M.I.D.C. Thr Chief Executive ... vs Gunwant Bhagwan Gajbhiye & 2 Otrs
2017 Latest Caselaw 2609 Bom

   fa689.08                                                                         1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH

                       FIRST APPEAL NO.  689   OF  2008


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

                               Versus

  1. Gunwant Bhagwan Gajbhiye,
     aged about - Major, r/o 
     Nandgaonpeth, Taluka and
     District - Amravati.

  2. State of Maharashtra
     through Collector, Amravati.

  3. Sub-Divisional Officer and
     Special Land Acquisition Officer,
     Amravati.                                     ...   RESPONDENTS


  Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.
  Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
  Ms. N.P. Mehta, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
                   .....

                                    CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

MAY 24, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Acquiring Body viz., Maharashtra Industrial

Development Corporation (MIDC) has questioned the judgment

dated 07.03.2008 delivered in Land Acquisition Case No. 89 of

1999, by the District Judge, Amravati, granting enhanced

compensation @ Rs.74,000/- per Hectare to the land owners.

2. I have heard Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel for the

appellant, Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.

1 and Ms. Mehta, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

3. The acquisition is in terms of Award dated

20.03.1997 for village - Sawardi. This acquisition has been

questioned in First Appeal No. 922 of 2007 and other

connected matters by the appellant - Corporation only. There,

this Court has followed the earlier judgment dated 30.08.2016

in First Appeal No. 486 of 2011 and found the challenge to

enhanced compensation unsustainable. In that judgment in

paragraph 3, this Court has found that the compensation for

land cannot be less than Rs.89,000/- per Hectare. In First

Appeal No. 922 of 2007 and other connected matters, on

22.05.2017, I have followed this judgment and accordingly

dismissed those appeals.

4. Consequently, present First Appeal is also

dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

there shall be no order as to costs.

5. Needless to mention that balance amount of

compensation lying in deposit with the Registry of this Court,

with interest accrued upon it till date, shall be allowed to be

withdrawn by the land owners.

JUDGE ******

*GS.