Bombay High Court
Municipal Corporation, ... vs Ramrao Kisanrao Adhe And Ors on 18 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO.3878.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.3878 OF 2016
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad
Through Municipal Commissioner, = APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Ramrao s/o. Kisanrao Adhe
Age: Major, Occu: Pensioner,
(Deleted as per Court order
dated 20.3.2017)
2. Umakant s/o. Ramrao Adhe,
Age: Major, Occu: Pensioner,
3. Jayashree D/o. Ramrao Adhe,
Age: Major, Occu. Pensioner,
(Deleted as per Court order dated
26/09/2016)
All R/o. Paithan Gate, Nutan Colony,
Aurangabad
4. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Land Acquisition Officer,
Collector Office, Aurangabad = RESPONDENTS
-----
Mr. Sambhaji S. Tope, Advocate for Appellant;
Mr. R.B. Bagul, A.G.P. for Respondent State;
Mr. Milind M. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1
& 2. -----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : 18th July,2017.
2 FA NO.3878.16
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. With the consent of the learned Counsel
appearing for the parties, heard finally.
2. The appellant Corporation has filed the present
appeal against the judgment and award dated 2.11.2015
passed in LAR No.16/2011 by the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, at Aurangabad.
3. The property, which is the subject matter of the
present appeal, was partly constructed premises
admeasuring 130.80 sq.mts and was acquired for widening
of the road from Paithan Gate to Kranti Chowk. The
notification under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra
Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 ( hereinafter referred to
as the MRTP Act) read with Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act was published in the official gazette on 7th
of March, 1991, and award under Section 11 came to be
passed on 25th February, 1994. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer had offered the compensation at the
rate of Rs.1,000/- per square meter. Dissatisfied with
the amount of compensation so offered, the respondents
i.e. the original claimants preferred Reference Application
under Section 18(1) of the Act and the Learned Reference
Court, after having adjudicated the said Reference
Application, enhanced the amount of compensation by
Rs.700/- per square meter i.e. by determining the market
3 FA NO.3878.16
value of the subject land at the rate of Rs.1700/- per
square meter. Aggrieved thereby, the Corporation has
filed the present appeal.
4. Shri Tope, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant Corporation, submitted that the Reference Court
has unreasonably enhanced the amount of compensation
though there was no sufficient evidence therefor.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents / original
claimants has supported the impugned judgment.
Learned Counsel submitted that the claimants have
already received the total amount of compensation as has
been enhanced by the Reference Court. Learned Counsel
submitted that the Reference Court has, in fact, taken a
very conservative view while enhancing the amount of
compensation and no interference is required to be caused
in the judgment and award so passed.
5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is
apparently revealed that the Reference Court has
determined the market value of the acquired property on a
very conservative side though there were instances placed
on record by the claimants wherein the consideration was
received to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per
square meter. The Reference Court has determined the
market value of the subject property at the rate of
Rs.1700/- per square meter.
4 FA NO.3878.16
6. After having perused the impugned judgment
and the evidence on record, it does not appear to me that
the Reference Court has unreasonably enhanced the
amount of compensation or has determined the market
value of the subject property on higher side. No
interference is, therefore, required in the judgment and
award so passed. The Appeal being devoid of substance,
deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed,
however, without any order as to the costs.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
AGP/
