The Mah.Industrial Development ... vs Pundlik Vitthal Itkare And 2 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2207 Bom

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 01:33:30 :::
 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 01:33:30 :::
 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 01:33:30 :::
 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 01:33:30 :::
 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 01:33:30 :::
 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 01:33:30 :::
 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 01:33:30 :::
 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 01:33:30 :::
 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 01:33:30 :::
 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 !!

...../-