loney, learned advocate for the appellant. He submitted that the observation of the learned trial Court is wrong and erroneous in the light that all the notices bears his name, which is sufficient to show that he is the person, who was in the possession of the acquired land and original owners have not raised any objection till today. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Vithabai W/o Deoraoji Wahane Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.1591/2006 decided on 21.12.2006), wherein by referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderlal Vs. Paramsukhdas reported in AIR 1968 SC 366, wherein it is held that the definition of 'interested person' in Section 3(b) of the Act has been given liberal or wide interpretation by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court wayback since 1968 and that has been followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latter judgments mentioned abo