Vidarbha Irrigation Devp. Corpn. ... vs Angad Pandurang Kadam And 2 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 5261 Bom

3107 FA  496/2006 & XOB 5/2007                1                        Judgment


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.


                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 496/2006 


Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer, 
Bembla Project, Yavatmal.                               APPELLANT

                                .....VERSUS.....

1]     Angad Pandurang Kadam,
       Aged about 63 years, Occu: Farmer,
       Through power of attorney holder
       Dilip S/o Angad Kadam,
       R/o. Mitnapur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
       Distt. Yavatmal.

2]     The State of Maharashtra,
       through Collector, Yavatmal.

3]     Special Land Acquisition Officer,
       Bembla Project, Yavatmal.                         RESPONDE NTS

                                    WITH


                       CROSS OBJECTION No. 5/2007 


Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer, 
Bembla Project, Yavatmal.                               APPELLANT

                                .....VERSUS.....

1]     Angad Pandurang Kadam,
       Aged about 68 years, Occu: Farmer,



 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:19:20 :::
 3107 FA  496/2006 & XOB 5/2007              2                         Judgment


       Through power of attorney holder
       Dilip S/o Angad Kadam,
       R/o. Mitnapur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
       Distt. Yavatmal.

2]     The State of Maharashtra,
       through Collector, Yavatmal.

3]     Special Land Acquisition Officer,
       Bembla Project, Yavatmal.                        RESPONDE NTS


Cross Objector :

Angad Pandurang Kadam,
Aged about 68 years, Occu: Farmer,
Through power of attorney holder
Dilip S/o Angad Kadam,
R/o. Mitnapur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Distt. Yavatmal.


Shri A.B. Patil, counsel for appellant.
Smt. S.W. Deshpande, counsel for respondent no.1/cross objector.
Shri A.R. Chutake, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3.


                 CORAM  : DR. SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

               DATE     : JULY 31, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT :  

This appeal and cross objection are arising out of the

judgment and order dated 31/01/2006 passed by 4th Ad-hoc

Additional District Judge, Washim in Land Acquisition Case No.

3107 FA 496/2006 & XOB 5/2007 3 Judgment

29/2003, arising out of the Reference filed under section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act by the respondent no.1-claimant.

2] Facts of the appeal and cross objection can be stated as

follows:

Appellant has, by virtue of Notification issued under

section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 31/12/1998, acquired the

land of respondent, bearing Gat No.96, admeasuring 1 H 62 R,

situated at village Mitnapur, Tah. Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal. The

Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation of

Rs.58,580/- per hector by his award dated 31/03/2001.

3] Being not satisfied with the said amount of

compensation, respondent no.1 approached the reference court

claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/-

per hector.

4] Appellant resisted the said claim petition by submitting

that after taking into consideration the quality of the acquired land

and relevant sale instances of neighbouring lands, the Land

Acquisition Officer has awarded adequate and proper compensation

3107 FA 496/2006 & XOB 5/2007 4 Judgment

to respondent no.1 as per the market value. Amount of

compensation claimed by respondent no.1, was therefore exorbitant

and cannot be granted.

5] In support of his claim, respondent no.1 examined his

power of attorney Shri Dilip and also relied upon certified copies of

sale deeds produced at Exh.58 to 63, 7/12 extracts at Exh.39 & 50

and copy of judgment in L.A.C. No. 262/1997 at Exh.42.

6] On appreciation of this evidence, the reference court

was pleased to enhance the amount of compensation from

Rs.58,580/- per hector to Rs.70,000/- per hector.

7] Being aggrieved by the enhancement granted in the

amount of compensation, the Acquiring Body has preferred the

appeal, whereas being not satisfied with the enhancement granted

by the reference court, the claimant-respondent no.1 has preferred

the cross objection.

8] On the rival submissions advanced before me by

learned counsel for both the parties, the only point which arises for

3107 FA 496/2006 & XOB 5/2007 5 Judgment

my determination in this appeal is, whether the amount of

compensation awarded by the reference court is just, legal,

adequate and correct?

9] Learned AGP Shri Chutake points out that in First

Appeal No. 640/2008, decided by this court vide judgment dated

17/06/2017, the copy of which is produced for perusal, this court

has enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the

reference court from Rs.55,300/- per hector to Rs.1,05,000/- per

hector. It is submitted that said appeal was arising out of the land

acquisition case in respect of the same village, wherein the land was

acquired under the same Notification and for the same purpose of

Bembla Project. It is submitted that this court has already

considered the entire evidence on record which was produced in the

said case and after appreciation of the same, has enhanced the

amount of compensation to Rs.1,05,000/- per hector.

10] In view thereof, so far as the appeal preferred by the

Acquiring Body is concerned, it holds no merits and hence needs to

be dismissed.

 3107 FA  496/2006 & XOB 5/2007                6                         Judgment


11]             As regards the cross objection also, once this court has

taken the view and fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,05,000/-

per hector and this appeal is covered under the said judgment, cross

objection needs to be allowed, enhancing the compensation amount

to Rs.1,05,000/- per hector.

12] The only submission advanced by learned counsel for

respondent no.1 - claimant is that in this earlier judgment, on which

the reliance is placed, this court has granted the enhancement at the

rate of 7.5% future growth per year, from the sale instance which

was of the year 1994. By placing reliance on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sardar Jogendra Singh -Vs-

State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2008) 17 Supreme Court

Cases 133, it is submitted that this court should award 10%

increase per year to arrive at market value. However the perusal of

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reveals that the general

increase for transactions executed between 1969 to 1979 was taken

to be around 8 to 10% per annum. It was further held in the case of

ONGC Ltd. -Vs- Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, (2008) 14 SCC 745,

that transactions beyond five years before the acquisition, should be

considered with caution and may not always be a reliable guide.

3107 FA 496/2006 & XOB 5/2007 7 Judgment

Thus as no straight jacket formula of enhancement at the rate of

growth of 10% per annum is laid down and in such situation, as

already this court has considered rate of future growth at 7.5% per

annum, it need not be disturbed. Therefore, the same amount of

compensation, which this court has already granted in First Appeal

No. 640/2008 decided by this court on 15/06/2017, needs to be

awarded to respondent no.1 also. Hence the order.

13]             Appeal is dismissed.



14]             Cross objection is allowed.



15]             The   impugned   judgment   and   order   of   the   reference

court is modified to the extent that respondent no.1 is held entitled

for the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of

Rs.1,05,000/- per hector.

16] In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Yenurkar