fa1136.07.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1136 OF 2007
APPELLANT: Chief General Manager, W.C.L.,
Jaripatka, Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Umrao S/o Narayan Mire, Age about
50 years, Occ-Agriculturist, R/o at
Gondegaon, Tah. Parshivni, Dist.-
Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra through
ig Collector, Nagpur.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Pench Project-1, Nagpur.
Shri C. S. Samudra, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 &
3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 2nd MAY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the judgment of the Reference Court dated 26-06-2007 in L.A.C. No.117 of 1998.
2. Land admeasuring 1 Hectare 81R from Survey No.36 and land admeasuring 1 Hectare 23R ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:38:00 ::: fa1136.07.odt 2/3 from Survey No.37, both situated at village Gondegaon, Tah. Parshivni, District Nagpur were the subject matter of the acquisition. The notification under Section 4 of the said Act is dated 25-4-1993 and the award was passed on 25-6-1996. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation @ Rs.41,967/- and Rs.42,435/- per hectare for said lands. The Reference Court partly enhanced the compensation only in so far as the trees are concerned.
Being aggrieved by said enhancement, the present appeal has been filed.
3. In para 18 of the impugned judgment, it has been stated that in so far as the trees are concerned, the rates which are granted in L.A.C. No.74/1999 was being granted in the present case. It is to be noted that the judgment in L.A.C. No.74 of 1999 was challenged in First Appeal No.786/2006 which has been dismissed today by maintaining the enhancement granted by the Reference Court. It is further not in dispute that the number of trees for which the compensation has been granted are as per the e-statement annexed to the award. Considering the ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:38:00 ::: fa1136.07.odt 3/3 fact that the enhancement has been granted by the Reference Court by relying upon the judgment in L.A.C. No.74/1999 and the amounts granted therein by way of enhancement have been confirmed in First Appeal No.786 of 2006, the award of the Reference Court is liable to be maintained.
4. In view of aforesaid and for the reasons mentioned in First Appeal No.786/2006, the following order is passed:
The judgment dated 26-6-2007 in L.A.C.
No.17/1998 stands confirmed. The first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE //MULEY// ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:38:00 :::