Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Bhikabai Onkar Hivrale & Anor
2017 Latest Caselaw 2977 Bom

 fa155.08.J.odt                         1



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

                      FIRST APPEAL NO.155 OF 2008

          Maharashtra Industrial Development
          Corporation, through its Chief Executive
          Officer, having its Regional Office at
          Amravati Industrial Estate By-pass
          Road, Amravati.               ....... APPELLANT

                                ...V E R S U S...

 1]       Bhikabai Onkar Hivrale
          Aged Adult, Occ: Agricultural
          R/o Yeola, Tq. & Dist. Akola.

 2]      State of Maharashtra through
         Collector, Akola,
         Tq. & Dist. Akola.                      ....... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
         Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

th DATE: 8 JUNE, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1] This appeal is preferred under Section 54 of the

Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, challenging the judgment and order dated

06.02.2006 passed by the Reference Court at Akola in Land

Acquisition Case No.313/1997, thereby enhancing the

amount of compensation from Rs.55,000/- to Rs.77,000/- per

hectare.

2] The factual position is to the effect that the land

admeasuring 2 H 2 R, bearing Gat No.127, situated at village

Shivani was belonging to the respondent-claimant, which

came to be acquired for establishment of the industrial

colony, by virtue of notification under Section 32(2) of the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act published on

13.08.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the

compensation for the said land at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per

hectare, vide his award dated 20.03.1997.

3] Being aggrieved and not satisfied with the said

amount of compensation, the respondent-claimant

approached the Reference Court, contending inter alia that

the acquired land on the date of notification valued at the

rate of Rs.1.5 to 2 lakh per acre, considering that land is

having agricultural as well as non-agricultural potentiality.

It was submitted that the land is situated adjacent to the

municipal limit of Akola City and lands adjacent to the

acquired land are already converted into non-agricultural use.

Some of the industries, godowns, residential colonies are

existing adjacent to the acquired land. According to the

respondent, the Land Acquisition Officer has, ignoring these

factors, granted negligible amount of compensation and,

therefore, the said compensation needs to be enhanced.

4] The learned Reference Court, after hearing both

the parties found that amount of compensation needs to be

enhanced from Rs.55,000/- to Rs.77,000/- per hectare.

While doing so, the learned Reference Court calculated the

mean of various sale instances, which were cited or

considered in the award as in this case no oral or

documentary evidence was led by the claimant or the

acquiring body.

5] According to learned counsel for appellant as,

there was no evidence produced on record by the claimant to

prove that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition

Officer was not in proportionate to the potentiality, location

and quality of the land, then there was no question for the

Reference Court to enhance the compensation from

Rs.55,000/- to Rs.77,000/- per hectare. It is submitted that

the method adopted by the Reference Court of looking into

the sale instances considered by the Land Acquisition Officer

in the award and drawing the mean there of and on that basis

enhancing the compensation amount, was not at all proper.

6] It is an undisputed factual position that no

evidence was led by the respondent-claimant in support of his

contention that the acquired land deserves more amount of

compensation.

7] Hence, it may be true that there was no evidence

before the Reference Court to enhance the compensation

from Rs.55,000/- to Rs.77,000/- per hectare.

However, having regard to the detail discussion to that effect

in the impugned judgment and mainly considering meager

amount of enhancement, which is to the tune of Rs.20,000/-

only, this Court is reluctant to interfere in the said award,

especially when the amount is already deposited by the

appellant in the Court and there is every possibility of

respondent having withdrawn the same. Therefore, on this

sole ground, the appeal needs to be dismissed and

accordingly stands dismissed.

JUDGE

NSN