Midc, Thr Chief Ex Officer vs Dada Maruti Raut Thr His Legal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9368 Bom

                                                  1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No. 206  of 2006

 

Appellant :              Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
                         through Chief Executive Officer, having its 
                         Regional Office at Udyog Bhavan, Nagpur

                         Versus

Respondents:             1)   Dada Maruti Raut (since dead, through his 
                         legal heirs)  -

                         1-a.  Smt Vatsala wd/o Dada Raut, aged about
                         80 years, Occ:  Agriculturist

                         1-b.  Sudhakar s/o Dada Raut, aged about 65
                         years, Occ: Agriculturist 

                         1-c.  Ashok s/o Dada Raut, aged about  80 years,
                         Occ: Agriculturist,

                         1-d. Sau Kusum w/o Nanaji Bhoyar, aged about
                         60 years, Occ: Housewife

                         1-e.  Sau Asha w/o Bhaiyyaji Bodakhe, aged about
                         50 years, Occ: Housewife

                         All residents of Deoli, District Wardha

                         2.  State of Maharashtra, through its Collector,
                         Wardha

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant None appears for respondents Shri Harshal Dube, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent no 2

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 6th December 2017

Oral Judgment

1. This appeal questions the legality and correctness of the

judgment and order dated 9th September 2005 passed in Land Acquisition

Case No. 60 of 1995 by the 4th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Wardha.

2. The land of respondent no. 1 bearing survey number 493,

area 2.42 herctare situated at Deoli was acquired by the State for the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation for the purpose of

industrial growth at Deoli, District Wardha. The Land Acquisition Officer

by his Award dated 13.7.1994 granted compensation of Rs. 24,000/- per

hectare to respondent no. 1. The claimant was not satisfied with such

assessment and, therefore, preferred under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act. On merits, the Reference Court found that the lands

situated at the remote area were granted compensation at Rs. 30,000/-

per hectare for dry-crop land and Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for irrigated

land and, therefore, looking better situation of the land in this case and its

proximity to the road, though it is dry-crop land, the Reference Court

granted compensation of Rs. 34,000/- per hectare. Accordingly, the

Reference Court partly allowed the application. This is what is challenged

in the present appeal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 2. Nobody appears for

respondent no. 1.

4. Now, the only point that arises for my determination is -

Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court

is just and proper ?

5. The assessment of inferior land done by the Reference Court

in other cases to be at Rs. 30,000/- per hectare for dry-crop land and Rs.

45,000/- per hectare for irrigated land, has been confirmed by this Court

in First Appeal No. 338 of 2001 with First Appeal No. 339 of 2001 by

common judgment dated 16th April 2015. The acquired land in the

present case has been proved to be situated in a much better way than the

dry-crop land assessed at Rs. 30,000/- per hectare which was acquired

for the same project and from the same village. Therefore, the

enhancement in the rate of assessment of the acquired land, situated

adjacent to Wardha-Yavatmal Road, done by the Reference Court to be

at Rs. 34000/- per hectare, cannot be seen as unreasonable or arbitrary.

It is very much based upon the evidence available on record and,

therefore, cannot be faulted with. The compensation granted by the

Reference Court is, therefore, just and proper. The point is answered

accordingly The appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. The appeal stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

If any excess amount has been deposited by the appellant in

the Reference Court, the appellant is permitted to withdraw as much

amount as is found to be deposited in excess of the compensation granted

by the Reference Court and confirmed by this order.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi