Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Bhaurao S/O Adku Dhote And 2 Others on 7 December, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 414 of 2006
Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
through its Chief Executive Officer having Head Office
at Mahakali Caves, Andheri (W), and Regional Office
at Amravati Industrial Estate By-pass Road, Amravati
versus
Respondents: 1) Ku Varsha d/o Moreshwar Dhote, aged 24 years,
resident of Madkona, District Yavatmal
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Divisional
Officer, Yavatmal
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent no. 1
Shri K. R. Lule, Asst. Government Pleader for respondents no. 2 and 3
-----
First Appeal No. 442 of 2006
Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
through its Executive Engineer, Yavatmal
versus
Respondents: 1) Umesh s/o Ramdas Nakhate, aged about 20 years,
resident of Madkona, District Yavatmal
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Divisional
Officer, Yavatmal
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent no. 1
Shri K. R. Lule, Asst. Government Pleader for respondents no. 2 and 3
-----
First Appeal No. 439 of 2006
Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
through its Executive Engineer, Yavatmal
versus
Respondents: 1) Bhaurao Adku Dhote, aged about 57 years,
resident of Madkona, District Yavatmal
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Divisional
Officer, Yavatmal
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent no. 1
Shri K. R. Lule, Asst. Government Pleader for respondents no. 2 and 3
-----
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 7th December 2016
Oral Judgment
1.
These appeals are preferred against the judgment and order
dated 28th April 2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Yavatmal. In all these matters, lands from village Madkona, District
Yavatmal were acquired by the appellant Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation by issuing a notification under Section 32 (2) of
the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 on 30.9.1993. On
6.1.1997, the Land Acqusition Officer passed an Award granting
compensation @ Rs. 13,500/- per hectare from the lands from village
Madkona and Rs. 16,000/- per hectare for the land from village Bhari.
2. The claimants in these appeals were not satisfied with the
compensation so determined by the land Acquisition Officer and,
therefore, they filed reference application under Section 34 of the MIDC
Act seeking enhancement of the compensation. The Reference Court, after
considering the evidence available on record, enhanced the rate of
compensation from Rs. 13,500/- to Rs. 85,000/- per hectare. Feeling
aggrieved thereby, the appellant MIDC has challenged the judgment and
order passed in the reference by these appeals.
3. In the connected and similar matters, this court had occasion
to consider the issue relating to appropriate market value of the land
acquired from the same villages under the same Notification. There were
in all 22 such appeals being First Appeal No. 650 of 2002 and 21 more
appeals which were disposed of by common judgment and order by this
Court on 2nd April 2016. This Court found that the market value of the
land could be determined at Rs. 1,17,000/-, it being prevailing at the time
of issuance of the Notification dated 28.10.1993. Accordingly, this Court
allowed the appeals and appropriately disposed of cross-objections by
directing the appellant to pay compensation @ Rs. 1,17,000/- per hectare.
4. The lands acquired in these three appeals are similarly
situated. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show that there is
any difference in the character value, fertility or situation of these lands.
This Court in the common judgment dated 2nd April 2016 rendered in the
aforesaid bunch of appeals, has categorically observed that all claimants
who are similarly situated, shall be entitled to receive compensation @ Rs.
1,17,000/- per hectare irrespective of the fact that they have not filed
cross-appeals/cross-objections, however, subject to payment of court fees
on the enhanced compensation. Therefore, these appeals will have to be
decided on the same lines with similar direction.
5. Appeals are dismissed. However, appellant is directed to pay
to the claimants in these appeals compensation for the acquired lands @
Rs. 1,17,000/- per hectare. The appellant shall accordingly work out the
exact amount of compensation and other statutory benefits payable to the
claimants. These claimants having not preferred any cross-
appeal/objection, shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation from the date of judgment of the Reference
Court till the actual payment. Upon calculation, if it is found that the
amount is due and payable to any claimant in addition to the one already
paid or withdrawn by them, then such additional amount shall be paid
within a period of four months from the date of such determination. Rest
of the amount, if any, left in deposit with this Court shall be permitted to
be withdrawn by the acquiring body i.e. M. I. D. C. along with the entire
interest, if any, thereon. Parties to bear their own costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
