Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Onkar Ganu Gosawi And 2 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 1449 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1449 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2016

Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Onkar Ganu Gosawi And 2 Others on 12 April, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
    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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter