Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1449 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2016
231-J-FA-337-07 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.337 OF 2007
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
Through its Chief Executive Officer
having its office at Marol Industrial Estate,
Andheri East, Mumbai
Thr. Executive Engineer, M.I.D.C.
(Amravati) Taluka & Dist. Amravati. ... Appellant
-vs-
1. Onkar s/o Ganu Gosawi
Aged about 50 years,
Occ. Agriculturist, at present nil,
Resident of Belpura, Amravati,
Taluka & Dist. Amravati.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Collector, Amravati.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Amravati. ... Respondents.
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant.
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : April 12, 2016
Oral Judgment :
The present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the judgment of
Reference Court dated 30/09/2006 in L.A.C. No.106 of 2000 whereby the
reference proceedings filed by respondent No.1 have been partly allowed and
231-J-FA-337-07 2/4
enhancement @ Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare has been granted.
Land admeasuring 2H 49R situated at Mouja Sawardi bearing Gat
No.204 was acquired by the appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer passed
his award on 20/03/1997 granting compensation @ Rs.1500/- per hectare
by treating the same as Pot Kharab land. The respondent No.1 filed
reference under Section 18 of the said Act and by the impugned judgment,
the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per
hectare.
2. Shri M. M. Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court was without
any basis. He submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had rightly treated
the land to be Pot Kharab land and had awarded a sum of Rs.1500/- per
hectare. The Reference Court however, granted compensation for the entire
land by treating the same to be cultivable land. Without prejudice to the
aforesaid it was submitted that the sale instance at Exhibit-37 did not
indicate the correct market value of the acquired land. He submitted that in
F.A. No.734 of 2008 along with other connected appeals, this Court by
judgment dated 15/06/2012 has held that an amount of Rs.89,000/- per
hectare was fair compensation for lands situated at Sawardi. It is submitted
that the aforesaid judgment was also followed by this Court in F.A. No.448 of
2003 decided on 12/10/2015. The learned counsel referred to the document
231-J-FA-337-07 3/4
at Exhibit-33 to indicate that 0.03 R land was shown as Pot Kharab land. It
was therefore submitted that a case for reducing the amount of
compensation had been made out.
3. None appeared for the respondent No.1 on 02/04/2016 and
hence the hearing of the appeal was adjourned. Today also there is no
appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1. Shri H. R. Dhumale, the
learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared for respondent Nos.2
and 3.
4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties I have
perused the records of the case and gone through the impugned judgment.
The following point arises for determination :
" Whether a case has been made out to reduce the amount of
compensation granted by the Reference Court ? "
In support of his claim for compensation, the respondent No.1
examined himself below Exhibit-28. He placed on record the 7/12 extracts
for the years 1991 onwards at Exhibit-33. In said document it has been
mentioned that in land admeasuring 2H 46 R crops such as jwari and moog
were being grown. 0.03 R land was shown as Pot Kharab land. There is no
evidence led on behalf of the appellant to counter the aforesaid evidence.
Though certain suggestions were given to the said witness, in his cross
231-J-FA-337-07 4/4
examination, nothing much has been extracted from said witness. In this
background therefore the Reference Court was justified in relying upon the
document at Exhibit-33 for holding the land to be cultivated. However, the
Reference Court failed to take into consideration the fact that 0.03 R land
had been shown as Pot Kharab land.
5. In F.A. No.734 of 2008 and connected appeals, this Court had
held that for lands from village Sawardi an amount of Rs.89,000/- per
hectare was fair compensation. As the present land is also from the same
village and the notification is also of the year 1994, the same amount of
compensation would be admissible to the acquired land. The point as
framed is answered by holding that the judgment of the Reference Court
deserves to be modified and compensation @ Rs.89,000/- per hectare for 2H
46 R land deserves to the granted.
6. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed :
(i) The judgment dated 30/09/2006 in L.A.C. No.106 of 2000 is
partly modified. It is held that the respondent No.1 is entitled for compensation @ Rs.89,000/- per hectare for land admeasuring 2H 46 R.
(ii) For land admeasuring 0.03 R, compensation @ Rs.1500/- per hectare is granted. Rest of the award stands confirmed.
(iii) The first appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE Asmita
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!