Bombay High Court
Addl.Special Land Acquisition ... vs Shri Ramesh S/O Dashrath Nagpure & ... on 23 August, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-fa20.06.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.20 OF 2006
1. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer
(Pench Project), Nagpur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Lower Wanna Project, Wardha. : APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
1. Shri Ramesh s/o. Dashrath Nagpure,
aged 33 years, Occupation : Agriculturist.
Legal Heirs of Respondent No.1 :
1. Smt Shalu Ramesh Nagpure, (wife),
Plot No.31, Ward No.3 Shikshik Colony,
Navi Wasti Butibori, Distt. Nagpur.
2. Ashwini Ramesh Nagpure,
Aged 19, Plot No.31, Ward No.3,
Shikshik Colony,
Navi Wasti Butibori, Distt. Nagpur.
3. Suraj Ramesh Nagpure,
Aged 19, Plot No.31, Ward No.3,
Shikshik Colony,
Navi Wasti Butibori, Distt. Nagpur.
4. Swapnil Ramesh Nagpur,
Aged 18, Plot No.31, Ward No.3,
Shikshik Colony,
Navi Wasti, Butibori, Distt. Nagpur.
2. Shri Shalikram s.o Dashrath Nagpure,
aged 46 years, Occupation Agriculturist.
All R/o. Kanhalgaon,
Tah. Nagpur (Rural), Distt. Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:56:44 :::
J-fa20.06.odt 2/5
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri A.M. Kadukar, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Appellant No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Appellant No.2.
None for the Respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
rd
DATE : 23
AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal challenges the legality and correctness of the
award dated 19.4.2001 passed on reference application moved under
Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, in the Land Acquisition Case
No.87/1998, by Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur.
2. The land of the respondents situated at village Kanhalgaon,
Tq. and Distt. Nagpur was acquired by the Government for the purposes
of Pench Project Wardha. Section 4 Land Acquisiton Act Notification was
published on 20th May, 1994 and the award was passed by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer on 13.12.1996. As the respondents'/claimants
were not satisfied with the compensation granted by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, they moved a reference application under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act. On merits of the case, the Reference Court
rejected the claim in respect of trees, but partly allowed their claim in
respect of valuation of the acquired land, by determining the market
value of the acquired land at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare, it being a dry
J-fa20.06.odt 3/5
crop land. The other statutory benefits and interest were also granted by
the Reference Court. This time, the appellants are aggrieved and,
therefore, they are before this Court in the present appeal.
3. I have heard Shri A.M. Kadukar, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the appellant No.1 and Shri M.A. Kadu, learned
counsel for appellant No.2. None appears for respondents though duly
served on merits. I have gone through the record of the case including
the impugned award.
4. The only point which arises for my determination is :
Whether the compensation granted by the Reference
Court is just and proper ?
5. It is seen from the impugned award that by relying upon the
market value of the land determined in another connected matter by the
same Court, the Reference Court, in the instant case, also determined the
market value of the acquired land, which was a dry crop land, to be at
Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. There is no dispute about the fact that the
land involved in the present case is similar to the land involved in the
connected matter on which reliance has been placed by the Reference
Court. The judgment rendered in the connected matter was also carried
in appeal to this Court and it was First Appeal No.299/2002. This Court,
in this appeal, confirmed the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare granted by
the Reference Court. The land involved in the present appeal being no
J-fa20.06.odt 4/5
different than the land involved in First Appeal No.299/2002 and there is
also no dispute about this fact, I have no hesitation to hold that the
market value of the acquired land determined by the Reference Court in
the present case is it's true value and, therefore, compensation granted
by the Reference Court cannot but be said to be just and proper. The
point is answered accordingly.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 has
pointed out an error appearing in 4th part of the operative order of the
impugned award. The Reference Court has granted interest at the rate of
9% p.a. for one year from the date of notification. Shri M.A. Kadu,
learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that such interest ought
to have been granted from the date of the award dated 13.12.1996 as the
possession of the acquired land was taken prior to issuance of Section 4,
Land Acquisition Act, Notification. Accepting this submission and
applying the settled law, I find that a modification in the 4 th part of the
operative order is required to be made.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
8. The market value of the acquired land determined by the
Reference Court and also the total compensation granted by the
Reference Court, both are confirmed. However, interest at the rate of
9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation is granted for one year not from
the date of Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, Notification but from the
J-fa20.06.odt 5/5
date of award of Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e. 13.12.1996.
9. Rest of the parts of the impugned award is confirmed.
10. The impugned award stands modified in above terms and the
appeal is accordingly disposed of.
11. The parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
okMksns
