Bombay High Court
The Mah.Industrial Development ... vs Datta Dajiba Itkare And Others on 4 May, 2017
Bench: N.W. Sambre
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.107 OF 2006
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.108 OF 2006
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.109 OF 2006
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.112 OF 2006
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.113 OF 2006
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.114 OF 2006
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.115 OF 2006
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.117 OF 2006
FIRST APPEAL NO.107 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Regional Office at
Amravati Industrial Estate By-pass Road,
Amravati. ..... Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Bhagwan Laxman Itkare,
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:33:32 :::
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
2
Aged about 29 years.
2. Baburao s/o Laxman Itkare,
Aged about 22 years.
3. Kishor s/o Laxman Itkare,
Aged about 20 years.
4. Vimal d/o Namdeorao
Deshmane, aged 30 years.
5. Smt. Renukabai w/o Laxman
Itkare, aged about 45 years,
Occupation Cultivator,
All R/o Umarkhed, Taluka
Umarkhed, District Yavatmal.
6. State of Maharashtra, through
Collector, Yavatmal. ..... Respondents.
FIRST APPEAL NO.108 OF 2006
The Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief Executive
Officer, having its head office at Mahakali
Caves, Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri
(East), Mumbai, having its regional office at
Bypass Road, Amravati. ..... Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:33:32 :::
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
3
1. Sudhakar Rambhau Kodgirwar
Aged about 47 years,
Cultivator, R/o Umarkhed,
Taluka Umarkhed, District Yavatmal.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yeotmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Yeotmal. ..... Respondents.
FIRST APPEAL NO.109 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation, through its
Chief Executive Officer, having its
Regional Office at Amravati Industrial
Estate, Bypass Road, Amravati. ..... Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Datta Dajiba Itkare (Deceased)
1.a. Narayan s/o Datta Itkare,
Aged 37 years.
1.b. Vishnu s/o Datta Itkare,
Aged 41 years.
1.c. Ku. Bhagiratha Datta Itkare,
Aged 23 years.
.....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:33:32 :::
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
4
1.d. Kondibai w/o Datta Itkare,
Aged 64 years.
1(a)(i). Smt. Satyashila wd/o Narayan Itkare,
Aged about 45 years, Occupation Household.
1(a)(ii). Ku. Anusuya d/o Narayan Itkare
Aged about 25 years, Occupation Nil.
1(a)(iii). Pandurang s/o Narayan Itkare
Aged about 23 years,
Occupation Agriculturist.
1(a)(iv). Shankar s/o Narayan Itkare
Aged about 21 years,
Occupation Agriculturist.
1(a)(v). Chandu s/o Narayan Itkare
Aged about 19 years,
Occupation Agriculturist.
All resident of Taluka Umarkhed,
District Yavatmal.
All by Occupation Agriculturist,
R/o Umarkhed, Taluka Umarkhed,
District Yavatmal.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yeotmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
.....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:33:32 :::
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
5
Sub Divisional Officer, Yeotmal. ..... Respondents.
FIRST APPEAL NO.112 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief
Executive Officer, Having it's Regional
Office at Amravati Industrial
Estate By-pass Road, Amravati. ..... Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Pundlik s/o Vitthal Itkare
Aged about 58 years,
Cultivator, r/o Umarkhed,
Taluka Umarkhed,
District Yavatmal.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yeotmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Yeotmal. ..... Respondents.
FIRST APPEAL NO.113 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Regional Office at
.....6/-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:33:32 :::
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
6
Amravati Industrial Estate By-pass Road,
Amravati. ..... Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Madhukar Rambhau Kodgirwar
Aged about 50 years,
Cultivator, R/o Umarkhed, Taluka
Umarkhed, District Yavatmal.
2. State of Maharashtra, through
Collector, Yeotmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Yeotmal. ..... Respondents.
