Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Irrigation Devp. Cor. ... vs Shankar Awdhut Ingale And 2 Ors on 6 June, 2016
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 fa672.06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 672 OF 2006
Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through Executive
Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division,
District Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Shankar Awdhut Ingale,
aged about 57 years, resident of
Kolhapuri, Post Satefal, Tq. Ner,
District Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Lower Pus Project,
Pusad, District Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. S. Sidam, Advocate holding for Shri Bharat Vora, Advocate for the
respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
....
CORAM : PRASANNA.B.VARALE, J.
DATED : 06TH JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties.
2 fa672.06
2. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellant, by inviting my
attention to the pursis dated 05.01.2016, submits that the controversy in
the present appeal in respect of the award of compensation is covered by
the judgment of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 700 of 2006 and 1278 of
2006. Shri Patil further submits that the relevant factors namely the date of
notification for acquisition of the land, the area to be acquired for the
proposed projects are identical in the present First Appeal No. 672 of 2006
and First Appeal Nos.700 of 2006 and 1278 of 2006.
3. Ms. Sidam, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri
Kadu, the learned AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not dispute the
submission of Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellant.
4. Perusal of the judgment and order passed by this Court in First
Appeal Nos.700 of 2006 and 1278 of 2006 shows that this Court on the
submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that a pursis was filed
to the effect that First Appeal No. 447 of 2005 arising out of the very
notification with regard to land situated in the same village was disposed
of by the judgment dated 25.08.2015 and this Court has maintained
compensation granted by the reference Court at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per
hectare. The amount at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare was granted for
the dry crop land and in respect of the irrigated lands, compensation was
awarded at the rate of Rs.70,500/- and Rs.70,000/- per hectare.
3 fa672.06
5. Considering the material placed on record as well considering
the judgment dated 25.08.2015 in First Appeal No. 447 of 2005, this Court
found no error in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.70,500/-
and Rs.70,000/- per hectare for the irrigated land by the reference Court.
In view of these facts, the challenge raised by the appellant-VIDC in the
present appeal, fails. In view of the order of this Court in First Appeal
Nos.700 of 2006 and 1278 of 2006, the judgment and order passed by the
reference Court is modified in respect of item Nos.5, 7 and 8.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the following order is passed.
The judgment of the reference Court granting compensation at
the rate of Rs.70,500/- and Rs.70,000/- per hectare respectively is
maintained. In the present First Appeal, the rate would be Rs.70,000/- per
hectare. Item No.5 is modified to the effect of component at the rate of
Rs.12% per annum on Rs.90,825/- from 14.08.1997 to 01.01.1998; Item No.7
is modified to the effect of interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from
02.01.1998 to 02.02.1999 and Item No.8 is modified to the effect of interest
at the rate of Rs.15% per annum from 03.02.1999 to 04.04.2006. Rest of the
award stands confirmed. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
*rrg.
