1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal (St) No. 3265 of 2017
Appellant : Wasudeo son of Narayan Wankhede, aged
about 72 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident
of Deurwada, Tahsil Digras, Dist. Yavatmal
versus
Respondents : 1) The State of Maharashtra, through its
Collector, Yavatmal
2) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Benefitted Zone, Yavatmal Shri R. J. Shinde, Advocate for appellant Shri A. M. Kadukar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 22nd August 2017 Oral Judgment
1. Appeal has already been admitted as on date by a separate ::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:24:04 ::: 2 order. Taken up forthwith for final disposal by consent of parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. There is no need to call for Record and Proceedings as the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 269 of 1998 and also the judgment in other concerned appeals. The land of the appellant was acquired, which was situated at Deurwada, District Yavatmal for the purpose of Arunawati Project. The Reference Court determined the market value of the land at Rs. 22,500/- per hectare and partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. In First Appeals No. 269 of 1998 and 523 of 1998, decided on 13.10.2012, this Court found that the rate of the land should have been at Rs. 65,000/- per hectare if the land is non-irrigated one. This judgment was also followed by this Court in First Appeal No. 592 of 1994, decided on 16.1.2017, First Appeal No. 870 of 2017 decided on 26.7.2017 and First Appeal No. 866 of 2017, decided on 1.8.2017. In the present case also the land acquired is dry crop land and similarly situated as the lands involved in First Appeals No. 269 of 1998, 523 of 1998 and 592 of 1994, 870 of 2017 and 866 of 2017. There is no dispute about this fact. Therefore, I am of the view that even for the acquired land, in the instant case, same rate as was determined by the Court in the above referred appeals, would have to be fixed for giving just and proper compensation. ::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:24:04 ::: 3
4. Therefore, I find that the market value of the acquired land in the present case is of Rs. 65,000/- per hectare and the compensation deserves to be given at this rate to the appellant and it is so given. The appellant would also be entitled to receive other benefits regarding interest, solatium etc. at the same rates as given by the Reference Court in its judgment and order dated 18.4.1992, however, with the modification that interest granted by the Reference Court at 9% per annum on excess amount shall be for one year from the date of possession.
It is also made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to receive interest on the compensation as is enhanced by this Court under this order for the period from 18.4.1992 till date. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
The impugned judgment and order stands modified in the above terms.
If there is any deficit on account of payment of Court Fees, same shall be paid within two weeks from the date of order. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:24:04 :::