The court clarified the standards for determining compensation in land acquisition cases, asserting that evidence of irrigation should influence valuation, and rental compensation is due to farmers deprived of their land income.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

1. All these appeals are preferred against the common judgment and award dated 08.06.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur in L.A.R. No. 991 of 2001 (Old No. 764 of 1997), L.A.R. No. 990 of 2001 (Old No. 763 of 1997), L.A.R. 985 of 2001 (Old No. 758 of 1997), L.A.R. 991 of 2001 (Old No. 765 of 1997), L.A.R. 1069 of 2001 (Old No. 37 of 1998), L.A.R. 997 of 2001 (Old No. 770 of 1997) and L.A.R. 993 of 2001 (Old No. 766 of 1997), respectively, by which the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation @ Rs.520/- and 460/- per Are for group I and group II lands, as shown in the following chart:-

CHART

2. Learned advocate for the appellants pointed out the pleadings and evidence and submitted that the learned Reference Court failed to weigh the evidence of claimants in its proper perspective and came to an erroneous conclusion by holding that the acquired lands of all the claimants are non irrigated lands. He pointed out the 7x12 extracts which shows that there was water facility to irrigate the lands acquired in first appeal Nos. 9 of 2013, 10 of 2013, 1522 of 2022, 1682 of 2022 and 1681 of 2022. He submitted that it is the choice of the agriculturists whether to cultivate crops using water or not; however, if they do not do so, it cannot be held that their lands are not irrigated. He further pointed out the receipts of the payment received from the sugarcane factory to show that sugarcane crops were being cultivated on those lands and thus, those lands were irrigated lands. He fairly concedes that the lands in first appeal Nos. 1680 of 2022 and 1523 of 2022 are non irrigated lands.

3. Learned advocate for the appellants placed reliance on the following authorities:-

i) Manohar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Civil Appeal Arising out of the Diary No. 26900 of 2023) in which in para 33, it is observed that:-

“33. It can thus be seen that it is a settled position of law that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar land, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona-fide transaction, will be considered. The same was reiterated in the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Yusuf (supra).

ii) The Central Warehousing Corporation vs. Thakur Dwara Kalan Ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala (Dead) and others (Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30817-30818 of 2016), in which in para 24, it is observed that:-

“24. Taking an overall view in the matter and the consistent view of this Court, the fair and reasonable compensation in the present case would be best determined if we apply 8% annual increase with cumulative effect. This is for the reason that the gap is huge i.e. 11 years. For shorter period of 3-5 years, it could have been 10% or 12%. But in no case 15% would be justified for a period of 11 years as awarded by the High Court in the impugned order. In the present case, given the 11 years gap, 8% would be considered just and proper.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants further submitted that the Reference Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the sale instance at Exh.32 which shows that the agricultural land admeasuring 40 Are was sold for Rs.45,000/- which is the highest price of sale exemplar of the year 1989. It is relevant and considered by the learned Reference Court. The agricultural land in the sale exemplar Exh.32 was dry/jirayat land. He therefore, submitted that the learned Reference Court erred while deciding the value of the acquired land and held that the acquired land in question were not irrigated land. He submitted to award the compensation by placing reliance upon the sale exemplar at Exh.32.