Midc Thru Its Reg. Officer vs Abdul Latif Sheikh Munnu & 2 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1536 Bom

 Judgment                                               1                               fa1152.07(j).odt




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

                               FIRST APPEAL NO.1152/2007

          Maharashtra Industrial Development              ..APPELLANT
          Corporation, through its Regional Officer 
          having its office at Marol Industrial Estate, 
          Andheri East, Mumbai and having its Regional Office 
          at By-pass road, Amravati. 

                                          --Versus ---

 1.       Abdul Latif s/o Sheikh Munnu                   ....RESPONDENTS
          Aged about 40 years, 
          R/o Amravati, Tq. and District Amravati.

 2.       State of Maharashtra,
          through its Collector, Amravati.

 3.       Special Land Acquisition Officer cum
          Sub Divisional Officer, 
          Amravati

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri M.M.Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant.
 None for respondent no.1 though served. 
 Shri M.A.Kadu, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3.

                                                              CORAM : N.W.SAMBRE,J.

DATED : 07.04.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present respondent no.1 claims to be the owner of

land Survey No. 223/2 area 1 H 90 R and Survey No. 223/2-A area

0.83 R, total area admeasuring 2 H 73 R which were situated at Mouza

- Nangaonpeth, District Amravati. The appellant Corporation, for

Judgment 2 fa1152.07(j).odt

development of industrial area, acquired the same pursuant to the

Notification under Section 32(2) dated 14.01.1994 and Notification

dated under Section 32(1) dated 02.06.1994 of the Maharashtra

Industrial Development Act. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an

award dated 20.03.1997 thereby awarding compensation of Rs.1,500/-

per hectare. What noticed by the Land Acquisition Officer was, the

land was not under cultivation for substantial long time and it also

includes Pot Kharab land.

2. The respondent no.1 feeling aggrieved, preferred Land

Acquisition Case No.265/1999 under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. The learned

reference Court enhanced the compensation by its judgment dated

28.09.2007 thereby awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- per acre

along with other benefits, which judgment is questioned in the present

appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Agnihotri, would

strenuously urge that the judgment delivered by the reference Court is

based on surmises and conjunctures. According to him, hardly any

evidence is discussed in the said judgment. So also, no reasons are

Judgment 3 fa1152.07(j).odt

furnishing for awarding enhanced compensation at exorbitant rate. He

would then take me through the evidence of witness of the Abdul

Lateef Sheikh Mannu Exh. 30, his cross examination, Exh. 35 , 37 and

38 sale indexes in the form 2 and 7/12 extract Exh. 39. According to

him, though the documents are exhibited, the same were never put to

witness and such documents have hardly any evidenciary value. In

addition, he would urge that the compensation is absolutely without

considering the location of the land, and its quality. As such, according

to him, the judgment impugned is liable to be upset to the extent of

awarding compensation @ Rs.53,000/- per hectare which was declared

by the State Government. He would then urge that the judgment of the

reference Court is required to be modified to the above extent.

4. None appears for the respondent no.1-land owner and as

such this Court has called Assistant Government Pleader, Shri Kadu, to

assist the Court in understanding the record and proceedings.

Shri Kadu, learned AGP, has brought to my notice record

and would urge that even if the documents at exhibits 35, 37, 38 and

39 were not put to witness, however since the witness was subjected to

cross examination, the documents are required to be exhibited. He

would then urge that it was the duty of the Court to put exhibited

Judgment 4 fa1152.07(j).odt

documents to the witness. However, at this stage, the Court should not

go into such technicalities, particularly when the witness was cross-

examined. In addition, he would urge that the large strata of land was

acquired by the appellant in the said vicinity. According to him, the

land in question which is situated at mouza-Nandgaonpeth, and is near

to the national highway. As such, the Court should pass appropriate

order in the matter.

5. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, it is

not disputed that the State Government has declared minimum

compensation of Rs.53,000/- per hectare to the land owners and the

Land Acquisition Officer has awarded meager compensation of

Rs.1,500/- per hectare.

6. On perusal of the 7/12 extracts which are Exhs. 38 and 39

it can be inferred therefrom that the land was very much under

cultivation and there is no entry as regards Pot-Kharab (non-cultivable)

land. Apart from above, it has been brought in record in examination-

in-chief that the land owner has given clarification about the said issue

and he also brought on record certain sale instances.

Judgment 5 fa1152.07(j).odt

7. This Court then notice that in First Appeal No.734/2008

while dealing with the appeals of the land owners in the adjoining

village, the Court has fixed price of the land to the extent of

Rs.89,000/- per hectare. Relying upon the said judgment of this Court

in First Appeal No. 486/2011, dismissed the appeal preferred by the

appellant thereby confirming the award of compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare.

8. On the record, there appears lay out map and it could be

easily inferred having regard to the topography of the said place that

the land of the present respondent no.1 is better located, particularly

taken into consideration the location of National Highway which base

through Nandgaonpeth where the land of respondent no.1 was located.

9. Apart from above, it is required to be noted that the

respondent no. 1 is facing land acquisition proceedings since last more

than 30 years and at this stage, in my opinion, upsetting the judgment

delivered by the reference Court particularly on the ground of

technicalities as are relied upon by the learned counsel for the

appellant, will be of hardly any substance.

Judgment 6 fa1152.07(j).odt

10. Considering the reasons furnished in the judgment by this

Court in the appeal filed by appellants bearing First Appeal

No.734/2008 along with other connected appeals and in First Appeal

No. 486/2011 decided on August 30, 2016, in my opinion, the

compensation awarded by the reference Court appears to be

reasonable, which does not call for any interference. The appeal as

such fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE

J.Andurkar..