Manda W/O Dyaneshwar Deshmukh vs The State Of Mah, Thr ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2665 Bom

                                        1                                                               fa263.09


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

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 263 OF 2009

Manda w/o Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh,
aged 52 years, Occupation Labour, R/o
Naigaon Khurd, Taluka Chikhali, District
Buldana.                                                         ... APPELLANT

                                          VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra,
     through the Collector, Buldana.

2. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
     Corporation, through Executive 
     Engineer, Minor Irrigation Div.
     No.11, Chikhali, Distt. Buldana.                           ... RESPONDENTS

                                     ....
Shri M.S. Abbasi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri M.M. Ekare, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
None for the respondent No.2.
                                     ....


                                         CORAM : PRASANNA.B.VARALE, J.

DATED : 30TH MAY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri M.S. Abbasi, the learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant and Shri M.M. Ekare, the learned Assistant

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. None for

respondent No.2.

2 fa263.09

2. The appellant is before this Court being dissatisfied by the

inadequate compensation awarded to her for acquisition of her land in the

Land Acquisition Case No. 51 of 2000. Shri Abbasi, the learned Counsel for

the appellant submits that the appellant was the owner and possessor of

an agricultural land situated at Mouza Naigaon Khurd, Taluka Chikhali,

District Buldana to the extent of 2.39 HR in Gat No. 131. He submits that

the land of the appellant was irrigated and the appellant used to receive

good income as there were number of fruit bearing trees in the land and

the land was fertile land. The learned Counsel also submits that the

respondent/State acquired the land for "Petankli Medium Project" and the

Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of

Rs.65,500/- per hectare. Shri Abbasi, the learned Counsel further submits

that apart from the fruit bearing trees, the appellant was also producing

the other crops like groundnut, sunflower, cotton etc. He then submits

that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was

accepted under protest by the claimant/appellant and the appellant being

dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation awarded by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer, approached the reference Court. Though the

learned reference Court allowed the reference and enhanced the rate of

compensation, even the rate awarded by the reference Court is inadequate

is the submission of Shri Abbasi, the learned Counsel for the appellant.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the other land owners

similarly situated with the appellant, approached this Court by filing First

3 fa263.09

Appeal Nos. 748 of 2007 and 385 of 2008. He further submits that by latest

judgment dated 23rd May, 2017, this Court allowed the appeals. Shri

Abbasi, the learned Counsel, by inviting my attention to the judgment and

order of this Court dated 23rd May, 2017, submits that this Court also took

into consideration the observations made in the earlier bunch of first

appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment

and award passed by the reference Court.

3. Shri Ekare, the learned AGP opposes the instant appeal.

4. On going through the material placed on record, I am of the

opinion that the judgment and order of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 748

of 2007 and 385 of 2008 squarely covers the present appeal also. It is not in

dispute that the land of the appellant was acquired for the project namely

Petankli Medium Irrigation Project. The land of the present appeal is

adjacent to the lands which were acquired for the said project and were the

subject matter of First Appeal Nos.748 of 2007 and 385 of 2008. Shri

Abbasi, the learned Counsel has placed on record the copies of the

judgments and orders of this Court in bunch of appeals namely First

Appeal No. 1099 of 2008 and other connected appeals as well in First

Appeal Nos.748 of 2007 and 385 of 2008. In the bunch of appeals i.e. First

Appeal No.1099 of 2008 and other connected appeals, this Court had an

occasion to consider the quality of the land acquired for the said project

4 fa263.09

and the other details such as the date of notification under Section 4, the

date of award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the

compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the

compensation awarded by the reference Court.

5. Perusal of the judgment and order dated 14.09.2012 in First

Appeal No. 1099 of 2008 and other connected appeals shows that in First

Appeal No.1208 of 2010, Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, by

filing the appeal challenging the judgment and order of the reference

Court along with the State of Maharashtra i.e. State of Maharashtra filed

other appeals challenging the judgment and order of the reference Court,

this Court by considering the material evidence such as oral and

documentary evidence in the form of testimony of the witness and the sale

instances, arrived at the conclusion that the appeals filed by the State of

Maharashtra and the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation being

meritless deserve to be dismissed. The judgment and order of this Court

dated 23rd May, 2017 shows that it was observed by this Court that the

appellants were entitled for the rate of Rs.1,42,500/- per hectare as correct

market rate for the irrigated land. Accordingly, the appeals were partly

allowed.

6. Considering these aspects of the matter, I see no reason to take

any different view from the view taken by this Court in the judgment and

5 fa263.09

order dated 23rd May, 2017. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Amount

due and payable to the appellant as compensation for land shall be

calculated at Rs.1,42,500/- per hectare and the balance amount due shall

accordingly be determined within next three months. Interest on it at 09

per cent along with other benefits as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the

impugned judgment delivered by reference Court shall also be calculated

in said period. Final compensation amount thus worked out be paid to the

respective appellant within next three months. Accordingly the appeal is

allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE

*rrg.