Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Smt. Tarabai Wd/O Brindarban ... on 31 July, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 FA715.2015(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.715 of 2015
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
having its office at Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri (East),
Mumbai and having regional office at
By-pass Road, Amravati through its Chief Executive Officer,
Amravati, Tq. And District Amravati.
. APPELLANT
--Versus ---
Smt. Tarabai wd/o Brindarban Barsainya(Dead)
1. Santosh s/o Brindraban Barsainya,
Aged 40 years.Occupation : Agriculture.
2. Indu d/o Brindraban Barsainya,
Aged 41 years. Occupation : Agriculture.
3. Prabha w/o V.Gupata,
Aged 41 years, Occupation : Agriculture
Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are
residents of Near Bada Jain Mandir,
Bartan Bazar, Amravati.
4. State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Amravati.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Amravati. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:18:48 :::
2 FA715.2015(J)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant
Shri J.J.Chandurkar, Advocate for R.Nos. 1 to 3.
Ms. T.Khan, AGP for respondent nos. 4 and 5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE,J.
DATED : 31.07.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. The paper
book is dispensed with.
2. For the land of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, admeasuring
3.25 hectares bearing Gut No.144 situated at Village Sawardi, acquired by
the appellant for the public purposes, the reference court determined the
true market value of the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. The appeal has
been preferred by the acquiring body contending that this was not the true
valuation of the land. So, the question that arises for my determination in
this appeal is :
whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is
just and proper?
3. The answer to this question can be found in the reasons
3 FA715.2015(J)
recorded in the impugned award itself. The reference Court took into
consideration the sale instance vide Exh.30 from village Jamthi and also the
rate determined by the Reference Court in other cases being
L.A.C.No.63/1998 decided on 19.11.2011 and L.A.C.Nos. 24/1998 and
25/1998 and relied upon them. The reference Court also did some guess
work. It then found that the correct value of the acquired land was of Rs.
1,00,000/- per hectare. Accordingly it assessed the compensation payable
to the respondents/claimants. I do not see any illegality or perversity in
such an approach, especially when, the appellant did not adduce any
evidence on its own. Even, in First Appeal No.486/2011 the compensation
of the land acquired from village Sawardi given at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-
per hectare by the reference Court, has been found to be proper by this
Court when it dismissed the appeal on 30.08.2016. I do not see any factor
existing in this case which distinguishes this case from the one as in case of
F.A.NO.486/2011.
4. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the compensation
awarded by the reference Court in the present case is just and proper and
there is no reason to interfere with the same. The point is answered
4 FA715.2015(J)
accordingly.
The appeal stands dismissed. The parties to bear their own
costs.
5. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited
by the appellant in this Court along with accrued interest, if any and
standing in balance. Civil Application No. 2935/2017 is accordingly
disposed of.
(S.B.SHUKRE, J)
Andurkar
