Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Gopal Dhanku Kori Since Dead, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5390 Bom

                                        1                               FA1339.13(J)
                                                                                          
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                         FIRST APPEAL NO.1339 of 2013


           Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
           having its office at Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri (East),
           Mumbai and having its Regional Office at 
           By-pass Road, Amravati through its Chief Executive Officer,
                             
                                                                      .  APPELLANT  
                                 --Versus ---

           Gopal Dhanku Kori Since Dead through his LRs

1(a).      Ganesh Gopaldas Kothar (Kori),
           Aged about 51 years.Occupation : Cultivator.

1(b).      Smt. Kamla Gopaldas Kothar (Kori)
           Aged 71 years. Occupation : Agriculturist.

           Both 1(a) and 1(b) resident of Nandgaonpeth,
           Taluka and District Amravati.

1(c).      Sau.Pramila w/o Ramesh Korhar
           Aged 56 years, Occupation : Household work,
           Resident of Asegaon,
           Taluka Dhamangaon-Railway,
           District Amravati.

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

3.         The Sub-Divisional Officer cum
           Special Land Acquisition Officer,Amravati.
                                                             RESPONDENTS




        ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 01:13:23 :::
                                                        2                                     FA1339.13(J)
                                                                                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Shri R.V.Shiralkar, Advocate for R.Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c).
Ms. T.Khan, AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                 CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE,J.

DATED : 01.08.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. The paper

book is dispensed with.

2. For the land of the respondent nos. 1(a) to 1(c), admeasuring

1.03 hectares bearing Gat No.281 situated at Village Sawardi, acquired by

the appellant for industrial purposes, the reference court determined the

true market value of the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. The appeal has

been preferred by the acquiring body contending that this was not the true

valuation of the land. So, the question that arises for my determination in

this appeal is :

whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is

just and proper?

3. The answer to this question can be found in the reasons recorded

3 FA1339.13(J)

in the impugned award itself. The reference Court took into consideration

the village map Exh.36 and sale instance vide Exh.39 from Nandgaon Peth

and also several earlier judgments of village Savardi of which lands have

been acquired by the MIDC. The reference Court also did some guess work.

It then found that the correct value of the acquired land was of Rs.

1,00,000/- per hectare. Accordingly it assessed the compensation payable to

the respondents/claimants. I do not see any illegality or perversity in such

an approach, especially when, the appellant did not adduce any evidence on

its own. Even, in First Appeal No.486/2011 the compensation of the land

acquired from village Sawardi given at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare

by the reference Court, has been found to be proper by this Court when it

dismissed the appeal on 30.08.2016. I do not see any factor existing in

this case which distinguishes this case from the one as in case of

F.A.NO.486/2011.

4. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the compensation

awarded by the reference Court in the present case is just and proper and

there is no reason to interfere with the same. The point is answered

accordingly.

                                               4                                FA1339.13(J)
                                                                                                 
              The   appeal   stands   dismissed.     The   parties   to   bear   their   own 

costs. 

5. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited

by the appellant in this Court along with accrued interest, if any and

standing in balance. Civil Application No. 2191/2014 is accordingly

disposed of.

(S.B.SHUKRE, J)

Andurkar