Compensation fixed using pre-notification comparable sale after correcting date; dry lands default absent irrigation proof; benefits denied for claimant delay in fees, granted for authority lapses; 9% interest awards rental value.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 02.05.2015 passed by the Reference Court awarding inadequate compensation. The notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the award are common. Hence, all the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The lands of the appellants from village Nipani Jawalka, Taluka Georai, District Beed were acquired pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the Act of which last date of publication was 11.07.2005. The award was passed on 15.06.2007. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) treated all the lands as dry lands and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.690/- per Are. The Reference Court treated the lands in First Appeal Nos.571 of 2023, 572 of 2023 and 3104 of 2023 as dry lands whereas the lands in First Appeal Nos.1774 of 2023 and 1775 of 2023 were treated as irrigated lands. The Reference Court fixed the rate of Rs.2500/- per Are for irrigated lands and Rs.2000/- per Are for non-irrigated lands.

4. Mr. Shubham D. Jaybhar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all seven sale instances (Exhibits-16 to 22) pressed into service were discarded by the Reference Court. The reliance is placed on sale instance at Exhibits-18 and in the alternative on Exhibit-22. It is submitted that all the lands are irrigated lands and the evidence to that effect is ignored. It is submitted that the last date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was 11.07.2005 which is mistaken in rejecting the sale instance at Exhibit-22. It is submitted that the Reference Court committed illegality in fixing the rate at Rs.2000/- per Are for dry lands and Rs.2500/- per Are for irrigated lands by relying upon previous judgment of the Reference Court in other matters. It is further submitted that no fault can be attributed to the appellants, for belated payment of deficit court fees and for any delay in referring the matter to the Reference Court. The claim for rental compensation is also pressed into service.

5. Per contra, Mr. H. V. Dhage, learned counsel appearing for the acquiring body submitted that sale instance at Exhibit-22 is rightly discarded by the Reference Court and the other sale instances are also not compatible. It is submitted that all aspects of the matter are duly considered by the Reference Court and there is no need to cause any interference.

6. Mr. Rahul A. Tambe, learned counsel appearing for acquiring body in one of the appeals submitted that though the references were filed on 18.01.2008, they were registered only on 11.08.2014. The lapses of six years are attributable to the appellants for which they are not entitled to any statutory benefits. It is submitted that the appellants were casual and failed to pay the deficit court fees for which their references lingered.

7. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. The lands are acquired for the purpose of Village Tank No.2. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in Government Gazette on 13.01.2005 and the last date of publication is 11.07.2005 under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It shall be treated as the date of notifica