Bombay High Court
Kalpana W/O Hansaraj Pise vs Vidarbha Irrigation ... on 2 May, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa527.15.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.527 OF 2015
APPELLANT: Kalpana W/o Hansaraj Pise, Age-63
Yrs, Occ.- Agriculturist, R/o Dighi,
(On R.A.)
Tq.- Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation through the Executive
(On R.A.)
Engineer Bembla Project Division,
Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra through
ig Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.1,
Yavatmal.
Shri A. B. Nakshane, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S. S. Godbole, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. N. P. Mehta, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 2nd
MAY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, the said Act)
takes exception to the judgment of the Reference
Court dated 31-8-2009 in L.A.C. No.332 of 2006.
2. Land admeasuring 2 Hectare 83R from Gat
No.8, situated at village Dighi, Tah. Babhulgaon,
fa527.15.odt 2/4
District Yavatmal was acquired for submergence of
Bembla River Project. The notification under Section 4
of the said Act is dated 14-8-2003 and the Land
Acquisition Officer passed his award on 31-5-2005.
An amount of Rs.77,309/- per hectare was granted by
the Land Acquisition Officer. In reference proceedings,
the same was enhanced to Rs.1,65,000/- per hectare.
The claimant has filed the present appeal seeking
further enhancement in the amount of compensation.
3. Shri A. B. Nakshane, the learned Counsel for
the appellant submitted that in the First Appeal
No.1062/2014, this Court had determined the amount
of Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare as fair compensation for
the land acquired under the same notification under
Section 4 of the said Act. He submitted that in view of
aforesaid judgment, the claimant would be entitled for
aforesaid enhancement.
4. Shri S. S. Godbole, the learned Counsel for
the respondent No.1 does not dispute the fact that the
land acquired in present proceedings is from the same
notification wherein the land which was the subject
matter in First Appeal No.1062/2014 was acquired.
fa527.15.odt 3/4
He states that the land is from the same village and,
therefore, the aforesaid judgment can be taken into
consideration.
5. Ms. N. P. Mehta, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 & 3 also
does not dispute the aforesaid position.
6. The point for consideration that arises is
"whether the appellant is entitled for higher
compensation?"
7. With the assistance of the learned Counsel
for the parties, I have perused the material on record.
It is not in dispute that in respect of the lands from the
same notification issued under Section 4 of the said
Act, an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- has been determined
as fair compensation. On that basis, the appellant
herein would also be entitled for the same amount of
enhancement. Hence, for the reasons assigned in the
First Appeal No.1062/2014, it is held that the
appellant would be entitled to receive compensation
@Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare. The point as framed is
answered accordingly.
fa527.15.odt 4/4
8. In view of aforesaid, the following order is
passed:
(1) The judgment of the Reference Court dated
31-8-2009 in L.A.C. No.332/2006 is partly modified.
It is held that the appellant would be entitled to
receive compensation @ Rs.2,10,000/- per hectare for
the acquired land. In view of the order dated
18-4-2015 in C. A. (F) No.976 of 2015, the appellant
would not be entitled to claim interest on the
enhanced amount of compensation for the period from
31-8-2009 till 18-4-2015.
(2) The first appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid
terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
