M.I.D.C.Thr.C.E.O.Nagpur vs Smt Sakhubai Lahu Meshram And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 800 Bom

                                                        1               fa266.04.odt

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                     
                                                             
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2004


                Maharashtra Industrial Development




                                                            
                Corporation, through its Chief Executive
                Officer, having its Regional Office at
                Udyog Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur                              APPELLANT




                                              
                                     ...VERSUS...

     1.
                             
                Smt. Sakhubai Lahu Meshram,
                aged about 45 years, Occ. Agriculture,
                R/o. Marhegaon, Tah. Mul,
                            
                Distt. Chandrapur.

     2.         The State of Maharashtra,
                Through the Collector, Chandrapur                          RESPONDENTS
      


     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   



     Shri M.M.Agnihotri, Advicate for appellant.
     Shri R.S.Charpe, counsel for Respondent no. 1
     Smt. N.P.Mehta, AGP for Respondent No.2
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





                              CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.

st DATE : 21 MARCH 2016 .

ORAL JUDGMENT

1] In Land Acquisition Case No. 24 of 1996, under

Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation Act, 1968, the Reference Court has passed an

award on 18.12.2003 granting compensation at the rate of

2 fa266.04.odt

Rs.30,000/- per hectare for the dry crop land acquired by

notification under Section 32(2) of the M.I.D.C. Act, which is

equivalent to Section 4 Notification of the Land Acquisition

Act issued on 29.03.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer

awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.27,000/- for the

irrigated land on 31.10.1993, whereas for the dry crop land, it

was Rs.15,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court has

enhanced the compensation for dry crop land by the

judgment and award passed on 18.12.2003, to Rs.30,000/-

per hectare.

2] The point for determination is whether the

Tribunal was justified in enhancing the compensation at the

rate of Rs.30,000/- per hectare for the dry crop land in

question?

3] I have gone through the judgment delivered by

the Reference Court. The reliance is placed on the evidence

of Witness No.2, who was the owner of Survey No. 244 and

191 and had filed Land Acquisition Case No. 22 of 1995,

which was decided on 09.10.2000. In the said decision, the

Court determined the market value of the dry crop land at

3 fa266.04.odt

Rs.30,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court has recorded

the finding that the acquired land is adjacent to the land

owned by the witness No.2, which was the subject matter of

Land Acquisition Case No. 22 of 1995. Not only that, but the

Court further holds that the land of the claimant in the present

case and the witness no.2 were having common boundary.

The Reference Court found that all other things being equal

and in similar other matters, the same rate was granted,

there was no justification for awarding the lesser rate in the

present case than the rate of Rs.30,000/- per hectare for the

dry crop land. I do not find any justifiable reason or ground to

reduce the amount of compensation awarded by the

Reference Court. The reference Court was justified in

granting such enhancement. The point for determination is

answered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order

as to costs.

4] It is informed that the amount deposited by the

appellant - acquiring body was withdrawn by the claimant

upon furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the

4 fa266.04.odt

Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. In view of the fact that the

appeal is dismissed, the surety furnished is discharged.

JUDGE

Rvjalit