Bombay High Court
Wasudeo S/O Narayan Wankhede vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 22 August, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal (St) No. 3265 of 2017
Appellant : Wasudeo son of Narayan Wankhede, aged
about 72 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident
of Deurwada, Tahsil Digras, Dist. Yavatmal
versus
Respondents : 1) The State of Maharashtra, through its
Collector, Yavatmal
2) Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Benefitted Zone, Yavatmal
Shri R. J. Shinde, Advocate for appellant
Shri A. M. Kadukar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 22nd August 2017
Oral Judgment
1. Appeal has already been admitted as on date by a separate
order. Taken up forthwith for final disposal by consent of parties. Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
2. There is no need to call for Record and Proceedings as the
issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this
Court in First Appeal No. 269 of 1998 and also the judgment in other
concerned 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 Appeals No. 269 of 1998 and 523 of 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 of 1994,
decided on 16.1.2017, First Appeal No. 870 of 2017 decided on 26.7.2017
and First Appeal No. 866 of 2017, decided on 1.8.2017. In the present
case also the land acquired is dry crop land and similarly situated as the
lands involved in First Appeals No. 269 of 1998, 523 of 1998 and 592 of
1994, 870 of 2017 and 866 of 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 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 18.4.1992, however, with the modification
that interest granted by the Reference Court at 9% per annum 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 18.4.1992 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 Fees,
same shall be paid within two weeks from the date of order. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
