State Of Mah. Thru Collector vs Kamalabai Sitaram Khawale & 4 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8649 Bom

                                                  1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

First  Appeal No.  523 of 2009 

Appellant :              State of Maharashtra, through Collector,
                         Washim

                         Versus

Respondents:             1) Kamalabai Sitaram Khawale

                         2) Anil Sitaram Khawale

                         3) Gajanan Sitaram Khawale ... Deleted

                         4) Kalpana Sitaram Khawale

                         5) Gita Sitaram Khawale

                         Through power of attorney Kamalabai Sitaram
                         Khawale, Adult, Occ: Cultivator, resident of 
                         Malegaon, District Washim

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellant Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 13th November 2017

Oral Judgment

1. This appeal by the State of Maharashtra challenges the

legality and correctness of the judgment and order commonly passed in

four Land Acquisition Cases including LAC No. 112 of 2004 on 28 th April

2005 by the Additional District Judge, Washim.

2. I have heard Shri M. A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the appellant and Shri R. L. Khapre, learned counsel for the

respondents. I have perused record and proceedings of the case including

the impugned judgment and order.

3. The only point that arises for my determination is :-

Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference

Court is just and proper ?

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as the

evidence available on record has not been appreciated properly, valuation

of the land done by the Reference Court is made on higher side which is,

however, disagreed to by learned counsel for the respondents. Learned

counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in this appeal

is squarely covered by the view taken by this Court in connected appeal.

On this aspect of the matter, learned Assistant Government Pleader also

specifically agrees. Therefore, I find that this appeal deserves to be

disposed of on the same line as has been done by this Court in connected

appeal where this Court has found that the valuation of the land fixed at

Rs. 2,35,000/- per hectare for the irrigated land is correct. This Court

did not find fault with the fixation of valuation of dry-crop land by the

Reference Court in that case to be at Rs. 1,20,000/- per hectare. In the

present case also, the land is dry-crop land and thus its valuation would

have to be fixed at Rs. 1,20,000/- per hectare which I do so. However, a

slight correction in respect of grant of interest will be necessary by

modifying the impugned Award.

5. Appeal is partly allowed. The valuation of the acquired land

done by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per hectare is

confirmed. All statutory benefits granted by the Reference Court are also

confirmed except for the benefit regarding grant of interest under Section

28 of the Land Acquisition Act and as regards this, it is directed that

interest @ 9% per annum shall be granted under Section 28 of the Act

from the date of Award i.e. 24th March 2001 for a period of one year and

thereafter @ 15% per annum till the actual realization. No costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi