J-fa746.06.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.746 OF 2006
AND
CROSS OBJECTION No.11 OF 2008
=====
FIRST APPEAL No.746 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai and having its Regional
At Udyog Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur,
Through its Chief Executive Officer. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. Sau. Sitabai w/o. Rambhau Warghane,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Cultivation,
Resident of Post Butibori,
Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur.
2. The Collector, Nagpur,
(Special Land Acquisition Officer, General)
Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
AND
CROSS OBJECTION No.11 OF 2008
Maharashtra Industrial Development
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:13:17 :::
J-fa746.06.odt 2/5
Corporation, having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai and having its Regional
At Udyog Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur,
Through its Chief Executive Officer. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. Sau. Sitabai w/o. Rambhau Warghane,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Cultivation,
Resident of Post Butibori,
Tahsil Hingna, (Nagpur Gramin),
District Nagpur.
2. The Collector, Nagpur,
(Special Land Acquisition Officer, General)
Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
1. Sau. Sitabai w/o. Rambhau Warghane,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Cultivation,
Resident of Post Butibori,
Tahsil Hingna, (Nagpur Gramin),
District Nagpur. : CROSS-OBJECTOR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Cross-objector.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th DATE : 30 NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2006, passed in Land Acquisition Case ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:13:17 ::: J-fa746.06.odt 3/5 No.393/1993, by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. The appeal has been filed by the acquiring body, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (in short, "MIDC") and the cross-objection has been filed by the respondent No.1 (in short, "claimant"). The respondent No.2 is the State for the sake of convenience. The parties to the appeal and the cross-objection are now hereinafter referred to as the MIDC, the claimant and the State).
2. The land of the claimant bearing Survey No.51, admeasuring 1.54 HR, situated at village Rengapar, Tahsil and District Nagpur was acquired by the State for the purpose of development of industrial area by the MIDC. The Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land to be at Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court, however, did not grant the claim for enhancement of compensation for the Well. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the Well at the rate of Rs.48,302/-, whereas amount of Rs.75,000/- was claimed for the Well by the claimant. The market value of the land determined by the Reference Court was not acceptable to the MIDC and rejection of the claim for enhancement of compensation for the Well was also not acceptable to the claimant. Hence, the present appeal and the present cross-objection.
3. So far as determination of the market value of the land is concerned, I must say, the land involved in the present appeal being ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:13:17 ::: J-fa746.06.odt 4/5 similar to the land involved in another appeal being First Appeal No.745/2006, decided by this Court on 29 th November, 2017, the same determination would also be applicable to the land involved in the present case. This determination is of Rs.90,000/- per hectare. Learned counsel for the MIDC as well as learned counsel for the claimant do not have any dispute in this regard. However, learned counsel for the claimant submits that some more compensation on account of Well deserves to be granted in the present case. He submits that compensation of Rs.48,302/- granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is quite on the lower side. I am afraid, the argument cannot be accepted, there being no evidence worth mentioning to support such a claim. The valuer has not been examined by the claimant and so it is not possible for this Court to make any guess work of the cost of construction of the Well, which has already been evaluated by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.48,302/- by considering the expert's opinion. Therefore, the cross- objection cannot be allowed. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed partly and the cross-objection deserves to be dismissed.
4. The appeal is allowed partly.
5. The cross-objection stands dismissed.
6. It is declared that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hectare for his acquired land ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:13:17 ::: J-fa746.06.odt 5/5 together with same statutory benefits at same rates as are given by the Reference Court.
7. The cross-objection stands dismissed.
8. Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:13:17 :::