State Of Maharashtra vs Madhavrao S/O Vithalrao Kalikar
2016 Latest Caselaw 4832 Bom

                                           1                                          fa188.2000




                                                                                   
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      




                                                           
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     FIRST APPEAL NO.188 OF 2000




                                                          
     State of Maharashtra, 
     through Collector, Chandrapur.                                  ....      APPELLANT




                                              
                         VERSUS
                             
     Ramkrushna Math, 
                            
     Ramkrushna Ashram Marg, Dhantoli,  - (Amended as per order
     through Swamy Brahmasthananda,       dt. 10-07-2001) 
     President, Ramkrushna Math, Nagpur.           ....  RESPONDENT
      


     ______________________________________________________________
   



                    Shri S.B. Bissa, A.G.P. for the appellant, 
               Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondent.
      ______________________________________________________________





                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 23 AUGUST, 2016.

rd

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri S.B. Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for

the appellant and Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondent/

cross-objector.

2. The Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation at

the rate of Rs.36,500/- per hectare. In the proceedings under Section

2 fa188.2000

18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the reference Court concluded

that the claimant is entitled for compensation at the rate of

Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare alongwith statutory benefits.

The State of Maharashtra has filed appeal challenging the

above award. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the amount of

compensation granted by the reference Court, has filed cross-objection.

3. With the assistance of the learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the appellant and the learned Advocate for the

respondent/cross-objector, I have examined the record.

The submission on behalf of the State of Maharashtra is

that the findings recorded by the reference Court and the conclusions

that the claimant is entitled for compensation at the rate of

Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare are not sustainable inasmuch as sufficient

evidence is not on record to support the findings and the conclusions.

The argument on behalf of the claimant is that the

reference Court has not considered the documentary evidence on

record i.e. the Index-II which shows that the lands in the vicinity were

sold at the rate of about Rs.25/- per square foot. The learned Advocate

for the respondent/cross-objector has submitted that though the

reference Court has referred to the evidence of the claimant which

3 fa188.2000

supports the claim of the respondent, due weightage is not given to it

which has resulted in erroneous conclusions and determination of the

amount of compensation on the lower side.

4. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader

and the learned Advocate for the respondent/cross-objector, the

following points arise for my consideration :

1) Whether the amount of compensation as determined by the

reference Court is proper ?

2) Whether the impugned award is required to be interfered

with ?

5. The claim made by the claimant relying on the sale

instances showing the price of land at Rs.25 per sq.ft. is not accepted

by the reference Court as those lands are situated at Bramhapuri, while

the land which is acquired is at Maldongari village. The reference

Court has considered the evidence on record which shows that the land

which was acquired was of good quality and was paddy irrigated land

and was located near the road.

4 fa188.2000

6. After considering all the relevant aspects, the learned

reference Judge has concluded that the respondent/cross-objector is

entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare.

Neither the learned Assistant Government Pleader nor the learned

Advocate for the respondent/cross-objector has been able to point out

any infirmity or perversity in appreciation of evidence of the learned

Judge.

7. The amount as per the award was deposited by the State

of Maharashtra and this Court has permitted the respondent/cross-

objector to withdraw it on furnishing solvent surety and accordingly it

is withdrawn.

8. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award.

The appeal and cross-objection are dismissed. The parties

to bear their own costs. The solvent surety furnished by the

respondent/cross-objector is discharged.

                                                                                JUDGE

    adgokar





                                               5                                           fa188.2000




                                                                                       
                                               CERTIFICATE




                                                               

I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment.

Uploaded by : P.M. Adgokar. Uploaded on : 30-08-2016.

P.A. to Hon'ble Judge.