“20- Now, we have to consider the claim of the
petitioners lands on the basis of income capitalisation
method (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). The
petitioners stated on oath that they used to take crops
of cotton, jowar, tur and used to get annual net income
worth Rs.5000/- per acre excluding expenses. The
petitioners also submitted on record the 7/12 extracts
(Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). On the basis of these
7/12 extracts, it reveals that the petitioners used to take
crops of cotton, tur and jowar in the acquired lands. It
is matter of record that the petitioners failed to submit
any documentary evidence in support of their annual
net income and various yield of crops. It is to be
mentioned that the petitioners being an agriculturists it
is not expected or desirable from them that they should
submit the account about their annual net income and
various yield of crops that too before 9/10 years.
Considering the crop statement shown in 7/12 extracts
(Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50), by memory of
petitioners and by guess work, it can certainly be said
that the petitioners should have getting annual net
income worth Rs.2000/- per acre i.e. Rs.5000/- per
hectare from the acquired land.
22- Thus, by applying the above said principles and
taking resources of the method of income
capitalisation, the then market value of the lands of the
petitioners would be Rs.5000/- per hectare X 10 =
Rs.50,000/- per hectare on the date of notification
under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. ”
7] These observations cannot be faulted with.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.169/2007
The State of Maharashtra, through its Collector,
Yavatmal.
VERSUS
Smt. Radhabai Punaji Gedam, r/o Dabha Tq. Kelapur,
Distt. Yavatmal
CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.
DATE: 2/11/2012.
Citation;2013(1)ALLMR783 Bom
These appeals are arising out of the common judgment
and award dated 11.2.2007 passed in L.A.C. No.216/2002 to
218/2002.
2] Lands situated in village Dabha, Tal Kelapur,
district : Yavatmal were compulsorily acquired for
construction of canal of Khemkund Irrigation Project. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on
31.3.1996 awarding compensation @ Rs.12,000/- P.H. and
Rs.14,400/-P.H. Dissatisfied with this, the land owners /
respondents herein sought separate references. They relied
upon the decisions rendered in earlier references which were
sought in respect of the lands acquired for the same project.
The evidence about the income derived from the land was
adduced. On that basis, the learned Reference Court fixed the
market value at Rs.50,000/- P.H. Aggrieved by this judgment
and award State has preferred these appeals.
3] The learned A G P criticised the judgment and
award mainly on the ground that the enhancement to any
extent was not justified because of lack of evidence. According
to him, the onus which lies upon the land owners to seek
enhancement, has not been discharged.
4] Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents supported the judgment and award. She
contends that the rate of compensation @ Rs.50,000/- P.H. or
Rs.20,000/- per acre on its face is very much on lower side. In
that view of the matter, the appeals are liable to be dismissed
with cost.
5] Point that arises for my consideration is :
Whether any interference with the judgment
and award impugned is warranted?
6] In all these appeals respective land owner entered the witness
box and deposed about the quality of the land and placed on record
the 7/12 extracts at Exhibits 35, 36, 44, 45, 49 &50. All these
documents reveal that the lands were under cultivation and
crops like cotton, toor (pulses) jwar were grown. Evidence was
led to the effect that per year profit from each acre of the land
was Rs.5000/-. However, the learned Reference Court
assumed it at Rs.2,000/- per acre. This aspect of the matter has
been discussed in paragraph 20 and 22 of the judgment and
same is reproduced below:
“20- Now, we have to consider the claim of the
petitioners lands on the basis of income capitalisation
method (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). The
petitioners stated on oath that they used to take crops
of cotton, jowar, tur and used to get annual net income
worth Rs.5000/- per acre excluding expenses. The
petitioners also submitted on record the 7/12 extracts
(Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). On the basis of these
7/12 extracts, it reveals that the petitioners used to take
crops of cotton, tur and jowar in the acquired lands. It
is matter of record that the petitioners failed to submit
any documentary evidence in support of their annual
net income and various yield of crops. It is to be
mentioned that the petitioners being an agriculturists it
is not expected or desirable from them that they should
submit the account about their annual net income and
various yield of crops that too before 9/10 years.
Considering the crop statement shown in 7/12 extracts
(Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50), by memory of
petitioners and by guess work, it can certainly be said
that the petitioners should have getting annual net
income worth Rs.2000/- per acre i.e. Rs.5000/- per
hectare from the acquired land.
22- Thus, by applying the above said principles and
taking resources of the method of income
capitalisation, the then market value of the lands of the
petitioners would be Rs.5000/- per hectare X 10 =
Rs.50,000/- per hectare on the date of notification
under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. ”
7] These observations cannot be faulted with. Even by
considering all the minus factors, and considering the cost of
cultivation income from each acre of the land in any
circumstance can not be less than Rs.2000 - 2500/-. Learned
Reference Court was right in choosing multiplier of 10. In
that view of the matter there lies no scope for interference with
the judgment and award. In the result appeals fail.
8] Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
In case there is any deposit made by the appellant, the
Registry or the Reference Court, as the case may be, shall
disburse forthwith the amount amongst claimants in terms of
award and in any event within 3 months from the date of this
order. If required, intimation be given to them. In the event of
any withdrawal was permitted during the pendency of the
appeal on furnishing undertaking or security, such undertaking
or security, as the case may be, shall stand discharged.
