Pandurang S/O Shamrao Dhole ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5779 Bom

                                                                                                             fa-j 934-17.odt
                                                              1


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

                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 934 OF 2017

             Pandurang s/o Shamrao Dhole (Dead)
             through his legal heirs

             1]          Rajendra Pandurang Dhole,
                         Aged about 50 years,Occ.: Agriculturist

             2]          Virendra Pandurang Dhole
                         Aged about 46 years, Occ.: Agriculturist
                         Nos. 1 & 2 R/o Deurwada, Tq. Digras
                         Distt. Yavatmal.             ....... APPELLANTS.
                                                
                         ...V E R S U S...

             1]          The State of Maharashtra.

             2]          The Collector,
                         Yavatmal.

             3]   Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                  Benefitted Zone, 
                  Arunawati Project Digras, Yavatmal.
                  Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal.                     .......RESPONDENTS.
                                                              
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for the Appellants.
              Shri A.M. Kadukar, AGP for the Respondents.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             CORAM:  S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATE : 8 th AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

A.G.P. for respondents.

fa-j 934-17.odt

Admit.

2] There is no need to call for R. & P. as the issue involved in

this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in First

Appeal No.269/1998 and also the judgment in other connected appeals.

The land of the appellant was acquired, which was situated at

Deurwada, District Yavatmal for the purpose of Arunawati Project. The

Reference Court determined the market value of the land at Rs.22,500/-

per hectare and partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act.

3] In First Appeal Nos.269/1998 and 523/1998, decided on

13.10.2012, this Court found that the rate of the land should have been

at Rs.65,000/- per hectare if the land is non-irrigated one. This

judgment was also followed by this Court in First Appeal No.592/1994,

decided on 16.1.2017, First Appeal No.870/2017 decided on 26.7.2017

and First Appeal No. 866/2017. In the present case also, the land

acquired is dry crop land and similarly situated as the lands involved in

First Appeal Nos.269/1998, 523/1998, 592/1994, First Appeal

No.870/2017 and First Appeal No. 866/2017. There is no dispute

about this fact. Therefore, I am of the view that even for the acquired

land, in the instant case, same rate as was determined by the Court in

the above referred appeals, would have to be fixed for giving just and

fa-j 934-17.odt

proper compensation.

4] Therefore, I find that the market value of the acquired

land in the present case is of Rs.65,000/- per hectare and the

compensation deserves to be given at this rate to the appellant and it is

so given. The appellant would also be entitled to receive other benefits

regarding interest, solatium etc. at the same rates as given by the

Reference Court in its judgment and order dated 27.2.1992, however,

with the modification that interest granted by the Reference Court at

9% p.a. on excess amount shall be for one year from the date of

possession.

It is also made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled

to receive interest on the compensation as is enhanced by this Court

under this order for the period from 21.3.1992 till date. The appeal is

allowed accordingly.

The impugned judgment and order stands modified in the

above terms.

If there is any deficit on account of payment of Court fee,

same shall be paid within two weeks from the date of order. No costs.

JUDGE

rgingole