1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 266 of 2008
Appellants : 1) Dr Laxman son of Vitthalrao Deshmukh, aged
about 48 years, Occ: Medical Officer
2) Smt Vimalbai wd/o Vitthalrao Deshmukh, aged
about 70 years, Occ: Household
3) Ku Kalandi @ Kirti d/o Vitthalrao Deshmukh, aged
about 49 years,
All residents of 16, Bidpeth, Shani Mandir, New
Subhedar Layour, Nagpur-24
Versus
Respondents: 1) The Collector, Yavatmal
2) The Special land Acquisition Officer,
Arunavati Project, Benefitted Zone, Yavatmal
3) Executive Engineer, Arunavati Project,
Digras, District Yavatmal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. U. Nemade, Advocate for appellants Shri Harshal Dube, AGP for respondents 1 and 2 Shri Amol Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 13th November 2017 Oral Judgment
1. This appeal questions legality and correctness of the Award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 175 of 2004 by the Civil Judge, ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:25 ::: 2 Senior Division, Darwha on 5 th April 2006 on the ground that lesser compensation has been granted.
2. The land of original owner Vitthal Nagorao Deshmukh was compulsorily acquired for Arunavati River Projection. Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 6.3.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 14,000/- per hectare which was enhanced by the Reference Court in reference application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to Rs. 35,000/- per hectare. During the course of acquisition proceedings, the original land owner expired and those proceedings were pursued on his behalf by his two wives i.e. Sumitrabai and Vimalbai. Vimalbai filed reference application jointly with her son and daughter. Sumitrabai had claimed 60% of share while Vimalbai claimed 40% share in the compensation to be granted by the Reference Court about which there is no dispute. The Reference Court while enhancing the rate of compensation, considered the sale instances vide Exhibits 32 and 33 situated at Digras, District Yavatmal and taking into consideration the distance between the acquired land and the lands involved in Exhibits 32 and 33, determined the compensation for the acquired land to be at Rs. 35,000/- per hectare. Not being satisfied with the same, appellants - branch of Vimalbai are before this Court.
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:25 ::: 3
3. I have heard Shri S. U. Nemade, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Harshal Dube, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2 as also Shri Amol Patil, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. I have gone through the record and proceedings including the impugned judgment and order.
4. The only point that arises for my determination is :
Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper ?
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Amrutrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra & ors reported in 2015 (2) Mh. L. J. 675 and he submits that the acquired land is part of joint family land of the family of Anil Deshmukh, the claimant in the said case. He submits that the acquired land in this case should fetch the same market value as awarded by this Court in the case of Anil Amrutrao Deshmukh (supra) which is of Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, however, disagrees. According to him, the main consideration which weighed with the Court in that case was that the claimant's land was forming part of ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:25 ::: 4 joint family land belonging to single family for which a different rate was granted and, therefore, in order to equalize the situation of both the members, this Court also determined the market value of the land involved in that case at the same rate as was granted to father of Anil Deshmukh. He, therefore, submits that appropriate rate would have to be granted by this Court and certainly not the rate, as claimed by the appellants in this case.
6. There is no denying the fact that the acquired land in the present case quite long ago was also a part of larger piece of joint family property belonging to Deshmukh family. Therefore, the appropriate enhancement in the rate of acquired land would have to be made by the Court. Such enhancement, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for respondent no. 3, could not be to the extent of Rs. 100,000/- per hectare, but it can also not be as low as Rs. 70,000/- per hectare as has been done by this Court in FA No. 242 of 1994 where the lands were from the same village and covered by the same notification issued for Arunavati River Project. The market value of the acquired land should be somewhere between Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare which, in my considered opinion, would be of Rs. 85,000/- per hectare. Accordingly, I find that the true market value would be of Rs. 85,000/- per hectare and the appellants are entitled to receive compensation for their acquired land at this rate only. Point is answered accordingly. ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:25 ::: 5
7. In the circumstances, appeal is partly allowed. It is declared that the appellants are entitled to receive compensation from the respondents @ Rs. 85000/- per hectare for the acquired land together with all statutory benefits granted by the Reference Court at the same rate, but on the enhanced compensation amount made under this order, in proportion to the appellants' share in the acquired land which 40%, equal to 5.96 HR. The impugned judgment and order stand modified in these terms. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:25 :::