1 222Jud.FA 690.05.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 690/2005
APPELLANT:- Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief
Executive Officer, having its office at
Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai & Regional Office at Bypass
road, Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. Sau. Pramila w/o Devichand Labde,
aged adult, Occ. Household, R/o. Near
Jyoti Vidyalaya, Gorakshan Road, Tq.
& Dist. Akola.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through L.A.O./S.D.O., Akola,
Tq. & Dist. Akola.
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, with Shri Sharad Thakare, Advocates for appellant.
Ms. K. S. Funde, Advocate for respondent No.1
Shri M. A. Barabde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : MANISH PITALE
, J.
DATE : 08.01.2018. Oral Judgment :-
This is an appeal filed by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation challenging the judgment and order dated 23.08.2005 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Akola (hereinafter referred to as "Reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case No. 21/98 whereby, the compensation for acquisition of land granted to the respondent No.1 was enhanced.
2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:59:12 ::: 2 222Jud.FA 690.05.odt 13.08.1992, a Notification was issued for acquisition of 2583.36 sq. ft. land belonging to respondent No.1 in village - Shivani, Dist. Akola. The said Notification was also published on 05.09.1993 and 06.09.1993. In pursuance of the said Notification, acquisition proceeding was undertaken and award was passed by the Competent Authority on 20.03.1997 awarding total compensation of Rs. 7335/- at the rate of Rs. 16.50 per square meter to respondent No. 1.
3. Aggrieved by the said rate of compensation granted to respondent No.1, she preferred a reference seeking enhancement of compensation, claiming that plots in the vicinity at the relevant time were sold for as high as at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet. Therefore, compensation granted under the award was meager. In support of her claim for enhancement of compensation, the respondent No.1 placed on record before the Reference Court certified copies of Index-II of plots showing that other lands situated in the same village Shivani were sold at rates ranging from Rs. 10/- per square feet to Rs. 15/- per square feet, during the relevant period.
4. On the basis of material placed on record, the Reference Court, by impugned judgment and order partly allowed the reference and held that respondent No.1 was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square feet for the said plot admeasuring 2583.36 square feet.
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:59:12 :::
3 222Jud.FA 690.05.odt
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has filed the present appeal. Mr. M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate assisted by Mr. Sharad Thakare Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has submitted that impugned judgment and order deserves to be interfered with because sufficient material was not placed on record by respondent No.1 while claiming enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that sale-deeds were not placed on record and that the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court was not reasonable.
6. On the other hand, Ms. K.S. Funde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting Respondent No.1 submitted that the Reference Court was justified in passing the impugned order as the plot in question was converted to non-agricultural use and that it was in the vicinity of Akola City. It was submitted that sufficient material was placed on record concerning sale of similar pieces of lands of village Shivani which were correctly taken into consideration by the Reference Court while granting enhancement of compensation.
7. Having considered the contentions raised on behalf of respective parties and having perused the impugned order and the facts on record, the following points arise for determination in this First Appeal:-
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:59:13 :::
4 222Jud.FA 690.05.odt
Nos. Points Finding
(i) Whether the impugned judgment and
order dated 23.08.2005 passed by the
No
Reference Court deserves to be interfered
with?
(ii) What order? Appeal dismissed
REASONS
8. I have perused the impugned judgment and order and I find that the reasons given by the Reference Court in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 are based upon appropriate appreciation of the material placed on record. The Reference Court has taken note of the fact that the respondent No. 1/claimant had placed on record certified copies of Index-II pertaining to instances of sale of plots of lands of the same village - Shivani wherein the acquired land of respondent No.1 was located. It was found that around the years 1992 - 1994, the plots of the lands were sold for rates between Rs. 10/- per square feet and Rs. 15/- per square feet. The Reference Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the acquired land was converted to non- agricultural use and that it was in the vicinity of Akola City. Moreover the Notification for acquisition in the present case was dated 13.08.1992. The Reference Court has arrived at reasonable conclusion while rejecting the claim of the respondent No.1 seeking enhancement of Rs. 20/- per square feet but, it has correctly arrived at the conclusion that the reasonable rate of compensation for the said plot of land was at ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:59:13 ::: 5 222Jud.FA 690.05.odt the rate of Rs. 10/- per square feet.
9. As the findings of Reference Court are based on the appropriate appreciation of the evidence and material on record and appellant - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has failed to demonstrate any error in the reasoning of the Reference Court, I find that the appeal is without any merit and that it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE Gohane ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:59:13 :::