Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Arun Ganpatrao Shende (Dead) Thr. ... on 21 March, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 fa831.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Anheri East, Mumbai
and having its Regional Office at
Udyog Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur,
through its Chief Executive Officer, APPELLANT
ig ...VERSUS...
1. Arun Ganpatrao Shende,
aged 42 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
(deceased) through L.Rs.
1A Smt. Usha Wd/o. Arun Shende,
aged 46 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
1B Gurudas Arun Shende,
aged 27 years, Occ. Labour,
Both R/o. Maregaon, Tah. Mul,
District Chandrapur.
1C Sau. Madhur w/o. Vijay Bhoyar,
aged 23 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Nalfadi, Tah. Rajura,
Distt. Chandrapur.
1D Sau. Nima Satyawan Kamade,
aged 20 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Chamorshi, Tah. Chamorshi,
Distt. Chandrapur.
2 Shriram Ganpatrao Shende,
aged 39 years, Occ. Agriculturist
(deceased) through L.Rs.
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:46:16 :::
2 fa831.06.odt
2A. Smt. Manda Wd/o Shriram Shende,'
aged 36 years, Occ. Household,
2B. Idit S/o Shriram Shende,
aged 13 years, Occ. Student.
2C Ku. Geeta S/o Shriram Shende,
aged 17 years, Occ. Student.
2D ku. Neela d/o Shriram Shende,
aged 19 years, Occ. Hosuehold,
All R/o. Moregaon, Tah. Mul,
Distt. Chandapur.
2E
Sau. Gita Siddheshwar Bhoyar,
aged 20 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Mul, Tah. Mul,
Distt. Chandrapur.
Applicant 2B and 2C are minors
Represented through their guardian
mother Respondent No. 2A
3. Smt. Bharathabai Ganpatrao Shende,
aged 70 years, R/o. Maregaon,
Tah. Mul, Distt. Chandrapur.
4. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Sub Divisional Officer,
Chandrapur RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant.
Shri R.S.Charpe, counsel for Respondents
Smt. N.P.Mehta, AGP for Respondent No.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
st
DATE : 21 MARCH 2016 .
3 fa831.06.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] In Land Acquisition Case No. 25 of 1996, under
Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation Act, 1968, the Reference Court has enhanced the
compensation for dry crop land. The Reference Court has
granted enhancement at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per hectare
against the rate of Rs.15,000/- per hectare granted by the Land
Acquisition Officer. The acquiring body is before this Court to
challenge the enhancement so granted.
2] Shri Agnihotri, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant M.I.D.C, the acquiring body, raises the point that,
there is no basis to hold that the lands in question were irrigated
lands.
3] Shri Agnihotri, however, does not press the point
regarding limitation decided by the trial Court on the ground that
the Exh. 59 and the other documents placed on record shows
that the notice was issued to the claimant asking him to remain
present on 04.04.1994 to receive the amount of compensation.
Thus, from 04.04.1994 the reference was filed within the period
of limitation.
4 fa831.06.odt
4] With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have
gone through the findings recorded by the Reference Court. In
Paragraph No. 16, the Reference Court has held as under;
"16. In the instant case, the applicants came with the case
that the lands acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer
belonging to them are irrigated land. The applicants have
filed the 7/12 extract (Exh.21 to Exh.25) on the record. I
have carefully gone through the 7/12 extract. The 7/12
extract (Exh.21) is in respect of agricultural land bearing
Survey No. 296/1 which is situated at village Maregaon.
The 7/12 extract (Exh.21) clearly shows that the land
bearing Survey No. 296/1 admeasuring 0.56 HR is
irrigated land. The Land Acquisition Officer has also shown
Survey No. 296/1 of village Moregaon as irrigated land in
award (Exh.26). All the land except Survey No. 57
admeasuring 0.86 HR situated at village Akapur are dry
crop land. The 7/12 extract (exh.25) clearly shows that the
land bearing Survey No. 57 belonging to the applicants is
irrigated land. The Land Acquisition Officer has also shown
Survey No. 57 of Village Akapur as an irrigated land on the
award (Exh.26) at page no.11"
The finding is based upon 7/12 extract as well the award at
Exh.26 which clearly indicate that two survey Nos. i.e. 296/1
and part of Survey No. 57 were irrigated lands. It cannot,
therefore, be said that the Reference Court has committed an
error in holding that the lands were irrigated lands.
In view of above, there is no substance in the
appeal. The same is dismissed.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
