Govindrao Tukaram Virutkar vs State Of Mah. Thru. Collector & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 624 Bom

        J-fa1112.07.odt                                                                                                     1/4


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


                                    FIRST APPEAL No.1112 OF 2007

        Govindrao s/o. Tukaram Virutkar,
        Aged about 70 years,
        Occupation : Cultivation,
        R/o. Yerur, 
        Tahsil and District Chandrapur.                                              :      APPELLANT

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.    State of Maharashtra,
               Through Collector, Chandrapur
               as well as Land Acquisition Officer,
               Chandrapur, 
               Tahsil and District Chandrapur.

        2.    Maharashtra Industrial Development
               Corporation, having its Head Office
               at Mumbai, through its Regional Officer,
               Nagpur, Udyog Bhavan, Civil Lines, 
               Nagpur, Tahsil & District Nagpur.                                      :      RESPONDENTS

        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=
        Shri Anjan De, Advocate for the Appellant.
        Shri M.M. Ekre, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondent No.1.
        Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=

                                                       CORAM  :   A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

th DATE : 9 MARCH, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

Act, the appellant seeks enhancement in the amount of compensation

J-fa1112.07.odt 2/4

for the land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894.

2. The land admeasuring 0.81 R from field Survey No.27 and

11 hector 25 R from Survey No.28 was the subject matter of acquisition.

The Notification under Section 32(1) of the Maharashtra Development

Act, 1961 is dated 19.12.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his

award on 10.1.1995 and granted sum of Rs.22,000/- per hector. In

reference proceedings initiated by the applicant the amount of

compensation was enhanced to Rs.45,000/- per hector. Not being

satisfied by the aforesaid compensation, the present appeal has been

filed.

3. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties

that in First Appeal No.961/2008 and connected first appeals arising

from the same award this Court has granted compensation for the land

acquired from the same village at the rate of Rs.67,300/- per hector. It

is, therefore, submitted that insofar as dry crop land is concerned, this

amount of compensation can be taken into consideration.

4. Shri Anjan De, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that there was a Well in Survey No.27 and, therefore, the compensation

for 0.81 R land ought to have been awarded by treating it as irrigated

land. However, compensation has been granted by treating it as dry

crop land. It is submitted that even in the award the Land Acquisition

J-fa1112.07.odt 3/4

Officer has granted compensation for the said Well.

5. Shri M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2, however, submitted that there was no evidence brought on record

to indicate that 0.81 R land was irrigated. He, therefore, submitted that

the reference Court rightly granted compensation for said land as dry

crop land.

Shri M.M. Ekre, lerned Assistant Government Pleader

appeared for the respondent No.1.

6. The only point that arises for consideration is :

(i) Whether 0.81 R land can be treated as irrigated land ?

7. The 7/12 extract on record and especially Exh.-39 indicate

that in Survey No.27 a Well was situated. The Land acquisition Officer

in his award has also granted compensation for the Well. The reference

Court in para 30 of its judgment has also observed the existence of such

Well in Survey No.27. The compensation granted for 1 hector of land is

by treating it as irrigated land. However, the actual irrigated land is

0.81 R from Survey No.27 and 1 hector land from Survey No.28. To that

extent the appellant would be entitled for compensation by treating said

land as irrigated land.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, following order is passed :

                   J-fa1112.07.odt                                                                                                     4/4


                                     (i)                It   is   held   that   the   appellant   is   entitled   for

compensation at the rate of Rs.67,300/- per

hector for land admeasuring 10 hector 25 R from

Survey No.28.

(ii) The appellant is entitled for compensation at the

rate of Rs.1,34,600/- for 0.81 R land from Survey

No.27 and 1 hector land from Survey No.28.

(iii) Rest of the award stands confirmed.

9. The first appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

JUDGE

okMksns