FIRST APPEAL NO.114 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief
Executive Officer, having it's Regional
Office at Amravati Industrial Estate
By-pass Road, Amravati. ..... Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Sitaram s/o Dinaji Thamke
Aged about 66 years,
Occupation Cultivator,
R/o Umarkhed, District Yavatmal.
LRs
.....7/-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:33:32 :::
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
7
(i) Baghirathibai wd/o Sitaram Thamke,
Aged about 65 years.
(ii) Dipak Sitaram Thamke,
Aged about 35 years.
(iii) Shivling Sitaram Thamke,
Aged about 25 years.
i to iii all R/o Umarkhed,
District Yavatmal.
(iv) Padma Digamber Sonoune,
Aged about 42 years,
R/o Phulsawangi, Taluka Mahagaon,
District Yavatmal.
(v) Savita Subhashrao Sarote,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o Umarkhed, District Yavatmal.
(vi) Chanda Dattatray Girgaonkar,
Aged about 29 years,
R/o Rajnandgaon, Taluka Gangakhed,
District Yavatmal.
2. State of Maharashtra, through
Collector, Yeotmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Yeotmal. ..... Respondents.
.....8/-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:33:32 :::
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
8
FIRST APPEAL NO.115 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief
Executive Officer, Having it's Regional
Office at Amravati Industrial Estate
By-pass Road, Amravati. ..... Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Vitthal Dajiba Itkare
Aged about 82 years,
Cultivator, r/o Umarkhed
Taluka Umarkhed, District Yavatmal.
LRs
1. Pundlik Vitthal Itkare
2. Sau. Renuka Laxman Itkare
Both resident of Shivaji Ward Umerkhed,
District Yavatmal.
3. Sau. Leelawati Wamanrao Nazardhane
R/o of Kalgaon, Taluka Mahagaon,
District Yavatmal.
4. Kamlabai Bhimrao Sontakke,
R/o Guphali, Taluka Hatgaon,
District Nanded.
5. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yeotmal.
.....9/-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:33:32 :::
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
9
6. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Yeotmal. ..... Respondents.
FIRST APPEAL NO.117 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief Executive
Officer, having it's Regional Office at
Amravati Industrial Estate By-pass Road,
Amravati. ..... Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Bhagwan Mahadu Nandanwar
Aged about 52 years,
Agriculturist, r/o Umarkhed,
Taluka Umarkhed, District Yavatmal.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yeotmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub Divisional Officer, Yeotmal. ..... Respondents.
==============================================================
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Counsel for the Appellant.
Shri D.G. Patil, Counsel with Shri S.U. Ingole
& Shri J.S. Wankhede, Advs. for the Respondent/Claimants.
Shri A.D. Sonak, Asstt.G.P. for the Respondent/State.
==============================================================
.....10/-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:33:32 :::
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
10
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
RESERVED ON : APRIL 25, 2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : MAY 4, 2017.
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Since all these appeals are arising out of the
same Notification under Section 32 of the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961 (for
short, "the said Act"), were tagged together and
disposed of finally by this common judgment.
2. The appellant, acquiring body a statutory
industrial corporation, has acquired the lands of the
respondents/landowners for establishing the industrial
zone.
3. The Notification under Section 32(1) of the
said Act came to be issued on 18.10.1990 and award
thereof was passed on 22.12.1992. After the Land
.....11/-
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
Acquisition Officer awarded the meagre compensation,
the respondents/landowners claimed enhancement @
Rs.15/- per square foot, which was granted by the
Reference Court @ Rs.8/- per square foot.
4. For the purpose of convenience, the above
referred facts are borrowed from First Appeal No.117 of
2006.
5. In First Appeal Nos.107 and 115 of 2006, Civil
Applications Nos.2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077, and 2078 of
2017 are moved for condonation of delay in bringing
legal heirs on record, setting aside abatement, and for
bringing legal heirs on record, which are not objected
by learned counsel for the respondents/landowners and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State. As
such, said applications stand allowed and disposed of
accordingly. Amendment be carried out forthwith.
