Gunwantrao Rajaram Mehetre vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6379 Bom

        J-fa173.15.odt                                                                                                     1/3  


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


                                      FIRST APPEAL No.173 OF 2015


        Gunwantrao Rajaram Mehetre,
        Aged about 65 years,
        Occupation : Agriculturist,
        R/o. Bhatmarg, Tah. Babhulgaon,
        Distt. Yavatmal.                                                             :      APPELLANT

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.    The State of Maharashtra,
               Through Collector, Yavatmal.

        2.    Sub Divisional Officer &
               The Land Acquisition Officer,
               Bembla Project, Yavatmal.

        3.    Executive Engineer,
               Bembla Project, Division- Yavatmal,
               Tah. & Distt. Yavatmal.                                                :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Smt. S.K. Paunikar, Advocate for the Appellant.
        Ms. R.V. Kalia, Asstt. Government Pleader, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
        Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                       CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 18 AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal challenges the legality and correctness of the

award dated 17.8.2005, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 548/03, by

J-fa173.15.odt 2/3

the Court of 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Yavatmal.

2. I have heard Smt. S.K. Paunikar, learned counsel for the

appellant, Ms. R.V. Kalia, Assistant Government Pleader for the

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri M. A. Kadu, learned counsel for

respondent No.3.

3. The only point which arises for my determination is :

Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper ?

4. The answer to the point would lie in the findings recorded by

this Court in First Appeal No. 632/2013, F.A. No. 117/2007 and F.A.No.

224/2014 as well as F.A.No. 1035/2007, with Cross Objection No.

51/13. The First Appeal No. 1035/07 with Cross-Objection No. 51/13

has been decided by this Court by way of common judgment in February,

2014. The First Appeal No. 224/14 has been decided by this Court on

28.7.2017. In all these appeals, the market value of the acquired lands,

which were dry crop lands, was determined by this Court to be of

Rs.1,20,000/-. In the present case, the acquired land is covered by the

same Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

dated 17.12.1998 and the same award passed by the Land Acquisition

Officer on 16.6.2001. The acquired land in the present case is similar to

the lands involved in these appeals. Therefore, it could be said that the

issue involved in this appeal is also covered by the view taken by this

J-fa173.15.odt 3/3

Court in the aforesaid appeals and accordingly, the market value of the

land acquired in the present case would have to be determined at the

rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare, which is dry crop land and I determine

its market value to be so.

5. The appellant, is therefore, entitled to receive compensation

at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare for the land acquired in the

present case and the same shall be paid to him by the respondents. The

interest rate and other benefits granted by the Reference Court would

also apply to the enhancement in the compensation being made under

this order. Deficit Court-fee, if any, be paid within two months.

6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned award

stands modified in the above terms.

7. The parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

rgingole