Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Jagdish Shriram Poddar, owned agricultural lands bearing survey nos. 22/1 and 22/4, area 1.51 HR, at Mouja Chichala, Wardha. For construction of an overhead railway bridge, 0.20 HR of land was acquired vide notification dated 19.9.1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 12.3.1987 fixing market value at Rs.120 per square meter. Aggrieved, the appellant sought a reference, which was rejected by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in L.A.C. No. 4/1988 on 31.1.1992. The appellant then filed the present appeal. The appellant contended that the Reference Court ignored the fact that due to acquisition of 0.80 HR out of 1.61 HR, a fragment of 50,000 sq.ft. remained, rendered useless, and compensation ought to have been awarded for that fragment. The appellant relied on three sale instances: two plots of 3,000 sq.ft. sold by Shriram Poddar to Madhav Indurkar and Harprasadsingh Thakur on 16.6.1982 and 7.6.1982, fetching Rs.5.50 per sq.ft. (approx. Rs.55 per sq.m.), and a third sale instance dated 17.8.1982 where Hemlal sold 1400 sq.ft. to Indubai for Rs.12,000, fetching Rs.8.50 per sq.ft. (approx. Rs.85 per sq.m.). The court noted that with 15% escalation per year, the value from the first two instances would be Rs.70-75 per sq.m., and from the third instance, Rs.100 per sq.m. Since the appellant already received Rs.120 per sq.m., the Reference Court was justified in not enhancing compensation. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the claim for enhanced compensation or for the fragment.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Market Value - Determination - The court considered whether the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.120 per square meter was just and fair, based on sale instances of similar plots in the same area. The court found that the sale instances indicated a lower market value, and with escalation, the value would be around Rs.100 per square meter, thus the awarded amount was adequate. (Paras 7-8) B) Land Acquisition - Fragment - Compensation for Unutilized Land - The appellant claimed compensation for a fragment of 50,000 sq.ft. rendered useless due to acquisition. The court did not address this claim in the judgment, as the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the compensation for the acquired land was already adequate. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
What is the just and fair amount of compensation for the lands of the appellant acquired?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and award of the Reference Court dated 31.1.1992 in L.A.C. No. 4/1988 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Market Value
- Sale Instances
- Fragment
- Just and Fair Compensation
