Compensation for land acquisition cannot be restricted to the amount claimed by the landowner; courts must ensure just and fair compensation reflecting true market value.

Pravin S. Patil, J.

1. Heard.

2. Present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court in L.A.C. No.215/2003 whereby the respondent no.1 and 2/Claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.5 lakh for acquisition of their land along with the statutory benefits.

3. In the present appeal, it is undisputed fact that respondent nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the land bearing Survey NO.38/2003 ad- measuring 1 Hector situated at Mouja Gambhirpur, Tq. and Dist. Amravati. The said land is situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Amravati (‘the Corporation’) and same was acquired by the Corporation for Sewerage Treatment Plant. At the time of acquisition of this land, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.7,04,000/- per hectare for dry crop land and by considering the acquired land as an irrigated land awarded the compensation Rs.14,08,000/- per hectare. Respondent no. 1 and 2, being dissatisfied with the compensation award, preferred reference against the award of LAO dated 27.05.2003.

4. It is pertinent to note that respondent nos.1 and 2, have specifically pleaded in their reference proceedings that, the amount awarded to them is very meager amount because just adjoining to the field i.e. Survey No.37 of mouja Gambhirpur land is being used for residential purpose since long, and therefore, considering the potentiality of the respondents’ land, the amount ought to have been awarded by treating the same as residential potentiality. It is further specifically pleaded by the respondents that the land which was acquired for Sewerage Treatment Plant, therefore, compensation towards development charges is not required to be deducted as like in other cases in the present matter.

5. It is specifically pleaded by the Respondent 1 and 2, that, due to financial constraint though the valuation of the land is near-about Rs.20,00,000/- and above, they have restricted their claim to Rs.5 lakh only as they were not in a position to pay the court fee stamp in the matter. At the same time, they made a categorical statement that, if the Reference Court reached to the conclusion that respondents/claimants are entitled for higher compensation as per valuation shown in the plaint, they are ready to furnish the deficit court fee, on enhance amount.

6. In the background of above said factual position, the learned Reference Court proceeded to decide the Reference proceedings filed by the respondents/claimants. The Reference Court has categorically recorded the finding that acquired land is situated within the limits of the Corporation and in the center of Amravati City. Then relied upon the sale instances produced on record by respondent nos. 1 and 2, and accordingly fixed the rate of Rs.300/- per square meter.

7. Perusal of the impugned judgment, particularly paragraph 18, the Reference Court has done the calculation of the entitlement of the respondent nos.2 towards the compensation and reached to the conclusion that claimants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.6,92,000/. However, as the claimants(respondent nos. 1 and 2) had restricted their claim of compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- only, the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.5 lakh only along with the statutory benefits as permissible under the provisions of law.

8. This order of the Reference Court is challenged by the acquiring body by way of present appeal mainly on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is exorbitant, by wrongly considering the fact that the land owned b