Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer, Bembla ... vs Laxmibai Dattatray Ghawade ... on 22 March, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
fa307.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
First Appeal No.307 of 2016
The Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division,
(Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, Yavatmal). ... Appellant
Versus
1. Laxmibai Dattatray Ghawade,
Dead, through LR Pralhad
Anjanrao Bhange,
Aged about 66 years,
R/o Dabha, Tq. Babhulgaon,
District Yavatmal.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.1,
Yavatmal. ... Respondents
Shri S.S. Godbole, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.B. Nakshane, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 22 nd March, 2016
fa307.16.odt
Oral Judgment :
1. Since the controversy involved in the present appeal is
covered by the decision rendered by this Court in First Appeal No.479
of 2007 and other connected matters on 18-1-2013, the appeal is
taken up for final hearing by consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties.
2.
The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 for acquisition of the land Gat No.218/1, admeasuring 1.05 HR
of Village Dabha, was issued on 2-3-2000. The Land Acquisition
Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.35,980/- per
hectare, and the total compensation awarded was Rs.62,713/- along
with all other statutory benefits. The Reference Court has enhanced
the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,37,000/- per hectare. Hence, the
acquiring body-Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC)
is before this Court in this appeal.
3. The controversy involved in the present case is covered by
the decision rendered by this Court in First Appeal No.479 of 2007
and other connected matters on 18-1-2013. The said decision arose
fa307.16.odt
out of the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act for the same project and from the same Village. The
owners of the lands were awarded compensation by the same award
dated 18-5-2003. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the
compensation at the rate of 35,980/- per hectare, which was enhanced
to Rs.1,37,000/- per hectare. The land in question in the present case
is similarly situated and all other things being equal, the claimant in
this case would also be entitled to the compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,37,000/- per hectare, for the reason stated in the said decision.
In the said decision, this Court considered four sale instances and the
market value was accordingly determined. No different view can be
taken in the present case also. In the present case, the Reference
Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.1,37,000/- per
hectare, which does not call for interference.
4. It was the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant-acquiring body that seven mango trees did not exist and,
therefore, the Reference Court has wrongly awarded the compensation
for acquisition of the said trees. The 7/12 extract at Exhibit 32 and
the certificate of Talathi at Exhibit 33 clearly indicate existing of seven
mango trees and, therefore, no fault can be found with the findings
fa307.16.odt
recorded by the Reference Court in respect of these trees.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. It is informed that the appellant-VIDC has deposited the
entire decretal amount in this Court. The same is permitted to be
withdrawn by the claimant along with interest, if any accrued thereon
till this date.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
