1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 523 of 2009
Appellant : State of Maharashtra, through Collector,
Washim
Versus
Respondents: 1) Kamalabai Sitaram Khawale
2) Anil Sitaram Khawale
3) Gajanan Sitaram Khawale ... Deleted
4) Kalpana Sitaram Khawale
5) Gita Sitaram Khawale
Through power of attorney Kamalabai Sitaram
Khawale, Adult, Occ: Cultivator, resident of
Malegaon, District Washim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellant Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 13th November 2017 Oral Judgment
1. This appeal by the State of Maharashtra challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order commonly passed in four Land Acquisition Cases including LAC No. 112 of 2004 on 28 th April 2005 by the Additional District Judge, Washim. ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:53:30 ::: 2
2. I have heard Shri M. A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant and Shri R. L. Khapre, learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused record and proceedings of the case including the impugned judgment and order.
3. The only point that arises for my determination is :-
Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and proper ?
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as the evidence available on record has not been appreciated properly, valuation of the land done by the Reference Court is made on higher side which is, however, disagreed to by learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the view taken by this Court in connected appeal. On this aspect of the matter, learned Assistant Government Pleader also specifically agrees. Therefore, I find that this appeal deserves to be disposed of on the same line as has been done by this Court in connected appeal where this Court has found that the valuation of the land fixed at Rs. 2,35,000/- per hectare for the irrigated land is correct. This Court ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:53:30 ::: 3 did not find fault with the fixation of valuation of dry-crop land by the Reference Court in that case to be at Rs. 1,20,000/- per hectare. In the present case also, the land is dry-crop land and thus its valuation would have to be fixed at Rs. 1,20,000/- per hectare which I do so. However, a slight correction in respect of grant of interest will be necessary by modifying the impugned Award.
5. Appeal is partly allowed. The valuation of the acquired land done by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per hectare is confirmed. All statutory benefits granted by the Reference Court are also confirmed except for the benefit regarding grant of interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and as regards this, it is directed that interest @ 9% per annum shall be granted under Section 28 of the Act from the date of Award i.e. 24th March 2001 for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the actual realization. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:53:30 :::