Shrikrushan Trimbak Lahane vs State Of Maharashtra & Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 2625 Bom

                                        1                                             fa380.05




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

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2005

 Shrikrushna Trimbak Lahane,
 Aged about 42 years, 
 Occupation - Cultivator, 
 R/o Pentakli, Taluka - Mehkar,
 District - Buldana.                                              ....       APPELLANT

                                     ::  V E R S U S  ::

 1) State of Maharashtra,
     through Collectorate, Buldana. 

 2) Executive Engineer,
     Wan Project, Shegaon, Taluka - 
     Shegaon, District - Buldana.                                 ....       RESPONDENTS

 ______________________________________________________________
            Mrs. P.M. Chandekar, Advocate for appellant.
            Mr. M.A. Kadu, A.G.P. for respondent No.1,
            Respondent No.2 served.
 ______________________________________________________________

                              CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATED : 24 APRIL, 2017.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is by original claimant. Land bearing Gat

No.201/2A admeasuring 1 hectare 59 R. at Mauja, Pen-Tekli belonging

to the appellant was acquired for irrigation project pursuant to Section

4 notification issued on 14th March, 1991 which was gazetted on 8th

May, 1991.

2. In statement of claimant, compensation of Rs.75,000/- per

2 fa380.05

hectare was demanded by the appellant.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the sale

instance has awarded compensation, which according to the claimant

was meager and sought enhancement at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per

hectare.

4. The Reference Court, after considering the submissions

vide its award dated 23rd September, 2004 enhanced the compensation

and ordered payment of Rs.30,319/- (i.e. Rs.13,000/- per acre) in

addition to what has been paid by the Land Acquisition Officer with

interest at the rate of 9% per annum for first year and 15% per annum

from 31st March, 1992.

5. Mrs. Chandekar, learned Counsel for the appellant would

urge that the land of the appellant is highly fertile land, as the same is

situated in the river bed and is irrigated from the river water.

According to her, cash crops viz. Jawar, Cotton, Gram, Wheat etc. are

harvested, as the quality of soil is black cotton having depth of 20 feet.

It is claimed that the fertility of the land was improved by the appellant

by investing substantial amount. The claimant relied upon 7/12

extract of acquired land vide Exhs.15 to 17 and receipts of selling the

acquired produce vide Exhs.39 to 41. In addition, the claimant has

filed 2 sale instances on record vide Exhs.54 and 76. According to

3 fa380.05

claimant, it is necessary to grant enhancement as per Exh.76. The sale-

deed of 10 R. filed on record was executed between Ramkrushna

Kokate and Nandram Jawanjal in the year 1988 for consideration of

Rs.15,000/-.

6. Per contra, Assistant Government Pleader supported the

judgment of Reference Court and submitted that reference Court has

rightly relied on Exh.54 and properly granted 10% increase per year

and granted compensation @ Rs.13,000/- p.a. He further argue that

the sale-deed vide Exh.76 is from different Mouja i.e. Naigaon Bk., Tq.

Chikhali and Exh.54 is from village Pentakli. So, there is no reason to

consider the sale deed of different village, when the sale deed of same

village is available on record. He further submitted that the claimant

has failed to prove the distance between acquired land and land under

Exhibit 76 by filing map on record. He payed for dismissal of appeal.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, it is required to

be noted that the acquired land is situated at mouja Pentakali, taluka

Mehkar, district Buldhana and land under Exhibit 54 is also situated at

mouja Pentakali, taluka Mehkar and learned Reference Court has

rightly considered the same while granting compensation by adding

10% increase per year and granted Rs.13,000/- per acre, on the

contrary the land under Exhibit 76 is situated at mouja Naigaon Bk.,

4 fa380.05

taluka Chikhali, district Buldhana and there is no material on record to

show that the said land is within the proximity of acquired land.

8. In view of above evidence brought on record, in my

opinion, compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and

proper, needs no interference. Hence, appeal fails. Dismissed.

JUDGE !! BRW !!