State Of Maharashtra vs Ahilyabai Namdeo Bhil
2016 Latest Caselaw 1680 Bom

                                                 1                   FA NO.314/2001

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                              
                       FIRST APPEAL NO.314 OF 2001




                                                      
                                  WITH
                  CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.2608 OF 2003

      The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
      M.I.W. Jalgaon.                                           ..APPELLANT




                                                     
                                                                (Ori. Respondent)

               VERSUS

      Ahilyabai w/o Namdeo Bhil,




                                            
      Age 41 years, Occupation: Farmer,
      Resident of Khadakesim,
      Tahsil Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon.                            ..RESPONDENTS
                                                                  (Ori. Petitioner)
                                               ...
                            
      Mr. N.T. Bhagat, AGP for Appellant; Mr. SG Chapalgaonkar,
      Mr. R.C. Patil, Advocate for Respondent
                                              -----
                                   CORAM :   P.R.BORA, J.

                                   DATE :    20th April,2016.
   



      ORAL JUDGMENT :

      1)               The appellant has filed the present appeal, taking

exception to the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge,

Senior Division at Jalgaon on 10.04.2000 in Land Acquisition

Reference No.380/1998.

2) When the present appeal was taken up for hearing,

the learned AGP fairly brought to my notice that other appeals,

arising out of same award bearing Nos.310/2001 to 317/2001

have dismissed by this Court vide common order passed in the

2 FA NO.314/2001

said appeals on 16.02.2015.

3) For the reasons stated in the common order passed

by this Court on 16.02.2015 in first appeal No.310/2001 with

connected appeals, the present appeal also stands dismissed.

4) The original claimants has filed cross objection in the

present appeal. Shri R.C. Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for

the original claimants submitted that, the reference Court did not

consider the the sale instance relied upon by the present

claimant. Learned Counsel submitted that, land of the present

claimant was adjacent to the land which was the subject matter

of the sale instance relied upon by the present claimant. He,

therefore, claimed enhancement in the amount of compensation,

having regard to the sale instance relied upon by him.

5) I have carefully gone through the Judgment of the

reference Court. Before the reference Court, the present

claimant had relied upon the sale instance filed at Exhibit 36.

The discussion made by the reference Court reveals that, the

land which was the subject matter of the sale deed at Exhibit 36

was within the Municipal limits of Erandol. Secondly, it was a

small piece of land, and in such circumstances, the said sale

instance has not been considered by the reference Court for

comparing the value of the land under the Acquisition. Moreover,

3 FA NO.314/2001

though it is the contention of the present claimant that, his land

was irrigated land, the discussion made in the judgment shows

that, the land of the present claimant was a dry land. The

material on record also reveals that, the land of the present

claimant, which was the subject matter of the acquisition, was

dry land. In such circumstances, it does not appear to me that,

the reference Court has committed any error in determining the

market value of the land of the present claimant at the rate of

Rs.55,555/- per hectare.

ig I do not see any reason to cause any

interference in the impugned judgment and Award. The Cross

Objection also therefore fails and stands rejected.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

SPR