Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Kamla W/O Vasant Desai And 2 Ors on 23 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
fa71.08.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.71 OF 2008
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation through its Chief
Executive Officer having its office at
Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai and having its Regional Office
at Udyog Bhavan, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Kamla w/o Vasant Desai,
Aged about 57 years,
Occupation Agriculturist,
Resident of Wagholi,
District Amravati.
2] State of Maharashtra
through it's Collector,
Amravati.
3] Land Acquisition Officer cum
Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE: 23 rd
MAY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Heard Shri Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant-
fa71.08.J.odt 2/4
Corporation and Ms. Haider, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Nobody appears for
respondent No.1-landowner.
2] The appellant-Corporation questions judgment
delivered on 30.04.2005 by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge,
Amravati in Land Acquisition Reference No.611 of 1999.
According to Shri Agnihotri, rate of Rs.1500/- per hectare
awarded by Land Acquisition Officer to the acquired lands of
respondent No.1 could not have been interfered with.
To substantiate his contention he has taken the Court through
relevant part of impugned judgment and evidence.
3] Learned Assistant Government Pleader is supporting
arguments of Shri Agnihotri.
4] The impugned judgment itself shows that rate of
Rs.1500/- per hectare was awarded for the lands of respondent
No.1 by Land Acquisition Officer on the premise that lands are
uncultivable i.e. potkharab land. Land-owner has adduced
evidence to demonstrate actual cultivation undertaken.
Cross-examination of Land Acquisition Officer reveals that there is
fa71.08.J.odt 3/4
a difference between potkharab land and the fallow land. He has
accepted that in 7/12 extract, land is not mentioned as potkharab.
5] The material looked into by Reference Court reveals
that the land of respondent No.1 was under cultivation.
To demonstrate that no part of acquired land is potkharab,
respondent No.1 produced 7/12 extracts for the year 1991 to
1997. Section 4 notification in present matter has been published
in the year 1993-1994.
6] Reference Court has looked into entire material and
found grant of compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per hectare
unsustainable and, it has awarded Rs.31,959/- per hectare for 1 H
62 R land acquired by appellant. The rate has been worked out on
the basis of order passed by Land Acquisition Officer in the cases
of other land-owner. It appears that earlier respondent No.1 was
paid total compensation of Rs.2430/- and after adjudication by
Reference Court, she has become entitled to receive amount of
Rs.49,344/-.
7] In this situation, I find the approach of Reference
Court just and proper. No case is made out warranting
fa71.08.J.odt 4/4
interference. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Rule discharged.
No costs.
JUDGE
NSN
