Jairam S/O Narayan Wankhade vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6498 Bom

        J-fa975.17.odt                                                                                                     1/3 


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


                                      FIRST APPEAL No.975 OF 2017


        Jairam s/o. Narayan Wankhade,
        Aged about 80 years,
        Occupation : Agriculrurist,
        R/o. Deurwada, Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.                                  :      APPELLANT

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.   The State of Maharashtra,
              through its Collector, Yavatmal.

        2.   Special Land Acquisition Officer,
              Benefitted Zone, Yavatmal, 
              Tq. And Distt. Yavatmal.                                               :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for the Appellant.
        Shri A.M. Kadukar, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondents.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

rd DATE : 23 AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

3. 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

J-fa975.17.odt 2/3

Court in First Appeal No.269/1998 and also the judgments 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.

4. 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 proper

compensation, which I do so, with same interest and statutory benefits as

given by Reference Court.

5. The appellant, however, shall not be entitled to receive

interest on the compensation as is enhanced by this Court under this

J-fa975.17.odt 3/3

order for the period from 29th October, 1991 till date.

6. The appeal is thus allowed and the impugned judgment and

order stand modified in the above terms.

7. 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 okMksns