Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown
2012 Latest Caselaw 410 Bom

291112FA100 +234.98.odt
                                       1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:




                                                                            
                           NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
                          FIRST APPEAL NO.100 OF 1998




                                                    
            APPELLANT:
                  State of Maharashtra, (Acquiring authority : Special
                  Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Wardha Project,




                                                   
                  Benefit Zone No.2, Amravati
                                        VERSUS
            RESPONDENTS:
            1] Anant Dayaramji Khandar, age 37 years, occ :



                                          
                  Cultivator
                             
            2] Harihar Dayaramji Khandar, age 27 years, Occ:
                  Cultivator
            3] Dinkar Dayaramji Khandar, age 25 years, Occ:
                            
                  Cultivator
            4] Kishor Dayaramji Khandar, age 23, Student
                  All r/o Village Bhambhora, Tq. Tiosa, Distt. Amravati
                  [original applicants on R.A.]
             


            ============================================
          



            Shri A.D. Sonak, A G P for appellant
            None for respondents
            ============================================
                                         WITH





                          FIRST APPEAL NO.234 OF 1998
            APPELLANT:
                The State of Maharashtra, (Acquiring authority),





                Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Wardha
                Project, Benefit Zone No.2, Amravati.
                                    VERSUS
            RESPONDENTS:
            1- Mrs. Kamlabai Bhaskarrao Mohod, 60 years, occ :
                Household and cultivator, Khaparde Garden, Amravati,




                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:26:38 :::
 291112FA100 +234.98.odt
                                         2

                  Tq & Distt. Amravati (L.R. brought on record)
            1] Shirish s/o Bhaskarrao Mohod, age 38 years, Business




                                                                              
            2] Yogendra s/o Bhaskarrao Mohod, age 35 years,
                  Business




                                                      
            3] Miss. Alka w/o S. Dhepe, age 30 years, Household
            4] Mrs. Nilima w/o Chandrakant Gudadhe, age about 40
                  years, Household,




                                                     
                  all resident of Amravati Khaparde Garden, Amravati
            ============================================
            Shri A.D. Sonak, A G P for appellant
            None for respondents




                                            
            ============================================
                                 ig     CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.

DATE: 29.11.2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

These appeals arise from the common judgment and award dated 30.4.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No. 111/1992

and 114/1992.

2] The lands in village Bhambora District:Amravati

were compulsorily acquired for Upper Wardha Project (for constructing canal) - Upper Wardha Irrigation Project Benefitted Zone No.2 vide notification dated 24.11.1988. The

Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 10.9.1991 and fixed the market value @ Rs.12,000/- P.H. Dissatisfied with this award the land owners sought reference. 3] The land owners relied upon sale instances and

291112FA100 +234.98.odt

also judgment and award delivered in Land Acquisition Case

No.27/1992 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. The learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of

compensation to Rs.40,000/- P.H. Being aggrieved by this enhancement of compensation these two appeals have been

preferred by the State.

            4]            None appeared for the respondents.
            5]            Mr. Sonak, learned A G P appearing for the State



                                              

contended that the compensation awarded by the learned

Reference Court is not based upon any material available on

the record. The learned reference court ought not to have blindly relied upon the decision rendered in Land Acquisition Case No.27/1992, he urged.

6] The point that arises for my consideration is:

A] Whether any interference with the judgment and award is warranted?

7] Admittedly the land survey no.44/2 [land in L.A.C.No.111/1992] was under cultivation and crops like cotton, pulses were grown. Exhibit 33 is the 7/12 extract

issued in the year 1987-88. It shows that there was a well fitted with electric motor-pump in the land. As regards the land survey No.70 [in L.A.C. No.114/1992] Exhibit 26 and 28, reveals that this land was under cultivation and crops like

291112FA100 +234.98.odt

cotton, pulses and jwar were grown. The judgment and award

rendered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati on 24.1.1996 in L.A.C. No.27/1992 has been relied upon. It

pertains to the acquisition of the land of the same village for the same project. In respect of that land notification was

published in 1988. In that case relying upon some sale instances, learned reference court awarded compensation @ Rs.30,000/- P.H. In that view of the matter and even ex-facie

the market value of the land under cultivation, situated in the

village in district Amravati in no circumstances can be less

than Rs.16,000/- per acre. in the year 1987-88. The learned reference court did not commit any error in relying upon the decision in L.A.C. No.27/1992 and awarding compensation

@ Rs.40,000/- P.H. on the ground of parity.

8] The land owners also placed reliance upon sale instance dated 11.2.1994 which is a post notification. This

being not proximate from time angle, there is no need to consider the same. The other sale instance is dated 4.5.1987 and 15.5.1987. According to the later sale instance, the land

area 2.83 H.R. fetched market value of Rs.30,000/- P.H. If permissible increase is added, the value fixed by the reference court, does not appear to be on higher side or such which calls for interference by this court. In the result, I find no merit in

291112FA100 +234.98.odt

these appeals.

9] Both these appeals are dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

SMP.