Bombay High Court
M.I.D.C. Thr. C.E.O vs Sk. Mohammad Sk. Bahira And 4 Ors on 29 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
FA 68/10 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL No. 68/2010
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai
and having its Regional Office at By pass
road, Amravati,
Through its Chief Executive Officer. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1. Sk. Mohammad Sk. Bahira,
aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculture.
2. Sk. Salim Sk. Bahira,
aged about 45 years, Occ. Agriculture.
Dead by LR's
a) Smt.Bibibai Sk. Salim,
aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Household work.
b) Sk.Mehaboob Sk. Salim,
Aged about 20 yrs. Occu. Nil.
c) Sk.Javed Sk. Salim,
Aged about 18 yrs., Occu. Education.
d) Sk.Akbar Sk. Salim,
Aged about 16 yrs, Occu. Education.
e) Sk.Ansar Sk. Salim,
Aged about 13 yrs, Occu. Education.
3. Sk. Anis Sk. Bahira,
Aged about 32 yrs, Occ. Agriculture.
All are resident of Cawalipura,
Akot road, Akola.
4. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Akola.
5. Collector, Akola,
District Akola.
6. Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer, Akola.
District Akola. RESPONDENTS
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, counsel for the appellant.
Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.4 to 6.
Shri A.M. Ghare, counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 29 TH JUNE, 2017.
FA 68/10 2 Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this first appeal, the appellant-M.I.D.C. challenges the
judgment and award of the reference Court, dated 09.09.2009 in Land
Acquisition Case No.367 of 1997 partly allowing the reference application
filed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 and directing the State and the M.I.D.C.
to pay enhanced compensation to the respondent nos.1 to 3 at the rate of
Rs.1000/- per R for 4 Hectares and 52 R of land in Survey No.137 of
village Yeota, District Akola.
2. Shri Ghare, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3,
submitted that the issue involved in this first appeal was also involved in
First Appeal No.1183 of 2010 filed by the M.I.D.C. against the claimants
therein and the said first appeal is dismissed by the judgment, dated
24.10.2016. It is stated that the land of the respondent nos.1 to 3 in this
first appeal and the land of the respondents-claimants in First Appeal
No.1183 of 2010 was acquired by the M.I.D.C. by the same section 32
notification under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Act. It is stated that the land of the respondent nos.1 to 3
as also the land of the claimants in First Appeal No.1183 of 2010 were
acquired by the same section 32 notification that was published on
01.01.1985. It is submitted that in the decided case also, the
compensation was granted to the claimants therein at Rs.1000/- per R,
i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare. It is stated that since First Appeal No.1183
FA 68/10 3 Judgment
of 2010 is dismissed by this Court, by the judgment, dated 24.10.2016,
this first appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
3. Shri Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the appellant-M.I.D.C.
does not dispute the statements made on behalf of the respondent nos.1
to 3.
4. We have perused the judgment in First Appeal No.1183 of
2010 and the judgment of the reference Court, that is challenged in this
first appeal. We find that the land of the claimants in First Appeal
No.1183 of 2010 and the present first appeal was acquired by the same
section 32(2) notification. Since we have dismissed First Appeal No.1183
of 2010, it would be necessary to dismiss this first appeal also.
5. Hence, for the reasons recorded hereinabove and for the
reasons recorded in the judgment dated 24.10.2016 in First Appeal
No.1183 of 2010, we dismiss this first appeal with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
