Bombay High Court
Dr. Laxman Vitthalrao Deshmukh ... vs The Collector, Yavatmal & 2 Ors on 13 November, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 266 of 2008
Appellants : 1) Dr Laxman son of Vitthalrao Deshmukh, aged
about 48 years, Occ: Medical Officer
2) Smt Vimalbai wd/o Vitthalrao Deshmukh, aged
about 70 years, Occ: Household
3) Ku Kalandi @ Kirti d/o Vitthalrao Deshmukh, aged
about 49 years,
All residents of 16, Bidpeth, Shani Mandir, New
Subhedar Layour, Nagpur-24
Versus
Respondents: 1) The Collector, Yavatmal
2) The Special land Acquisition Officer,
Arunavati Project, Benefitted Zone, Yavatmal
3) Executive Engineer, Arunavati Project,
Digras, District Yavatmal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. U. Nemade, Advocate for appellants
Shri Harshal Dube, AGP for respondents 1 and 2
Shri Amol Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 13th November 2017
Oral Judgment
1. This appeal questions legality and correctness of the Award
passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 175 of 2004 by the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Darwha on 5 th April 2006 on the ground that lesser
compensation has been granted.
2. The land of original owner Vitthal Nagorao Deshmukh was
compulsorily acquired for Arunavati River Projection. Section 4
notification of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 6.3.1996. The
Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the acquired land @
Rs. 14,000/- per hectare which was enhanced by the Reference Court in
reference application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to
Rs. 35,000/- per hectare. During the course of acquisition proceedings,
the original land owner expired and those proceedings were pursued on
his behalf by his two wives i.e. Sumitrabai and Vimalbai. Vimalbai filed
reference application jointly with her son and daughter. Sumitrabai had
claimed 60% of share while Vimalbai claimed 40% share in the
compensation to be granted by the Reference Court about which there is
no dispute. The Reference Court while enhancing the rate of
compensation, considered the sale instances vide Exhibits 32 and 33
situated at Digras, District Yavatmal and taking into consideration the
distance between the acquired land and the lands involved in Exhibits 32
and 33, determined the compensation for the acquired land to be at Rs.
35,000/- per hectare. Not being satisfied with the same, appellants -
branch of Vimalbai are before this Court.
3. I have heard Shri S. U. Nemade, learned counsel for the
appellants; Shri Harshal Dube, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents no. 1 and 2 as also Shri Amol Patil, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3. I have gone through the record and proceedings
including the impugned judgment and order.
4. The only point that arises for my determination is :
Whether the compensation granted by the Reference
Court is just and proper ?
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the issue
involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in
the case of Anil Amrutrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra & ors
reported in 2015 (2) Mh. L. J. 675 and he submits that the acquired
land is part of joint family land of the family of Anil Deshmukh, the
claimant in the said case. He submits that the acquired land in this case
should fetch the same market value as awarded by this Court in the case
of Anil Amrutrao Deshmukh (supra) which is of Rs. 1,00,000/- per
hectare. Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, however,
disagrees. According to him, the main consideration which weighed with
the Court in that case was that the claimant's land was forming part of
joint family land belonging to single family for which a different rate was
granted and, therefore, in order to equalize the situation of both the
members, this Court also determined the market value of the land
involved in that case at the same rate as was granted to father of Anil
Deshmukh. He, therefore, submits that appropriate rate would have to be
granted by this Court and certainly not the rate, as claimed by the
appellants in this case.
6. There is no denying the fact that the acquired land in the
present case quite long ago was also a part of larger piece of joint family
property belonging to Deshmukh family. Therefore, the appropriate
enhancement in the rate of acquired land would have to be made by the
Court. Such enhancement, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for
respondent no. 3, could not be to the extent of Rs. 100,000/- per hectare,
but it can also not be as low as Rs. 70,000/- per hectare as has been done
by this Court in FA No. 242 of 1994 where the lands were from the same
village and covered by the same notification issued for Arunavati River
Project. The market value of the acquired land should be somewhere
between Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare which, in my
considered opinion, would be of Rs. 85,000/- per hectare. Accordingly, I
find that the true market value would be of Rs. 85,000/- per hectare and
the appellants are entitled to receive compensation for their acquired land
at this rate only. Point is answered accordingly.
7. In the circumstances, appeal is partly allowed. It is declared
that the appellants are entitled to receive compensation from the
respondents @ Rs. 85000/- per hectare for the acquired land together
with all statutory benefits granted by the Reference Court at the same
rate, but on the enhanced compensation amount made under this order,
in proportion to the appellants' share in the acquired land which 40%,
equal to 5.96 HR. The impugned judgment and order stand modified in
these terms. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