JUDGE
Print Page
petitioners lands on the basis of income capitalisation
method (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). The
petitioners stated on oath that they used to take crops
of cotton, jowar, tur and used to get annual net income
worth Rs.5000/- per acre excluding expenses. The
petitioners also submitted on record the 7/12 extracts
(Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). On the basis of these
7/12 extracts, it reveals that the petitioners used to take
crops of cotton, tur and jowar in the acquired lands. It
is matter of record that the petitioners failed to submit
any documentary evidence in support of their annual
net income and various yield of crops. It is to be
mentioned that the petitioners being an agriculturists it
is not expected or desirable from them that they should
submit the account about their annual net income and
various yield of crops that too before 9/10 years.
Considering the crop statement shown in 7/12 extracts
(Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50), by memory of
petitioners and by guess work, it can certainly be said
that the petitioners should have getting annual net
income worth Rs.2000/- per acre i.e. Rs.5000/- per
hectare from the acquired land.
22- Thus, by applying the above said principles and
taking resources of the method of income
capitalisation, the then market value of the lands of the
petitioners would be Rs.5000/- per hectare X 10 =
Rs.50,000/- per hectare on the date of notification
under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. ”
7] These observations cannot be faulted with.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.169/2007
The State of Maharashtra, through its Collector,
Yavatmal.
VERSUS
Smt. Radhabai Punaji Gedam, r/o Dabha Tq. Kelapur,
Distt. Yavatmal
CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.
DATE: 2/11/2012.
Citation;2013(1)ALLMR783 Bom
These appeals are arising out of the common judgment
and award dated 11.2.2007 passed in L.A.C. No.216/2002 to
218/2002.
2] Lands situated in village Dabha, Tal Kelapur,
district : Yavatmal were compulsorily acquired for
construction of canal of Khemkund Irrigation Project. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on
31.3.1996 awarding compensation @ Rs.12,000/- P.H. and
Rs.14,400/-P.H. Dissatisfied with this, the land owners /
respondents herein sought separate references. They relied
upon the decisions rendered in earlier references which were
sought in respect of the lands acquired for the same project.
The evidence about the income derived from the land was
adduced. On that basis, the learned Reference Court fixed the
market value at Rs.50,000/- P.H. Aggrieved by this judgment
and award State has preferred these appeals.
3] The learned A G P criticised the judgment and
award mainly on the ground that the enhancement to any
extent was not justified because of lack of evidence. According
to him, the onus which lies upon the land owners to seek
enhancement, has not been discharged.
4] Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents supported the judgment and award. She
contends that the rate of compensation @ Rs.50,000/- P.H. or
Rs.20,000/- per acre on its face is very much on lower side. In
that view of the matter, the appeals are liable to be dismissed
with cost.
5] Point that arises for my consideration is :
Whether any interference with the judgment
and award impugned is warranted?
6] In all these appeals respective land owner entered the witness
box and deposed about the quality of the land and placed on record
the 7/12 extracts at Exhibits 35, 36, 44, 45, 49 &50. All these
documents reveal that the lands were under cultivation and
crops like cotton, toor (pulses) jwar were grown. Evidence was
led to the effect that per year profit from each acre of the land
was Rs.5000/-. However, the learned Reference Court
assumed it at Rs.2,000/- per acre. This aspect of the matter has
been discussed in paragraph 20 and 22 of the judgment and
same is reproduced below:
“20- Now, we have to consider the claim of the
petitioners lands on the basis of income capitalisation
method (Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). The
petitioners stated on oath that they used to take crops
of cotton, jowar, tur and used to get annual net income
worth Rs.5000/- per acre excluding expenses. The
petitioners also submitted on record the 7/12 extracts
(Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50). On the basis of these
7/12 extracts, it reveals that the petitioners used to take
crops of cotton, tur and jowar in the acquired lands. It
is matter of record that the petitioners failed to submit
any documentary evidence in support of their annual
net income and various yield of crops. It is to be
mentioned that the petitioners being an agriculturists it
is not expected or desirable from them that they should
submit the account about their annual net income and
various yield of crops that too before 9/10 years.
Considering the crop statement shown in 7/12 extracts
(Exhs-35, 36, 44, 45, 49 and 50), by memory of
petitioners and by guess work, it can certainly be said
that the petitioners should have getting annual net
income worth Rs.2000/- per acre i.e. Rs.5000/- per
hectare from the acquired land.
22- Thus, by applying the above said principles and
taking resources of the method of income
capitalisation, the then market value of the lands of the
petitioners would be Rs.5000/- per hectare X 10 =
Rs.50,000/- per hectare on the date of notification
under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. ”
7] These observations cannot be faulted with. Even by
considering all the minus factors, and considering the cost of
cultivation income from each acre of the land in any
circumstance can not be less than Rs.2000 - 2500/-. Learned
Reference Court was right in choosing multiplier of 10. In
that view of the matter there lies no scope for interference with
the judgment and award. In the result appeals fail.
8] Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
In case there is any deposit made by the appellant, the
Registry or the Reference Court, as the case may be, shall
disburse forthwith the amount amongst claimants in terms of
award and in any event within 3 months from the date of this
order. If required, intimation be given to them. In the event of
any withdrawal was permitted during the pendency of the
appeal on furnishing undertaking or security, such undertaking
or security, as the case may be, shall stand discharged.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment