1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 33 of 2008
Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
through Chief Executive Officer, having its
Regional Office at Udyog Bhavan, Nagpur
Versus
Respondents: 1) Sau Kalpana w/o Govindrao Fiske, aged about
61 years, Occ: Cultivator, residnt of Deoli, District
Wardha
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Wardha
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant None appears for respondent no. 1 Ms H. N. Jaipurkar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent no 2 Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 6th December 2017 Oral Judgment
1. This appeal questions the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 28 th February 2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 46 of 1995 by the 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Wardha. ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 00:50:36 ::: 2
2. The land of respondent no. 1 bearing survey number 582, area 2.47 herctare situated at Deoli was acquired by the State for the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation for the purpose of industrial growth at Deoli, District Wardha. The Land Acquisition Officer by his Award dated 13.7.1994 granted compensation of Rs. 52,000/- per hectare for half portion of the land and Rs. 35,000/- per hectare for remaining land. The claimant was not satisfied with such assessment and, therefore, preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On merits, the Reference Court found that the lands situated at the remote area were granted compensation at Rs. 30,000/- per hectare for dry-crop land and Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for irrigated land and, therefore, looking at the better situation of the land in this case and its proximity to the road, though it is dry-crop land, the Reference Court granted compensation of Rs. 52,000/- per hectare. Accordingly, the Reference Court partly allowed the application. This is what is challenged in the present appeal.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 2. Nobody appears for respondent no. 1.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 00:50:36 ::: 3
4. Now, the only point that arises for my determination is -
Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper ?
5. The assessment of inferior land done by the Reference Court in other cases to be at Rs. 30,000/- per hectare for dry-crop land and Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for irrigated land, has been confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 338 of 2001 with First Appeal No. 339 of 2001 by common judgment dated 16th April 2015. The acquired land in the present case has been proved to be situated in a much better way than the lands assessed at Rs. 30,000/- (non-irrigated) and Rs. 45,000/- (irrigated) per hectare which were acquired for the same project and were from different village. Therefore, the enhancement in the rate of assessment of the acquired land done by the Reference Court to be at Rs. 52000/- per hectare cannot be seen as unreasonable or arbitrary. It is very much based upon the evidence available on record and, therefore, cannot be faulted with. The compensation granted by the Reference Court is, therefore, just and proper. The point is answered accordingly The appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. The appeal stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
If any excess amount has been deposited by the appellant in ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 00:50:36 ::: 4 this Court, the appellant is permitted to withdraw as much amount as is found to be deposited in excess of the compensation granted by the Reference Court and confirmed by this order.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 00:50:36 :::