Post notification sale instance can not be relied on for awarding compensation in land acquisition

The land owners also placed reliance upon sale
instance dated 11.2.1994 which is a post notification. This
being not proximate from time angle, there is no need to
consider the same.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.100 OF 1998
APPELLANT:
State of Maharashtra,
VERSUS

1] Anant Dayaramji Khandar, 
CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.
DATE: 29.11.2012.
Citation; 2013 (3) All M R 350

These appeals arise from the common judgment
and award dated 30.4.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No. 111/1992
and 114/1992.
2]
The lands in village Bhambora District:Amravati
were compulsorily acquired for Upper Wardha Project (for
constructing canal) – Upper Wardha Irrigation Project
Benefitted Zone No.2 vide notification dated 24.11.1988. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on
10.9.1991 and fixed the market value @ Rs.12,000/- P.H.
Dissatisfied with this award the land owners sought reference.
3]
The land owners relied upon sale instances and

also judgment and award delivered in Land Acquisition Case
No.27/1992
by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati.
The learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of
compensation to Rs.40,000/- P.H. Being aggrieved by this
enhancement of compensation these two appeals have been
preferred by the State.
4] None appeared for the respondents.
5] Mr. Sonak, learned A G P appearing for the State
contended that the compensation awarded by the learned
Reference Court is not based upon any material available on
the record. The learned reference court ought not to have
blindly relied upon the decision rendered in Land Acquisition
Case No.27/1992, he urged.
6]
The point that arises for my consideration is:
A]
Whether any interference with the judgment
and award is warranted?
7]
Admittedly
the
land
survey
no.44/2
[land
in
L.A.C.No.111/1992] was under cultivation and crops like
cotton, pulses were grown. Exhibit 33 is the 7/12 extract
issued in the year 1987-88. It shows that there was a well
fitted with electric motor-pump in the land. As regards the
land survey No.70 [in L.A.C. No.114/1992] Exhibit 26 and
28, reveals that this land was under cultivation and crops like

cotton, pulses and jwar were grown. The judgment and award
rendered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati on
24.1.1996 in L.A.C. No.27/1992 has been relied upon. It
pertains to the acquisition of the land of the same village for
the same project. In respect of that land notification was
published in 1988. In that case relying upon some sale
instances, learned reference court awarded compensation @
Rs.30,000/- P.H. In that view of the matter and even ex-facie
the market value of the land under cultivation, situated in the
village in district Amravati in no circumstances can be less
than Rs.16,000/- per acre. in the year 1987-88. The learned
reference court did not commit any error in relying upon the
decision in L.A.C. No.27/1992 and awarding compensation
@ Rs.40,000/- P.H. on the ground of parity.
8]
The land owners also placed reliance upon sale
instance dated 11.2.1994 which is a post notification. This
being not proximate from time angle, there is no need to
consider the same. The other sale instance is dated 4.5.1987
and 15.5.1987. According to the later sale instance, the land
area 2.83 H.R. fetched market value of Rs.30,000/- P.H. If
permissible increase is added, the value fixed by the reference
court, does not appear to be on higher side or such which calls
for interference by this court. In the result, I find no merit in

these appeals.
9]
Both these appeals are dismissed accordingly. No
order as to costs.
JUDGE

Print Page