Bombay High Court
Mah.Industrial Devp.Corp vs Smt.Sitabai Shyamrao Pradhan & 2 ... on 7 July, 2017
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
0707 FA 100/2006 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 100/2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief Executive
Officer, having its office at Marol Industrial
Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and
Regional Office at By Pass Road, Amravati. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1] Smt. Sitabai w/o Shyamrao Pradhan
Aged about 57 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o. Madkona, Distt. Yeotmal.
2] State of Maharashtra,
through it's Collector, Yeotmal.
3] The Sub Divisional Officer and Land
Acquisition Officer, District Yeotmal. RESPONDE NTS
None present for appellant.
Shri Abhay Sambre, counsel for respondent no.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : DR. SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : JULY 07, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and
0707 FA 100/2006 2 Judgment
learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.2 and 3.
2] It is not in dispute that the controversy raised in the
present appeal, about fixing the rate of compensation amount for
acquisition of land at village Madkona and Bhari Parwha, Distt.
Yavatmal is already covered and set at rest against appellant-
Corporation by the common judgment of this court dated
02/04/2016 delivered in First Appeal No. 650/2002, and 21 other
connected appeals. This judgment, to the extent it quantifies the
rate of compensation to be awarded by appellant-Corporation in all
the matters, has been followed by this court on 09/10/2016 while
deciding First Appeal No. 947/2008. In the judgment and order
dated 02/04/2016 it was specifically directed as follows:-
"(iii) In view of the fact that all the claimants before this
court in cross-appeals or cross-objections are held entitled
to compensation at the same rate, this Court can exercise
of its power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to pass an order for payment of compensation
at the same rate to the persons/claimants, who have not
preferred any cross-objection, in the appeals filed by the
acquiring body, claiming enhancement of compensation
on the lines of principles incorporated under Section 28-A
of the Land Acquisition Act."
3] In view of this, the rate which was awarded in the said
0707 FA 100/2006 3 Judgment
appeals of Rs.1,17,000/- per hector, needs to be awarded in this
appeal also. In the present matter, the reference court has awarded
compensation of Rs.56,250/- per hector. Hence, the present appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
4] However, in order to bring uniformity, which this court
found necessary in its judgment dated 02/04/2016, the procedure
of directing the land owner to pay proportionate court fee and then
award of additional compensation at Rs.1,17,000/- per hector,
needs to be followed. That procedure has been further clarified
while deciding First Appeal No. 947/2008 on 09/10/2016.
5] Registry has been asked not to release the amount of
enhanced compensation till the proportionate court fee is received
by the State Government. The order to that effect is already filed in
First Appeal No.108/2007 decided on 22/05/2017.
6] In view thereof, this appeal stands dismissed.
7] Respondent no.1 is held entitled to get compensation
0707 FA 100/2006 4 Judgment
for acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,17,000/- per hector with all the
statutory benefits thereon, except for the interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation, considering that she has not preferred any
cross-objection.
8] Registry is directed to adhere to the procedure
stipulated in judgment delivered in First Appeal No. 650/2002 on
02/04/2016.
9] There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Yenurkar
