Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Indirabai W/O Bhauraojin Keche on 10 July, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-fa445.05.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.445 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Amravti,
Distt. Amravati. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
Indirabai w/o. Bhauraoji Keche,
Amendment carried R/o. Bhappi, Taq. Warud,
out as per Court's Distt. Amravati.
order dt.23.7.2002.
Legal Heirs of Respondent :
1. Shri Bhaurao Atmaramji Keche,
Deleted as per Court's R/o. Bhapki, Post Haturna,
order dt.3.9.2004.
Th. Warud, Distt. Amravati. (Husband).
2. Sau. Nirmala w/o. Jeewanrao Kadam,
R/o. Warda Road, Kaasaba D.K. Saheb's Wada,
Tah. Arvi, Distt. Amravati (Daughter).
3. Sau. Pushpa w/o. Kiranrao Kadam,
R/o. Khapri Kone, Post, Parsinga,
Th. Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur (Daughter).
4. Sau. Usha w/o. Rajendra Bhonge,
R/o. Dhamangaon Railway,
Th. Dhamangaon Railway,
Distt. Amravati (Daughter).
5. Sau. Durga w/o. Balasaheb Ghogre,
R/o. Wardha, Post Brahmanwada,
Tah. & Distt. Amravati (Daughter).
6. Sau. Vandana w/o. Prabhakar Vighe,
R/o. Mu. Post Dapori, Th. Morshi,
Distt. Amravti (Daughter).
7. Shri Nilkanth s/o. Bhauraoji Koche,
R/o. Bhapki, Post Haturna, Th. Warud,
Distt. Amravati (Son). : RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:16:55 :::
J-fa445.05.odt 2/5
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri S.B. Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant.
Shri Jaideep Chandurkar, Advocate for the Legal heirs of Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 10
JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order
dated 6th January, 1996, rendered in Land Acquisition Case No.1/1985
by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati.
2. I have heard Shri S.B. Bissa, learned A.G.P. for the appellant
and Shri Jaideep Chandurkar, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the
respondent.
3. I have gone through the record of the case and the impugned
judgment and order.
4. The only point that arises for my consideration is :
Whether the impugned judgment and order are illegal
and perverse so as to warrant interference with the
same ?
5. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, I am of
the opinion that there is no warrant for this Court to make any
interference with the impugned judgment and order.
6. A small portion of the agricultural land, a dry crop land, out
J-fa445.05.odt 3/5
of Survey No.76/1, situated at village Bhapki has been compulsorily
acquired by the State for the extension of village gavthan and the
compensation that was given by the Land Acquisition Officer in his
award dated 13.6.1983 was at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per hectare. Since
the claimant was not satisfied with the market value of the land
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, he preferred an application
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was referred to the
Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal for appropriate
adjudication. Upon merits of the case, learned Civil Judge found that the
market value of the acquired land was of Rs.19,000/- per hectare as of
2nd May 1983, the date on which Section 4 Notification was issued and
accordingly enhanced the compensation payable to the claimant.
7. Shri S.B. Bissa, learned A.G.P. submits that the reference
Court, without there being any evidence on record, added Rs.1,000/- to
the market value of about Rs.18,000/- per hectare determined by him
and thus wrongly evaluated the final market value of the acquired land
at Rs.19,000/- per hectare as of 2nd May 1983.
8. Shri Jaideep Chandurkar, learned counsel for the claimant
submits that considering the building construction potentiality and
proximity factor, such addition based on the guesswork of the reference
Court can be said to be reasonable.
9. I think, learned counsel for the claimant is right in his
J-fa445.05.odt 4/5
submission. Of course, the evidence available on record shows that the
village Bhapki had a small population of 412 persons and that there are
no major institutions situated in the village. But, the fact remains that in
the year 1981, a similar land was evaluated for its market value by the
Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per hectare and,
therefore, after a period of about two years, there was bound to be rise in
the market value of the similarly situated adjoining land. The land
previously acquired in the year 1981 was also determined to be having
building construction potentiality and it was adjacent to the gavthan
area. Same is the position about the land acquired in the instant case
and, therefore, the addition of amount of Rs.1,000/- to the market value
of Rs.18,000/- per hectare done by the reference Court can be said to be
the product of reasonable estimation and not some caprice nurtured by
the reference Court. Therefore, I find no merit in the submission of the
learned A.G.P. in this regard.
10. Learned A.G.P. has also pointed out to me from the
impugned award that the interest has been awarded on the final
compensation payable to the appellant twice. He has invited my
attention to the details of the calculations made by the reference Court in
this regard. They appear in paragraph 14, page 9 of the impugned
judgment and order, at clauses (G) & (H).
11. On considering these clauses, I find that the interest has been
J-fa445.05.odt 5/5
awarded by the reference Court not twice but under two separate and
distinct heads, one under Section 34 and the other under Section 28 and
this has been done by the reference Court completely in consonance with
the spirit of these two Sections. Therefore, I see no substance in the
argument of learned A.G.P. made in this behalf.
12. In the result, there is no ground for making any interference
with the impugned judgment and award and this appeal deserves to be
dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.
13. The appeal stands dismissed.
14. The parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
okMksns
