Smt. Kamlabai Nathuji Shendeand 3 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. The Collector, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4893 Bom

                                               1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No. 620 of 2005

Appellants              :          1) Smt Kamlabai Nathuji Shende (died)

                                   deleted.

                                   2) Keshao Nathuji Shende, aged about 55 years

                                   3) Prabhakar Nathuji Shende, aged about 48

                                   years, 

                                   Nos. 1 to 3 r/o Renkapur (Bodakha), Tahsil

                                   Samudrapur, District Nagpur

                                   4) Sou Kalpana Rajesh Bhure, A/A 44 yrs, R/o

                                   Bhandara

                                   versus

Respondents             :          1)  State of  Maharashtra, through the 

Collector, Wardha

2) S.D. O. and Land acquisition Officer,

Hinganghat, District Wardha

3) Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation, having its Head Office at Mumbai,

through Regional Area Manager, Wardha

4) Devidas Nathuji Shende, aged about 51

years, resident of Renkapur (Bodakha),

Tahsil Samudrapur, District Wardha

Ms Vijaya Thakre, Advocate for appellants

Shri S. B. Bissa, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2

Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent no. 3

Shri Nikhil Lapalikar, Advocate for respondent no. 4

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 21st July 2017

Oral Judgment

1. This appeal is filed challenging the legality and correctness of

the judgment and order dated 18th July 2005 passed by the 4th Adhoc

Additional District Judge, Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No. 29 of

1996.

2. I have heard Ms Vijaya Thakre, learned counsel for the

appellant. Shri Bissa, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

respondents no. 1 and 2; Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel for respondent

no. 3 and Shri Lapalikar, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. I have

gone through record and proceedings of the case including the impugned

judgment and order. The only point which arises for my determination is:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference

Court for acquisition of land admeasuring 4.93 HR

from out of survey number 243 of mouza Jamb,

District Wardha for public purpose, is just and

proper ?

3. It is seen from the impugned Award that some of the portion

of the land sold by the predecessor-in-title of the appellant from out of

same survey number 243 @ Rs. 25000/- per hectare about one year, nine

months prior to the date of publication of Section 4 Notification which

was of 7.12.1989 has been considered as the basis for ascertaining of the

market value of the acquired land in the instant case by the Reference

Court. I do not see any illegality or error of facts in adopting such an

approach. Of course, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for

respondent no. 3, calculation error did occur in determining the value of

the sold land to be @ Rs. 25000/- per hectare. The total consideration of

this land was of Rs. 49000/- and, therefore, its value calculated on per

hectare basis as per the sale consideration would come to Rs. 23,726/- per

hectare. This value can be rounded off to Rs. 24000/- per hectare. Now,

approximately, Section 4 Notification had been issued one year, nine

months from the sale of this land. The period after which Section 4

Notification was published, would also have to be considered which is of

about two years broadly and that means, 10% value addition to the

market value of Rs. 24,000/- per hector per year would have to be made.

Doing so, I am of the view that the market value of the acquired land

comes to Rs. 29000/- per hectare if one goes only by the previous sale

instance of the portion of the land from out of same survey number 243.

Then there is also evidence available on record which indicates that the

acquired land, by the time Section 4 notification was published, had

assumed even greater commercial potential. Therefore, some more value

addition for the commercial potential will have to be made. I deem it

appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to add Rs. 1000/-

to the market value of Rs. 29,000/- as determined above and this would

make true value of the acquired land to be at Rs. 30,000/- per hectare.

4. Except for ascertainment of the market value of the acquired

land, I do not see any other error appearing in the impugned Award and,

therefore, after suitable modification of the impugned Award, rest of the

impugned award needs to be confirmed as it is.

5. In the result, I find that the true market value of the acquired

land is of Rs. 30,000/- per hectare which the appellant is entitled to

receive in the instant case together with same interest and other benefits

as are granted by the Reference Court. The point is answered

accordingly.

6. The impugned Award is modified in the above terms. Appeal

is allowed partly and disposed of accordingly. Parties to bear their own

costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi