FIRST APPEAL 770 of 2000 on 25 October 1999

1. This is Appeal by State U/s. 54 of the Land Acquisition act,1894 (“the said Act” for short) challenging the Judgment and Orderdated 25/10/1999 passed by Joint District Judge, Nashik in LandReference No. 407 of 1991. By the said impugned Order, theReference Court has granted total enhancement of Rs.30,329/- infavour of Respondents/Claimants.

2. Few facts for disposal of this Appeal arise as under. Predecessorof present Respondents/Claimants was owner of land Gat No. 45situated at village Rasegaon, Tal. Dindori, Dist. Nashik. The said landHusenPage 1 of 4

was acquired for construction of percolation tank. The NotificationU/s. 4 of the said Act was published in Government Gazette on16/05/1985. The concerned Special Land Acquisition Officer(“SLAO” for short) declared the Award on 18/09/1986, and grantedmeager amount of Rs.7,814/- in favour of Respondents.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said Award, claimant/sfiled the aforesaid reference. The learned Reference Court afterconsidering the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, hasgranted enhancement to the tune of Rs.30,329/- which means thatan additional amount of Rs.22,515/- is awarded.

4. Learned AGP for the State has assailed the impugned Judgmentand Order as per various grounds raised in the Appeal memo. Nonefor the Respondents.

5. I have carefully considered the impugned Judgment and Orderand reasons given therein to arrive at the amount of additionalcompensation granted. The reasons are well founded. The originalamount granted by the SLAO of Rs.7,814/- and enhanced amountgranted of Rs.30,329/- are both meager amounts. The ReferenceCourt has considered comparable sale instances, as well as othermaterial on record to arrive at the figure of enhanced compensation.In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugnedJudgment and Order. There is no merit in the Appeal.

6. Facts of this case are more or less similar to a group of FirstAppeals disposed of by another Single Bench of this Court with leadFirst Appeal No. 208 of 1992 along with others under Order dated

03.04.2017 (CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J.). I am completely inagreement with the view taken by my brother Judge in the saidOrder. It has to be noted that state compulsorily acquires lands of thecitizens like Respondent/Claimant and despite the compensationamount being so paltry / meager, the State carries the matters inappeal. In many cases, it is found that on account of pendency of theAppeal (primarily because no steps are taken by the State to effectservice or bring legal heirs on record or reasons alike), theRespondent/Claimant remains deprived of even meager amounts ofcompensation awarded to them. It is also sadly noted that the StateGovernment in such Appeals, spends amounts on Court fees, typingand other filing expenses and legal fees which are either comparableto the existing amounts of compensation involved or more. In manycases it is found that the AGPs express their helplessness becausedespite communication/s the concerned Government officers do notcome forward and take responsibility by clearly stating whether aparticular Land Reference case is falling under relevant GRs(including G.R. dated 03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated23.02.2017, 04.05.2017 and 11.05.2018) and whether the Appealshould be prosecuted or not in view thereof. It is further sadly notedthat the general perception seems to be, firstly that the claims whichare held against Government or Statutory Authority must be viewedas illegal and therefore should be resisted and fought up to thehighest Courts and secondly, that if a decision on the issue could beavoided or is to be avoided, then it is simply not taken so thataggrieved party can approach the Court and let the Court take thedecision. This results in clogging of the judicial system and also eats

into the valuable judicial time. In view thereof I find that this is a fitcase for dismissal.

7. Hence the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. In view ofthe dismissal of Appeal, the Respondents/Claimants are at liberty towithdraw the amount of compensation, if deposited by the State inthe Reference Court along with accrued interest, if not alreadywithdrawn.

8. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the remaining pendingInterim Application No. 2566 of 2022 (for issuing fresh notice toRespondent No.1B) also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

9. All concerned to act on authenticated or digitally signed copyof this order.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)