Mah Industrial Development ... vs Narayan Tukaram Bagmore & 2 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 2594 Bom

                                        1                                                                fa108.07

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

                               FIRST APPEAL NO.108/2007

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, 
through its Chief Executive Officer having its office 
at Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai and 
its Regional Office at By Pass Road, Amravati.                                               ..Appellant.

            ..Vs..

1.     Narayan S/o Tukaram Bagmore,
       aged about 63 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist, 
       R/o Madkona, Distt. Yeotmal. 

       Legal representatives of respondent No.1.

i)     Sadashiv S/o Narayan Bagmare,
       aged about 54 Yrs. (son). 

ii)    Shankar S/o Narayan Bagmare,
       aged about 48 Yrs. (son). 

iii)   Dilip S/o Narayan Bagmare,
       aged about 45 Yrs. (son). 

iv)    Latabai S/o Jagan Nakhate,
       aged Major (daughter).

v)     Arun S/o Narayan Bagmare,
       aged about 32 Yrs. (son). 

vi)    Varshabai wd/o Sanjay Bagmare,
       aged about 42 Yrs. (daughter-in-law). 

vii)   Atul S/o Sanjay Bagmare,
       aged about 17 Yrs. (grand-son). 

viii) Aniket S/o Sanjay Bagmare,
      aged about 15 Yrs. (grand-son). 

       All R/o Madkona, Tah. and Distt. Yavatmal.



         ::: Uploaded on - 23/05/2017                              ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2017 00:57:34 :::
                                                                                        2                                                                fa108.07

2.            State of Maharashtra,
              through its Collector, Yeotmal. 

3.            The Sub-Divisional Officer and Land
              Acquisition Officer, District Yeotmal.                                                                                               ..Respondents.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
              Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant. 
              Ms. P.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent Nos.1(i) to 1(viii).
              Ms. N.P. Mehta, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


                                                                 CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     22.5.2017.



ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant, Ms. P.S.

Choudhari, Advocate for respondent Nos.1(i) to 1(viii) and Ms. N.P. Mehta,

A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. It is not in dispute that controversy in present appeal about

acquisition of lands at village Madkona, District Yeotmal is covered against

appellant Corporation by a common judgment dated 2 nd April, 2016 delivered

in First Appeal Nos.650/2002, 404/2005 and other connected appeals. This

judgment to the extent it quantifies rate of compensation to be awarded by

appellant Corporation in all matters has been followed on 7 th October, 2016

while deciding First Appeal No.947/2008. It appears that Reference Court had

worked out different rates for awarding compensation and this Court while

delivering judgment on 2nd April, 2016 has considered entire material and fixed

rate at Rs.1,17,000/- per hector in all matters. With the result appeals of

Corporation where rate awarded was in excess thereof came to be allowed and

3 fa108.07

other appeals where rate awarded was below Rs.1,17,000/- per hector were

dismissed. In present matter Reference Court has awarded compensation of

Rs.56,250/- per hector. In view of this, it is apparent that present appeal is

liable to be dismissed.

3. However, in view of the uniformity which this Court found

necessary on 2nd April, 2016, the procedure directing the land owners to pay

deficit court fee and then to award them additional compensation calculated at

Rs.1,17,000/- was devised. That procedure has been further clarified while

deciding First Appeal No.947/2008 on 7th October, 2016. Registry has been

asked not to release the amount of enhanced compensation till proportionate

additional court fee is received by State Government.

4. In this situation, it is apparent that the procedure as settled on 7 th

October, 2016 in this respect in First Appeal No.947/2008 needs to be adhered

to in present first appeal also.

5. Accordingly, First Appeal No.108/2007 is dismissed. Registry is

directed to adhere to procedure as stipulated in judgment delivered in First

Appeal No.947/2008 on 7th October, 2016. There shall be no orders as to

costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.