.....12/-
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
6. Learned counsel Shri M.M. Agnihotri for the
appellant/acquiring body while inviting attention of this
Court to the judgment of this Court in First Appeal
No.268 of 1996 (The Regional Officer, Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation, Amravati
Division, Amravati and ors ..vs.. Dhananjay s/o
Purushottam Chiddarwar and anr) decided on 22.9.2009
would urge that award of compensation @ Rs.8/- per
square feet by the Reference Court was questioned in
the said appeal. In the said judgment the compensation
awarded @ Rs.8/- per square feet based on the N.A.
status of the land in the first appeal, which was already
converted to non-agricultural use. According to him,
though the lands, under acquisition in the first appeal
before this Court, have non-agricultural potential, are
not converted to any use. Based on the above, he would
urge that this Court should deduct 30% of the amount
.....13/-
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
out of Rs.8/- per square feet as enhanced by the
Reference Court towards the development charges. So
as to substantiate his contention, he would rely upon
the certain judgment of this Court and the Honourable
Apex Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Shri D.G. Patil
for the respondents/landowners supports the decision of
the Reference Court and submits that till date, the
enhanced compensation is not paid. In addition, he
would rely upon the judgment in the case of Chakas
..vs.. State of Punjab and others, reported at (2011) 12
SCC 128 so as to submit that what could be deducted is,
at the most 10% of the amount towards the development
charges and not 30%. According to him, the first
appeals deserve to be dismissed.
8. In view of rival submissions, the only point
.....14/-
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
which falls for determination before this Court is, at
what rate the respondents/landowners should have been
granted the compensation after deducting the
development charges, as the acquired lands for which
enhanced compensation is granted by the Reference
Court are not converted to any non-agricultural use.
9. There is no quarrel that the acquired lands
are required to be granted enhanced compensation @
Rs.8/- per square feet as the Reference Court, in detail,
has discussed the document Exhibits 56 and 57 in the
back drop of the very observations of the Land
Acquisition Officer. It is then to be noted that the said
amount of compensation is based on N.A. potentiality of
lands in question. This Court, in the matter of
Dhananjay s/o Purushottam Chiddarwar and anr cited
supra, has upheld the payment of compensation for the
.....15/-
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
similar land @ Rs.8/- per square feet. It is then to be
noted that the land involved in the said appeal was
already converted to non-agricultural use.
10. The appellant/acquiring body has not placed
on record the relevant material so as to justify the
deduction as sought to the extent of about 30%
particularly the relevant Rules which govern cost of the
development charges.
Learned counsel Shri D.G. Patil for the
respondents/landowners, based on the judgment in the
case of Chakas ..vs.. State of Punjab and ors cited supra,
has agreed for 10% deduction as according to him, large
chunk of land was acquired by the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation for industrial
purpose, which is sold to the prospective industrial
owners at profit by the appellant/acquiring body.
.....16/-
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
11. Having considered the judgment of the
Honourable Apex Court in the case of Chakas ..vs.. State
of Punjab and ors cited supra and other judgment cited
by learned counsel Shri M.M. Agnihotri for the
appellant/acquiring body, in my opinion, it will be
appropriate to order deduction of development charges
@ 20% from the enhanced compensation. To be more
precise, from the enhanced compensation @ Rs.8/- per
square feet, Rs.1.60 will be deducted (@ 20% of the
enhanced compensation) towards the development
charges, which prima facie appears to be reasonable
particularly having regard to the fact that the acquired
lands have non-agricultural potential. As such, appeals
of the appellant/acquiring body is partly allowed to the
above extent. The appellant/acquiring are directed to
.....17/-
Judgment
first appeal107.06 & ors connected appeals
deposit entire amount of enhanced compensation with
interest thereon along with other statutory benefits in
this Court within a period of six months from today.
After the appeal period is over, the
respondents/landowners will be entitled to withdraw
the same.
The first appeals stand partly allowed in
aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
