Bombay High Court
Executive Engineer, Arunavati ... vs Smt. Sajedabi Abdul Khalik And ... on 18 July, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 433 of 2017
Appellant : Executive Engineer, Arunavati Project,
Digras, District Yavatmal
versus
Respondents : 1) Smt Sajedabi Abdul Khalik, aged about
32 years, Occ: Household
1a. Wasim Ahmad Abdul Khalik, aged 10 yrs
1b. Jasim Ahmad Abdul Khalik, aged 8 yrs
1c. Mohsin Ahmad Abdul Khalik, aged 7 yrs
Respondents no. 1a to 1c through natural
guardian mother Sajedabi Abdul Khalik, r/o
Digras, District Yavatmal
2. Abdul Rahim Abdul Munaf, aged about
37 years, Occ: Agriculturist
3. Smt Bibi Abdul Munaf, aged 50 years,
Occ: Household
4. Abdul Naeem Abdul Munaf, aged about 17
years, being minor through natural guardian-
mother Bibi Abdul Munaf
5. Smt Shakilabi Abdul Munaf, aged about
28 years, Occ: Household,
Respondents no. 2 to 5 r/o Digras, Tahsil
Digras, District Yavatmal
6. Munajabi Sayyad Ibrahim, aged about
45 years, Occ: Household, r/o Kalgaon,
Tahsil Disgras, District Yavatmal
7. Sau Anisabi Mohammad Sultan, aged about
37 years, resident od Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal
8. Sau Shahin Parvin Mohammad Iftekhar,
aged 33 years, Occ: Household, resident of
Mangrulpir, District Washim
9. State of Maharashtra, through Collector,
Yavatmal
10. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal
Shri Anoop Parihar, Advocate for appellant
Shri G. R. Kothari, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 8
Shri S. B. Bissa, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents no. 9 and 10
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 18th July 2017
Oral Judgment
1. By consent, heard learned counsel for the parties finally.
Filing of private Paper Book dispensed with.
2. On perusal of th impugned Award, it is seen that the market
value of the acquired land which is survey number 105 situated at mouza
Chincholi, Tahsil Digras, District Yavatmal has been determined to be at
Rs. 3,50,000/- per hectare on the principle of parity. In Land Acquisition
Case No. 442 of 1992, the Reference Court has granted enhanced
compensation at Rs. 3,50,000/- per hectare for the acquired land bearing
survey number 106/1 which was adjacent to the land survey numbmer
105, involved in the present case. As against the award passed in LAC No.
442 of 1992, no appeal was preferred by the acquiring body and,
therefore, that Award has attained finality. Learned Reference Court has
applied the principle of parity since it found similarity between these two
lands in all respects.
3. So, the question would arise, whether such parity principle
could have been the basis for determination of market value of the land
acquired in the instant case or not and the answer would have to be given
as in the affirmative for the reason that the land involved in the present
case and the one in LAC No. 442 of 1992 viz. Land survey number 161/1
are similar in all respects, which was acquired under the same
notification and for the same project and for this, there is no dispute as
well. The rate determined for the land involved in LAC No. 442 of 1992
was at Rs. 3,50,000/- per hectare which has attained finally since no
appeal has been preferred in that case by the State. Therefore, I do not
see that the market value of the acquired land determined by the
Reference Court is unjust and improper. There is no merit in the present
appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
4. In the result, appeal is dismissed. No costs. Claimants are
permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court by the
appellant together with interest, if any. CAF No. 2116 of 20017 filed in
that regard is also disposed of.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
