FA-998-2015.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2015

Gangadhar s/o Eknath Kanade

Age: 74 years, Occu: Agriculture,

R/o At Post Borgaon, Tq. Newasa,

Dist. Ahmednagar

… Appellant

(Orig. Petitioner)

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

… Respondent

.…

Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate h/f Shri D. R. Adhav, Advocate for appellant

Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for respondent

.…

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.

RESERVED ON : 25^th NOVEMBER, 2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 08^th MARCH, 2022

J U D G M E N T :-

.

This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The challenge herein is to

the judgment and award dated 20.09.2014 passed by the learned

Civil Judge, Senior Division (Reference Court) Newasa, in Land

Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No.275/2010. The appellant herein is

the original land owner whose land with house/bungalow thereon,

1 of 8

(( 2 ))

FA-998-2015

came to be acquired for Jayakwadi Project. The quantum of

compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was accepted

by the appellant under protest and preferred L.A.R. for enhancement

therein. The Reference Court, in turn, enhanced the amount of

compensation by Rs.1,58,349/- with all consequential benefits. The

appellant feeling the enhancement of compensation to be grossly

inadequate, has preferred the present appeal.

2.

Heard.

Shri A. B. Kale, learned Advocate for the appellant would

submit that there were two house properties belonging to the

appellant. Both were acquired for submerged area of Jayakwadi

Project. The Grampanchayat property numbers of both these

properties were 1 and 39. The property No.1 admeasured 833.10

square meters. The construction thereon was admeasuring 755

square meters. The property bearing No.39 admeasured 538.10

square meters, with tin shed thereon. The Land Acquisition Officer

awarded meager amount of Rs.16,454/-. The appellant had

examined himself on oath. A Civil Engineer was also examined in

proof of the construction plan and estimated cost of the bungalow

that came to be acquired. The photographs thereof have also been

2 of 8

(( 3 ))

FA-998-2015

placed on record. The house property had come to the share of the

appellant in partition. A copy of deed to partition was also placed on

record. The respondent – State did not lead any evidence. Valuation

of the bungalow was Rs.5,05,367/-. When the entire construction

admeasured 755 square meters, the Reference Court ought not to

have reduced it to 303 square meters by guess work. No

compensation has been awarded for the open piece of land. The

learned Advocate relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana – (2016) 4

SCC 544, would submit that the Court can grant compensation more

than claimed in the Reference. The amount of compensation

awarded by the Reference Court is contrary to the evidence on

record. The learned Advocate, therefore, urged for allowing the

appeal.

3.

The learned APP would, on the other hand, submit that

there is no evidence in proof that the bungalow to have admeasured

755 square meters. The amount of compensation awarded is more

than the market value. He, therefore, urged for dismissal of the

appeal.

3 of 8

(( 4 ))

FA-998-2015

4.

Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the

evidence relied on. Gone through the impugned judgment. The

award (Exh.55) does indicate that two properties admeasuring

833.10 and 538.10 square meters, belonging to the appellant herein

came to be acquired. In the Reference itself, the property bearing

No.39 has been admitted to be an open space. The Reference Court

has not awarded any amount of compensation for this property. It

might be a mistake. The property bearing Grampanchayat No.1,

admittedly admeasures 833.10 square meters. According to the

appellant, almost entire piece of land was under RCC bungalow. The

building plan Exh.48 placed on record by the appellant himself does

indicate tha