1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 88 of 2008
Appellant : Chintaman son of Raibhan Ingle, aged about
60 years, Occ: Cultivator, resident of Deurwada,
Tahsil Digras, District Yavatmal
Versus
Respondents: 1) The State of Maharashtra, through
Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
2) The Collector, Yavatmal
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Benefitted Zone, Amravati Project, Digras,
District Yavatmal
4) V.I.D. C., through the Executive Engineer,
Arunavati Project, Digras
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. U. Nemade, Advocate for appellant Shri Harshal Dube, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3 Shri A. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 7th November 2017 Oral Judgment
1. This appeal questions legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 rendered in LAC No. 9 of 2004 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwha on the ground of inadequate compensation.
::: Uploaded on - 10/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/11/2017 01:46:09 ::: 2
2. Land of the appellant bearing survey number 28 having area of 2.42 hectare situated at mouza Deurwada was compulsorily acquired for the purposes of Arunavati Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government gazette on 7.1.1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 12000/- per hectare which compensation was questioned in Reference Application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25000/- per hectare by the impugned judgment and order. Appellant now seeks further enhancement in the compensation by this appeal.
3. Shri S. U. Nemade, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by a common judgment rendered in First Appeal No. 269 of 1998 and another, this Court determined the market value of the land situated at the same village, village Deurwada which was acquired for the same project and under the same notification to be at Rs. 65000/- per hectare. He submits that the land so evaluated by this Court was perennially irrigated land. He further submits that the land involved in the present case is the similar land in terms of its fertility and potentiality as the land acquired in FA No. 269 of 1998 with the difference that the present land is a dry crop land and the land in FA No. 269 of 1998 was perennially irrigated land. He, therefore, submits that appropriate ::: Uploaded on - 10/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/11/2017 01:46:09 ::: 3 evaluation of the land in the present case may be done which, according to learned counsel for the appellant, should be in the range of Rs. 50,000/- per hectare. Learned counsel for the acquiring body does not dispute the fact of situation of the present land and that the land involved in FA No. 269 of 1998 being similar in terms of fertility and potentiality except for the facility of irrigation. He, however, submits that going by the usual formula, the market value of the present dry crop land should be around Rs. 40,000/- per hectare. The present land is similar to the land acquired in FA No. 269 of 1998 in terms of it fertility, soil character and potentiality and this land is situated in the same village as the land in FA No. 269 of 1998. As stated earlier, there is no dispute about this fact. Therefore, adopting the formula of 1.5 times enhancement for determining the market value of the perennially irrigated land, I am of the view that the market value of the present land would be of Rs. 43,000/- per hectare and this is the value at which the compensation for the acquired land deserves to be granted to the appellant.
4. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. It is declared that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 43,000/- per hectare for his acquired land together with all the statutory benefits at the rate given by the Reference Court. The impugned judgment and award stand modified in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs. ::: Uploaded on - 10/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/11/2017 01:46:09 ::: 4
5. Before parting with the judgment, I think, a clarification needs to be placed on record. It is seen from the compiliation of the judgments placed before me by learned counsel for the appellant that the common judgment rendered in First Appeal No. 269 of 1998 and First Appeal No. 523 of 1998 on 13 th October 2014 by this Court formed the basis for deciding the other appeals later. These appeals were FA 127 of 1996, decided on 30th August 2016; FA 592 of 1994, decided on 16 th January 2017; FA (St) 20562 of 2015, decided on 1 st February 2017 and FA 935 of 2017, decided on 8 th August 2017. In all these appeals, the compensation for dry crop land was enhanced to Rs. 65,000/- per hectare and it was enhanced to Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare for perennially irrigated land. In FA No. 127 of 1996 (supra), a representation was made by the appellant that the rate of Rs. 65000/- per hectare granted by thi Court in FA No. 269 of 1998 was for the dry crop land and as the involved in FA No. 127 of 1996 was a dry crop land, same rate deserved to be given for that land as well. This submission was accepted by the Court believing the representation made to be true and, therefore, this Court granted enhancement in compensation @ Rs. 65,000/- per hectare for the dry crop land. This was the beginning of series of representations being made by the other appeallants in other appeals. In FA Nos. 592 of 1994, FA (St) No. 20562 of 2015 and 935 of 2017 the lands involved were perennially irrigated and it was submitted by those appellants that ::: Uploaded on - 10/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/11/2017 01:46:09 ::: 5 as the land situated at the same village involved in FA No. 127 of 1996 was granted compensation for the acquisition of the land the rate of Rs. 65,000/- per hectare for dry crop land, the rate of compensation deserved to be doubled up for the similarly situated lands, but which were perennially irrigated lands. These submissions were accepted in the later appeals and, therefore, compensation @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare was granted for the lands acquired from the same village and covered under the same notification. The submissions made by the appeallanta in all these appeals were erroneous factually and, therefore, these appeals now would no longer be available to enable the appellants to draw support from them for making any comparison in future.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 10/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/11/2017 01:46:09 :::