Bombay High Court
Shri. Nathuji Bakshi Karambhe And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 14 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp4722.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4722 OF 2015
1. Shri Nathuji Bakshi Karambhe
aged about 50 years, r/o
Padma Ward, Paoni, Tah. -
Paoni, District - Bhandara.
2. Smt. Dewkabai wd/o Daulat
Karambhe, aged about 60 years,
r/o Belgata Ward, Paoni,
Tah. Paoni, Dist. Bhandara.
3. Shri Daulat Pandurang
Karambhe, aged about 64 years,
r/o Belgata Ward, Paoni,
Tah. Paoni, Dist. Bhandara.
4. Shri Madhukar Shankar Raut,
aged about 54 years, r/o
Gautam Nagar Ward, Paoni,
Tah. Paoni, Dist. Bhandara.
5. Shri Charandas Titu Raut,
aged about 72 years, r/o
Belgata Ward, Paoni, Tah.
Paoni, District - Bhandara.
6. Smt. Sunanda wd/o Waman Raut,
aged about 49 years, r/o Belgata
Ward, Paoni, Tah. Paoni,
District - Bhandara.
7. Smt. Sushila wd/o Bhaurao
Khardikar, aged about 59 years,
r/o Netaji Ward, Paoni,
Tah. Paoni, Dist. Bhandara.
8. Shri Hari Tikwdu Karambhe,
aged about about 63 years, r/o
Belgata Ward, Paoni,
Tah. Paoni, District - Bhandara.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:57:29 :::
wp4722.15 2
9. Shri Dudharam Murari Karambhe
aged about 57 years, r/o Belgata
Ward, Paoni, Tah. - Paoni,
District - Bhandara.
10.Shri Madhav Harbaji Hatwar,
aged about 66 years, r/o
Rampuri Ward, Paoni, Tah.
Paoni, District - Bhandara. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Revenue
and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
3. The Collector, Nagpur District,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4. The Collector, Bhandara
District, Nagpur.
5. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Board, No. 1,
Bhandara. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri Vishal Anand, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A.V. Palshikar, AGP for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
MARCH 14, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of Shri Vishal Anand, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Shri A.V. Palshikar, learned AGP for the
respondents.
2. Earlier Writ Petition No.1364 of 2014 filed by the
petitioners has been disposed of on 06.02.2015 observing as
under :
"It is to be noted that Annexure C to Government
Resolution dated 18.06.2013 contains clauses 1 to 6. As the
petitioners have been held entitled to benefit of clause Nos. (1) &
(2) thereof, at the third stage, as per Rules in that regard, it is
clear that the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed.
In view of the aforesaid, by accepting the statements as
made in paras 3 & 4 of the additional affidavit dated
23.12.2014, writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to
costs.
It is clarified that in case the petitioners experience any
difficulty in getting relief in terms of aforesaid clauses (1) & (2)
and in case of any fresh cause of action, they are free to
approach this Court, if contingencies arise."
3. To point out glaring errors, Shri Vishal Anand,
learned counsel has invited our attention to a chart available
on record to urge that compensation in lieu of alternate land
in cash should have been awarded at the rate arrived at 50%
of the compensation allowed per Hectare for the land
acquired. He submits that compensation rate is Rs. Four lakh
per Hectare and, therefore, rate of such compensation ought to
have been Rs. Two lakh per Hectare. Thus, according to him,
in case of petitioner No. 1 for Gat No. 74 ad measuring 1.68
Hectare, the actual amount works out to Rs.3,36,000/- and he
has been offered only Rs.2,12,000/-. He is also inviting
attention to other errors in the matter.
4. Shri Palshikar, learned AGP submits that details of
mathematical calculations have been furnished in rejoinder to
this Court and he needs time to get it verified.
5. We find that rejoinder has been tendered on
13.01.2016.
6. It is difficult for this court to consider correctness
or otherwise of mathematical calculations in case of all ten
petitioners under different heads. The entitlement of the
petitioners is already determined because of orders of this
Court mentioned supra.
7. We, therefore, direct the petitioners to file
appropriate representation giving necessary details of
calculations. The representation shall be filed before
Respondent No. 5 - Land Acquisition Officer within three
weeks from today. Respondent No. 5 shall thereafter verify
records and take suitable decision within next four weeks. If
any amount becomes due and payable to the petitioners as a
consequence of this exercise, the same shall be paid to them
within next two months. The acceptance of any amount shall
not preclude the petitioners from challenging the correctness
of exercise undertaken.
8. With these directions, writ petition is partly
allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above
terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
