The court upheld the Reference Court's enhanced compensation for acquired land, emphasizing the need for evidence-based valuation while modifying the interest rate to 9% per annum from the date of award.

JUDGMENT :

Y. G. Khobragade, J.

Heard finally at admission stage with consent of both the sides.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in narrow compass are as under :-

(a) The Respondent/Original claimants owned and possessed the land bearing Survey No. 48 ad-measuring 4 H 34 R at village Bhandarwadi, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur, (hereinafter referred to be as 'acquired land' for brevity) which has been acquired by the Appellant/Original Respondent for public project, which is subject matter of L.A.R. No. 175/2003

(b) The Notification under section 4 of the of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) came to be published on 25.06.1996. The possession of the above said acquired land was taken by the State by way of private negotiation.

(c) According to the claimants, the land under acquisition was of good quality, irrigated having facility of water from the well. They were getting crops like sugarcane, banana, paddy, wheat, chilly, green vegetable, hybrid Jawar (Millet), Khapali, sunflower, groundnuts & fruits bearing trees etc from acquired land.

(d) The Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to pass an award Dated 22.03.1999 in respect of acquired land and awarded compensation @ Rs. 600/- per R (Rs. 60,000/- per Hector) for S. No. 48 considering Jirayat land. The rate was awarded on the basis of revenue assessment and ready Reckoner.

(e) Feeling aggrieved by the rate of compensation given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had preferred references under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court and claimed compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per Acre. The claimants further prayed for separate compensation for Well, Bore Well, Trees and Superstructure-Pipeline i.e. total Rs. 1,78,82,121/- with solatium, component and statutory interest.

(f) The Reference Court considered the rival pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides, and was pleased to enhance the compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. Further amount of compensation was enhanced in respect of trees and superstructure with 12% additional Component and 30% solatium with interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(g) Being dissatisfied with impugned Judgment and Award passed by learned Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 175/2003, the acquiring body has preferred present appeal under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on various grounds enumerated in the memo of appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Ram B. Deshpande, learned counsel for the Appellant/Acquiring body and Mr. T.G. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the Claimants.

4. Mr. Ram B. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the learned Reference Court committed grave error while granting compensation in respect of subject matter of the appeal without considering the documentary evidence 7/12 extract which can prove what crops are being taken by the Respondents/original claimants. Though, the Claimants claimed about getting Sugar Cane Crops, but they failed to prove receipt about supply of sugar cane to the Sugar Factory and receipt of payment. So also, there are variance in pleadings and evidence about crops taken and standing of trees. It is further canvassed that the learned Reference Court granted compensation mainly on the basis of principle of parity without considering comparative sale deeds of same village, area, location quality, fertility of land as well as availability of water facility, type of crops, transportation facility etc. and all these factors are required for consideration while applying principle of parity of compensation in respect of acquired land, however, the learned Reference Court failed to record finding in this regard. Therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award is illegal and bad in law.

5. It is further canvassed that the learned Reference Court granted exorbitant compensation than the market rate on the basis of Judgment and Awards pas