Narayan S/O Kanhuji Sawarkar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Ist. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6522 Bom

(Judgment) 2408  FA 999-2017                                                                            1/5


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


                                     FIRST APPEAL NO. 999/2017 


                Narayan S/o Kanhuji Sawarkar,
                Aged 58 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
                R/o. Kalsa, Tq. Digras,
                Distt. Yavatmal.                                                    APPELLANT

                                                   .....VERSUS.....

                1]   The State of Maharashtra,
                       Through its Secretary Revenue, 
                       Deptt. Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

                2]   The Collector, Yavatmal.

                3]   Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                       M.I.W. No.2, Arunawati Project, 
                       Digras, Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.                          RESPONDE NTS


                                Shri R.J. Shinde, counsel for appellant.
                                Ms. T. Udeshi, AGP for respondents.


                                CORAM:  S.B. SHUKRE, J.

                                DATE    : AUGUST 24, 2017.
                 

                                ORAL JUDGMENT :  


                                                     Heard.  ADMIT.  



                                     2]              There is no need to call for any record and

proceedings as the issue involved in this case is squarely

(Judgment) 2408 FA 999-2017 2/5

covered by the judgments of this Court in First Appeal

No. 482/1992 and First Appeal No. 483/1992.

                                3]            Heard finally by consent.



                                4]            Upon   consideration   of   the   rival   arguments,

the only point that arises for my consideration is:

"Whether the compensation granted by the

reference court in the present matter is just and

proper?".

5] The acquired land in the present case is from

village Kalsa and it was acquired for the purposes of

Arunawati Project. Notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act was published on 16/06/1981. The

Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on

23/09/1986 and awarded the compensation at the rate

of Rs.10,500/- per hector.

6] According to learned counsel for the

appellant, the land involved in this case is similar to the

lands involved in First Appeal No. 482/1992 and First

Appeal No. 483/1992, decided by this Court on

(Judgment) 2408 FA 999-2017 3/5

19/06/2007. However, Ms. T. Udeshi, learned AGP for

the respondents, disputes this proposition contending

that there is a difference in the date of publication of

Section 4 of the L.A. Act notification.

7] Although there is a difference in the dates of

publication of Section 4 of the L.A. Act notification in

this appeal and that of in the other appeals relied upon

by the appellant, I find that this difference does not

make the land involved in the present appeal as

dissimilar to the lands involved in the aforesaid appeals.

On perusal of the judgments rendered by this Court in

the aforesaid appeals and also the judgment rendered in

the present case by the reference court which is

impugned herein, one can arrive at a conclusion without

any difficulty that there is a similarity of the lands

involved in all these matters. The section 4 of the L.A.

Act notification was published in those appeals on

21/06/1981 and it was published in the instant case on

16/06/1981. However, all these lands were covered by

the same award passed on 23/09/1986 by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer and same valuation has been

(Judgment) 2408 FA 999-2017 4/5

done by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. This

valuation is of Rs.10,000/- per hector for all these

acquired lands. These lands are also from the same

village, which is village Kalsa. Such being the similarity,

I do not see any difficulty as stated earlier in taking the

similar view in the present case also, as the one taken by

this court in the aforesaid appeals. In the aforesaid

appeals, this court found the market value of the

acquired lands was Rs.65,000/- per hector, all being dry

crop lands. In the present case also, the land is dry crop

land and there being similarity between all these lands,

the market value of the present land would also have to

be determined at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hector,

which I do so now. The compensation at this rate should

have been granted by the reference court. The point is

answered accordingly.

8] In the result, appeal is partly allowed.

9] It is declared that the appellant is entitled to

receive the compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per

hector for the acquired land. The rate of interest and

other benefits given by the reference court shall be

(Judgment) 2408 FA 999-2017 5/5

similarly applicable to the compensation granted under

this order. However, it is made clear that the appellant

shall not be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced

compensation for the delayed period i.e. from

19/09/1992 till date.

10] The impugned award is thus modified in the

above terms.

                                11]           Parties to bear their own costs.



                                                                             JUDGE                

                                Yenurkar