Sau. Gitabai W/O Shrawan Gambhir vs The State Of Mah. And Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 1359 Bom

                                                                    412,05fa
                                  (1)


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT NAGPUR
                                               
                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2005

 Sau. Gitabai w/o Shrawan Gambhir,
 Age about 70 years, Occ: Cultivator,
 R/o. Deoli Tah. Deoli,
 Distt. Wardha.                       ..APPELLANT

          VERSUS

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai,
          Through the Collector,
          WARDHA, Tah. and Dist. WARDHA.

 2.       Maharashtra Industrial
          Development Corporation, having
          its Head Office at Udyog
          Bhavan, Civil Lines, NAGPUR
          Through its Area Manager,
          WARDHA.                         ..RESPONDENTS


 Mr N.N. Thengre & Mr Y.N. Thengre, Advocates for 
 appellant;
 Mr M.A. Kadu, A.G.P. for respondent No.1;
 Mr M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent No.2

                               
                           CORAM :   N.W. SAMBRE, J.

                          DATE :    31st MARCH, 2017

 ORAL JUDGMENT :


                  Heard   respective   Counsel.     Vide   Land

Acquisition Reference No. 39 of 1995, pursuant to

the provisions under Section 18 of the Land

412,05fa

Acquisition Act, learned Additional District Judge,

Wardha, on 30th March, 2005, enhanced compensation

directing payment of Rs.87,803/- with interest at

the rate of 9% p.a. for the first year i.e. from

13.07.1994 and 15% p.a. from 13.07.1995 till

payment of additional compensation as ordered is

made. Feeling aggrieved, appeal under Section 54

of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. The appellant is owner of land survey No.

565 area 3 Hectare 22 Are situated at village

Deoli, Tahsil Deoli, District Wardha, which was

acquired by the respondent-acquiring body for the

establishment of industrial growth centre. The

award came to be passed on 13 th July, 1994 granting

compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per hectare, total Rs.

64,000/-, Rs.29,109/- towards compensation for

well, Rs.2059/- towards fruit bearing trees and

Rs.430/- towards non fruit bearing trees. As such,

total compensation of Rs.95,978/- along with 30%

solatium and interest.

412,05fa

3. In support of the claim for enhanced

compensation made before the Reference Court, the

appellant-land owner has examined her husband as

witness No.1 at Exhibit-36, Ravindra Authankar as

witness No.2 at Exhibit-45, Shaikh Gaffar as

witness No. 3 so as to substantiate her claim. The

claimant relied upon the judgment at Exhibit-39

delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Wardha on 3rd March, 2001, in Land Acquisition Case

No. 51 of 1995 in the case of Vithal Krishnarao

Ulhe and others and also sale deed of Gulabhrao

Ramaji Golhar at Exhibit-40. In addition, she has

relied upon the 7/12 extract at Exhibit-41, field

map at Exhibit-42 and other developments carried

out in the field. According to learned Counsel for

the appellant, location of land of the owner near

State High way, adjacent to lay out, APMC, ginning

factory and Deoli town speaks voluminous about the

value of the land. He would then invite attention

of this Court to the irrigation facility. According

to him, it is necessary to grant enhancement as

prayed before the learned Reference Court.

412,05fa

4. Per contra, Mr. Agnihotri, learned Counsel

for respondent No.1-acquiring body and learned

A.G.P. supported the judgment of the learned

Reference Court, as according to them, sufficient

compensation is granted after analyzing the claim.

The attention of this Court is invited to the

judgment of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 338 and

339 of 2001 decided on 16th April, 2005 and it is

urged that enhanced compensation as is ordered in

the said judgment be considered and the appeal be

disposed of accordingly.

5. In response to the same, learned Counsel

for the appellant would urge that even if the

appeal is disposed of in terms of said judgment,

still he submits that the total claim to the extent

of Rs.1,86,525/- be granted i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- per

hectare.

6. Having considered the rival submissions,

it is required to be noted that the decision in the

412,05fa

First Appeal Nos. 338 and 339 of 2001 delivered by

this Court on 16th April, 2016 in relation to

adjacent land, which was acquired by the same

notification.

7. Once the said fact is not disputed, I see

hardly any material on record but for compensation

for well to differentiate the case of the appellant

with that of said case. As such, enhanced

compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per hectare for dry crop

land appears to be just and proper.

8. From the evidence of PW-1 Shrawan, it is

to be noted that there is irrigation facility

available to the appellant as could be inferred

from 7/12 extract at Exhibit-41. As it is noted

that nothing adverse could be noticed in cross

examination, so as to infer that the land of

present appellant was not irrigated or there was no

irrigation facility available to the appellant, in

my opinion, compensation awarded calls for

interference and needs to grant enhanced

412,05fa

compensation. In my opinion, once the compensation

for dry crop land is fixed @ Rs.30,000/- per

hectare, present appellant will be entitled for

enhancement by 50% over the same looking to the

irrigation facility and as such, compensation

awarded is enhanced from Rs.30,000/- per hectare to

Rs.45,000/- per hectare.

9. So far as the compensation towards well is

concerned, it is required to be noted that

compensation awarded Rs.29109/- is assailed on the

ground that the same is inadequate. From the

evidence of PW-1 Shrawan, it is required to be

noted that there was irrigation facility available

to the land of present appellant from the 7/12

extract i.e. Exhibit-41. The diameter of well as

is brought on record is 24 feet with depth of 45

feet. Same was constructed up to 30 feet with

cement concrete and expenses incurred are claimed

to have been Rs.1,00,000/- for the same.

10. In view of above evidence brought on

412,05fa

record in regard to cost of well and details of

construction thereof, in my opinion, compensation

to be awarded towards cost of well is enhanced from

Rs.29,109/- to Rs.40,000/-.

11. In view of above, following order.

It is held that the appellant is entitled

for compensation for the acquired land @

Rs.45,000/- per hectare and Rs.40,000/- for well.

The appellant would be entitled for

solatium @ 30% on the enhanced amount of

compensation.

The appellant would be entitled for

additional component @ 12% per annum on enhanced

compensation from the date of notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to the date

of Award or date of possession, whichever is

earlier.

412,05fa

The appellant would be entitled for

interest on enhanced compensation under Section 28

of the Land Acquisition Act @ 9% per annum from the

date of possession for first year and @ 15% per

annum for subsequent period till realization.

The award passed by Reference Court stands

modified accordingly.

The appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid

terms with no order as to costs.

Decree be drawn up accordingly.

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

Tupe