Shaikh Faruque Shaikh Ahemad vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Ist. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6525 Bom

(Judgment) 2408  FA 998-2017                                                                            1/5


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


                                     FIRST APPEAL NO. 998/2017 


                Shaikh Faruque Shaikh Ahemad,
                Aged about 60 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
                R/o. Deurwadi, 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,
                       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 998-2017 2/5

covered by the judgments of this Court in two cases, first

being First Appeal No. 91/1998 decided on 03/08/2011

and second being First Appeal No. 709/2014 decided on

21/11/2014.

                                3]            Heard finally by consent.



                                4]            The only point that falls for consideration of

                                this Court is:

"Whether the compensation granted by the

reference court for compulsory acquisition of the land

involved in this case is just and proper?".

5] The appellant's land bearing survey no.

33/1-A, admeasuring 3.40 HR, situated at village

Deurwadi, Tq. Digras, District - Yavatmal, was acquired

by the State for the purposes of Arunawati Project.

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

was published on 10/12/1982. The Land Acquisition

Officer passed an award on 29/02/1983 and awarded

the compensation at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per hector

and also awarded compensation for three mango trees

amounting to Rs.3,355/-. When the reference

(Judgment) 2408 FA 998-2017 3/5

application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act was referred

to the reference court for adjudication, the reference

court, on merits of the case, enhanced the compensation

by determining the rate of the acquired land to be at

Rs.22,500/- per hector and also enhanced the

compensation for mango trees by finding that there were

9 mango trees and the valuation of each of the trees was

of Rs.2,000/-. The appellant/claimant, being not

satisfied with the same, has approached this court in the

present appeal.

6] According to learned counsel for the

appellant, acquired land being a dry crop land

reasonably fetched the price of Rs.65,000/- per hector

and this has been accepted by this Court in connected

appeals, referred to earlier, in which the lands involved

were similar to the land involved in the present case. He

has no grievance about the valuation of the trees.

7] Ms. T. Udeshi, learned AGP for the

respondents, submits that since the land involved in the

present appeal is covered by the same notification and

also the award by the Land Acquisition Officer, passed in

(Judgment) 2408 FA 998-2017 4/5

the connected appeals referred to earlier, this Court can

appropriately decide the point involved in this case.

8] Upon going through the judgments rendered

in the above stated appeals by this Court, I find that the

land involved in this case can also be considered to be

similar to the lands involved in First Appeal No. 91/1998

and First Appeal No. 709/2014. If this is so, I do not find

any difficulty in determining the market value of the

acquired land in this case to be at Rs.65,000/- per hector

and I do so.

9] In the result, this appeal deserves to be

allowed, by declaring that the appellant is entitled to

receive the compensation for the acquired land at the

rate of Rs.65,000/- per hector and point is answered

accordingly.

                                10]           Appeal is partly allowed.



                                11]           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 together with the interest

(Judgment) 2408 FA 998-2017 5/5

and other benefits at the same rate and in similar

manner as given by the reference court in the impugned

award. However, it is made clear that appellant shall not

be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced

compensation for the delayed period i.e. from

23/04/1993 till date.

12] The impugned award is thus modified in the

above terms.

13] Parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Yenurkar