Kalpana W/O Hansaraj Pise vs Vidarbha Irrigation ...

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 2135 Bom
Judgement Date : 2 May, 2016

Bombay High Court
Kalpana W/O Hansaraj Pise vs Vidarbha Irrigation ... on 2 May, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
                  fa527.15.odt                                                                                        1/4

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.




                                                                                                                 
                                                        FIRST APPEAL NO.527 OF 2015




                                                                                  
                   APPELLANT:                                 Kalpana   W/o   Hansaraj   Pise,   Age-63
                                                              Yrs,   Occ.-   Agriculturist,   R/o   Dighi,
                   (On R.A.)
                                                              Tq.- Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
                                                                                                                   
                                                                    -VERSUS-




                                                                                 
                   RESPONDENTS:                                  1. Vidarbha   Irrigation   Development
                                                                    Corporation   through   the   Executive
                   (On R.A.)
                                                                    Engineer   Bembla   Project   Division,




                                                                      
                                                                    Yavatmal.
                                                                 2. The   State   of   Maharashtra   through
                                     ig                             Collector, Yavatmal.
                                                        3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                                                              Minor   Irrigation   Works   No.1,
                                                              Yavatmal.
                                   
                                                                                                                                    

                  Shri A. B. Nakshane, Advocate for the appellant.
                  Shri S. S. Godbole, Advocate for respondent No.1.
      

                  Ms. N. P. Mehta, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   



                                                               CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED: 2nd MAY, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the judgment of the Reference Court dated 31-8-2009 in L.A.C. No.332 of 2006.

2. Land admeasuring 2 Hectare 83R from Gat No.8, situated at village Dighi, Tah. Babhulgaon, ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:38:05 ::: fa527.15.odt 2/4 District Yavatmal was acquired for submergence of Bembla River Project. The notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 14-8-2003 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 31-5-2005.

An amount of Rs.77,309/- per hectare was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. In reference proceedings, the same was enhanced to Rs.1,65,000/- per hectare.

The claimant has filed the present appeal seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation.

3. Shri A. B. Nakshane, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the First Appeal No.1062/2014, this Court had determined the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare as fair compensation for the land acquired under the same notification under Section 4 of the said Act. He submitted that in view of aforesaid judgment, the claimant would be entitled for aforesaid enhancement.

4. Shri S. S. Godbole, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 does not dispute the fact that the land acquired in present proceedings is from the same notification wherein the land which was the subject matter in First Appeal No.1062/2014 was acquired.

::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:38:05 :::

fa527.15.odt 3/4 He states that the land is from the same village and, therefore, the aforesaid judgment can be taken into consideration.

5. Ms. N. P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 & 3 also does not dispute the aforesaid position.

6. The point for consideration that arises is "whether the appellant is entitled for higher compensation?"

7. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record.

It is not in dispute that in respect of the lands from the same notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act, an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- has been determined as fair compensation. On that basis, the appellant herein would also be entitled for the same amount of enhancement. Hence, for the reasons assigned in the First Appeal No.1062/2014, it is held that the appellant would be entitled to receive compensation @Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare. The point as framed is answered accordingly.

::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:38:05 :::

fa527.15.odt 4/4

8. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:

(1) The judgment of the Reference Court dated 31-8-2009 in L.A.C. No.332/2006 is partly modified.

It is held that the appellant would be entitled to receive compensation @ Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. In view of the order dated 18-4-2015 in C. A. (F) No.976 of 2015, the appellant would not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period from 31-8-2009 till 18-4-2015.

(2) The first appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

JUDGE //MULEY// ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:38:05 :::