Bombay High Court
Mah.Industrial Development ... vs Tirathdas S/O Vedomal Rajadeo And ... on 29 March, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
201-J-FA-3-2007 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.3 OF 2007
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
Through its Chief Executive Officer having its office
at Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai and having its Regional Office at
By-pass Road, Amravati. ... Appellant
-vs-
1. Tirathdas s/o Deomal Rajadeo (Dead)
1A) Mohandas Tirathdas Rajadev
Aged about 65 years, Gurukrupa,
Alsi Plots, Akola.
1B) Sundari w/o Tulsidas Makhejani,
Aged about 70 years, Occ. Household,
Occ. Household, R/o G-Wing,
New Ambe Valley Co-operative Society,
Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
1C) Kamala w/o Sunderdas Kolani
Aged about 60 years, Occ. Household
R/o Bharat Machine Shop, Old Industrial Area,
Korba, District Bilaspur.
2) Murlidhar s/o Rirathdas Rajadeo
Aged about 57 years, Occ. Business.
3) Purushottam s/o Tirathdas Rajadeo
Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business.
4) Arjun s/o Tirathdas Rajadeo
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business.
(All respondent No.1 to 4 R/o
Gurukrupa Alasi Plot, Akola,
Dist. Akola)
5) Arjun s/o Krishnachand Hiranandani,
Aged about 57 years, Occupation: Business
R/o SBI (Tresuty BR) HPLR,
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:54:48 :::
201-J-FA-3-2007 2/5
Shastri Nagar, Akola, Dist. Akola.
6) State of Maharashtra
Through its Sub-Divisional Officer
And Land Acquisition Officer, Akola. ... Respondents.
Shri M. M.Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant.
Shri M. G. Sarda, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Ms N. P. Mehta, AGP for respondent No.6.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : MARCH 29, 2016
Oral Judgment :
The present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 takes exception to the judgment of Reference Court dated
03/07/2006. By said judgment the reference proceedings filed by the land
owners have been partly allowed and the amount of compensation has been
enhanced to Rs.70,000/- per hectare from Rs.50,000/- per hectare as
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Land admeasuring 3H 31R situated at village Kumbhari having
survey No.189 was the subject matter of adjudication. Notification under
Section 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act,
1961 was published on 13/08/1992 and the award came to be passed on
20/03/1997. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate
of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. In the reference proceedings the same was
enhanced to Rs.70,000/- per hectare.
201-J-FA-3-2007 3/5
2. Shri M. M. Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in partly enhancing the
amount of compensation. He submitted that there was no evidence on
record to indicate that survey No.189 could be valued on the same basis as
per the compensation granted for land bearing survey Nos.181 to 188 and
190. It was further submitted that the Reference Court did not accept the
sale instance at Exhibit-28 and therefore there was no other basis for
enhancing the compensation. It was thus submitted that the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside and the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer ought to be restored.
3. Shri M. G. Sarda, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4
supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that considering the fact
that adjoining lands bearing survey Nos.181 to 188 and 190 were awarded
compensation of Rs.70,000/- per hectare, the present land having survey
No.189 was rightly granted the same amount of compensation. He
submitted that the land in question was adjacent to the aforesaid lands and
therefore the enhancement at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per hectare was
justified. It was therefore submitted that considering the small amount of
enhacement, there was no reason to interfere with the same.
Ms N. P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears
for respondent No.6.
201-J-FA-3-2007 4/5
4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the records and I have gone through the impugned judgment. The
point that arises for consideration is as follows :
" Whether the judgment of the Reference Court calls for any
interference ?"
The evidence on record indicates that the claimants had examined
claimant No.5 at Exhibit-24. He had proved the sale instance at Exhibit-28.
However in absence of the exact location of the land which was the subject
matter of said transaction being survey No.94, the Reference Court rightly
did not rely upon the same. It is however to be noted that lands bearing
survey Nos.181 to 188 and 190 were granted compensation at the rate of
Rs.70,000/- per hectare by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is only survey
No.189 which was granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per
hectare. In the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer the only reason
given for the differential treatment in so far as survey No.189 is concerned, it
has been stated that there is no sale instance available in that regard.
However, considering the fact that in so far as survey Nos.181 to 188 and
190 are concerned, it has been mentioned that they are adjoining Kumbhari,
Akola Road, for same reason survey No.189 would be entitled to similar
amount of compensation. The Reference Court has taken into consideration
this aspect while partly enhancing the amount of compensation.
201-J-FA-3-2007 5/5
5. Thus, considering the fact that all lands in adjoining survey
numbers have been granted compensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per
hectare, the slight enhancement by the Reference Court to that extent
therefore does not appear to be without any basis. Considering the material
on record, the amount of compensation has been partly enhanced to bring it
in tune with the compensation granted for the adjoining lands. The point as
framed is answered by holding that there is no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the Reference Court.
6. In view of aforesaid, the judgment of the Reference Court in L.A.
C. No.340 of 1997 stands confirmed.
The appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
