1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 1051 of 2008
Appellants : 1) State of Maharashtra
2) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor
Irrigation Works, Buldhana
Versus
Respondents: Manohar Chintaman Sananse (Dead)
LRs :
1) Sumanbai Manohar Sananse, Occ:
Labour
2) Sanjay Manohar Sananse, aged about
38 years
3) Usha w/o Suresh Dhorhaste, aged about 33
years, Occ: Labourer
Nos. 1 and 2 residents of Chikhla, tahsil and
District Buldana and No. 3 resident of Mangrul
Navghare, tahsl Chikhli, Dist. Buldana
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B. M. Lonare, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants None appears for respondents Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 30th November 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 01:14:41 ::: 2 Oral Judgment
1. This is an appeal which challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 13.4.2004 commonly passed in about 81 land acquisition cases by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana. This appeal arises out of the Land Acquisition Case No. 123 of 1996, decided by the Reference Court.
2. The acquired land in the present case forms a chunk of all the lands acquired for the purpose of construction of a water tank at mouza Kardi, Tahsil and District Buldhana. In First Appeal No. 153 of 2008 and First Appeal No. 209 of 2008, decided on 29 th November 2017, arising out of the same judgment and order, as impugned herein, this Court has confirmed the rates of land, well and trees determined by the Reference Court. The rate of land with irrigation facility has been determined by the Reference Court to be at Rs. 90,000/- per hectare while it is determined at Rs. 75,000/- per hectare for dry-crop land and these rates have been confirmed by this Court.
3. The acquired land in the present case, as stated earlier, is a part of the larger chunk of the lands acquired for water tank project at mouza Kardi. It was a land having irrigation facility where there were ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 01:14:41 ::: 3 standing trees and well. It being similar to those lands as are involved in First Appeal No. 153 of 2008 and First Appeal No. 209 of 2008, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view of the matter. The facts of this case and the facts involved in the said appeals, particularly, FA No. 153 of 2008, are not disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant-State and so, this appeal would have to be decided on the similar lines.
4. In the circumstances, I find that this appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 01:14:41 :::