Shaikh Maheboob Shaikh Murad ... vs The State Of Mah And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 9729 Bom

                               1     fa1424.11

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

                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1424 OF 2011

Shaikh Maheboob s/o Shaikh Murad
(died) per L.Rs.

1] Shaikh Maqbool s/o Sk.Mahboob,
   age 60 years, occ. Business,
   R/o 20-7-605, Fatedarwaja,
   Kazipura, Hyderabad (A.P.),

2] Smt. Zaibunnisa Begum w/o Sk.Mahboob,
   age 90 years, occ. Household,
   R/o as above,

3] Mohammed Khalique Siddiqui
   S/o Sk.Mahboob,
   age 50 years, occ. Business, 
   R/o as above,

4] Mrs. Noor Jahan Begum d/o
   Sk.Mahboob (wife of Abdul Karim),
   age 70 years, occ. Household,
   R/o as above,

5] Mrs. Nafisabegum d/o Sk.Mahboob
   (wife of Habib Khan),
   age 45 years, occ. Household,
   R/o as above,

6] Mrs. Saukat Begum d/o Sk.Mahboob,
   (wife of Rahmat Shah),
   age 38 years, occ. Household,
   R/o as above,

7] Mrs. Nasreen Begum d/o Sk.Mahboob,
   (wife of Abdul Salim),
   age 38 years, occ. Household,
   R/o as above,
   through their G.P.A.
   Applicant no.1,
   Shaikh Maaqbool s/o Sk.Mahboob,
   age 60 years,occ. Business,
   R/o as above                     ... Appellants
                          [L.Rs.of Orig.Claimant]




::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017         ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:53:03 :::
                                        2       fa1424.11


                VERSUS

1]     The State of Maharashtra,
       through the Collector,
       Nanded,

2]     The Special Land Acquisition
       Officer, Nanded,
       Vishnupuri Project,
       Land Acquisition Officer, 
       Nanded,                                   ... Respondents

                         .....
Mr. P.P.Mandlik, advocate h/f
Mr. U.B.Bilolikar, advocate for the appellants
Mr. A.M.Phule, A.G.P for respondents
                         .....

                               CORAM : K.L.WADANE, J.

DATED : 18th DECEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

With the consent of learned counsel for

the parties, this appeal is taken up for final

hearing. Heard learned counsel for the appellants

and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents/State.

2. This First Appeal arises out of the

judgment and award, passed by the learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, in Land

Acquisition Reference No. 332 of 1993, by which

reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition

3 fa1424.11

Act of the appellants/claimants is partly allowed.

Hence, present appeal.

3. During the course of arguments, it was

pointed out that, learned Reference Court has

delivered common judgment in Land Acquisition

Reference Nos. 332/1993, 393/1993 and 395/1993.

Learned counsel further pointed out that the

State/respondents had also filed First Appeal No.

708 of 1998 against the original claimant/present

appellant and after hearing both the sides, the

said appeal has been dismissed by this Court on

24.11.2005.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellants submits that the State Government and

the Special Land Acquisition Officer had filed

First Appeal No. 104 of 1998 against the claim in

Land Acquisition Reference No. 395 of 1993,

wherein the original claimant in that Land

Reference had also moved cross-objection. The

said First Appeal as well as Cross-objection has

4 fa1424.11

been decided by this Court (Coram : A.H.Joshi, J.)

on 7.7.2006, thereby the State Appeal is dismissed

and Cross-objection of the respondent i.e.

claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No. 395 of

1993 has been allowed and the amount of

compensation is enhanced from Rs.1/- per square

feet to Rs.5/- per square feet. The present

appeal arises out of the said Reference

proceedings and common award passed by the learned

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded.

5. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Phule has not disputed

the facts stated above i.e. about disposal of

First Appeal presented by the Respondents/State

and allowing of the Cross-objection.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellants as well as learned A.G.P. for the

respondents have submitted that this Court has

already adjudicated the issue involved in the

present matter and considering the evidence on

record, this Court had come to the conclusion that

5 fa1424.11

the claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No. 395

of 1993 is entitled for the compensation at the

rate of Rs.5/- per square feet, instead of Rs.1/-

per square feet awarded by the Reference Court.

7. On perusal of the record, it appears that

in all three References were filed by the

respective claimants in respect of land Gut No.

116, situated at village Vishnupuri in Nanded

District.

8. This Court, after perusal of the evidence

on record, had arrived at a conclusion that the

claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No. 395 of

1993 is entitled for compensation at the rate of

Rs.5/- per square feet. Therefore, in the present

appeal, same course has to be adopted and there is

no reason to take a different view. Since the

issue involved in the present matter is already

adjudicated by this Court, this appeal deserves to

be allowed.

6 fa1424.11

9. In the result, the First Appeal is

allowed. The impugned judgment and award, dated

12.3.1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Nanded, in Land Acquisition

Reference No. 332 of 1993 is quashed and set

aside. The claimants in Land Acquisition

Reference No. 332 of 1993 are entitled to get

compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per square feet

for their acquired land, instead of Rs.1/- per

square feet awarded by the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Nanded. The award in respect of

Land Acquisition Reference No. 332 of 1993 be and

is accordingly modified. Remaining part of the

award is confirmed. The appellants/claimants in

this appeal shall be entitled for compensation

excluding the amount already paid.

(K.L.WADANE, J.) dbm