Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Irrigation Devp. Corpn. ... vs Yogesh Madhukar Mehatre & 2 Ors on 15 November, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 J.FA 1637.08.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 1637/2008
with
Cross Objection No. 24/2014
*******
First Appeal No. 1637/2008
APPELLANT:- Vidarbha Irrigation Development
(On R.A.) Corporation, through its Executive
Engineer, Bembla Project
Division, Yavatmal
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. Yogesh Madhukar Mehatre,
(On R.A.) aged about 31 yrs., holding power
of attorney for-
i. Suman Madhukarrao Mehatre
aged about 44 yrs,
ii. Nanda Madhukarrao Mehatre,
aged about 44 yrs.
Iii. Sushma Madhukarrao
Mehatre,
aged about major.
iv. Suchita Madhukarrao Mehatre,
aged about major,
v. Munni Madhukarrao Mehatre,
aged about Major, R/o.
Bhatmarg, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Dist.- Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bembla Project, Yavatmal.
Mr. B.T. & A.B. Patil, Advocate for appellant.
Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
___________________________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:01:14 :::
2 J.FA 1637.08.odt
Cross Objection No. 24/2014
IN
First Appeal No. 1637/2008
APPELLANT:- Vidarbha Irrigation Department
Corporation, through its Executive
Engineer, Bembla Project Division,
Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. Shri Yogesh Madhukarrao Mehetre,
Cross Objectors aged about 31 yrs., holding power
(i to v) on R.A. of attorney for-
i. Suman Madhukarrao Mehetre
aged about 64 yrs,
Occ. Agriculturist,
ii. Nanda Madhukarrao Mehetre,
aged about 45 yrs.,
Occ. Household,
Iii. Sushma Madhukarrao
Mehetre,
aged about major,
Occ. Agriculturist,
iv. Suchita Madhukarrao
Mehetre, aged about major,
Occ. Agriculturist,
v. Munni Madhukarrao Mehetre,
aged about major,
Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Bhatmarg, Tah.
Babhulgaon,
Dist.- Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bembla Project, Yavatmal,
Post-Dighi.
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:01:14 :::
3 J.FA 1637.08.odt
Mr. B.T. & A.B. Patil, Advocates for appellant.
Mrs. S.K. Paunikar, Advocate for cross-objector.
Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
___________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 15.11.2017.
Oral Judgment :
Heard.
2. The appeal and the cross-objection question legality and
correctness of the judgment and order dated 16 th September, 2005 on the
point of determination of just and fair compensation to the claimants through
the legal heirs. In First Appeal No. 632/2013 and First Appeal No. 1117/2007
decided on 5th February, 2016, this Court determined the market value of the
acquired @ Rs. 01,80,000/- per hectare and Rs. 01,20,000/- per hectare for
irrigated and dry crop land respectively. The land involved in this appeal and
the cross-objection is identically situated with the land covered by the same
notification and acquired for the same project. This land is dry crop land.
Learned counsel for the cross-objector submits that the claimants are ready to
accept the rate of Rs. 01,20,000/- per hectare. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for
the appellant submits that this rate is also acceptable to the appellant in view
of judgment and award passed in First Appeal Nos.632/2013 and in
1117/2007.
3. In view of the above, I find that the rate of Rs. 01,20,000/- per
hectare for the acquired land in the present case should be the rate
4 J.FA 1637.08.odt
representing just and fair compensation payable to the claimant and
accordingly, I hold that the claimant through legal heirs is entitled to the same
which is at the rate of Rs. 01,20,000/- per hectare for the acquired dry crop
land, together with all statutory benefits at the same rates as are granted by
this Court in Fist Appeal No. 632/2013 and First Appeal No. 1117/2007.
4. The cross-objection is partly allowed in the above terms. The
appeal stands dismissed.
5. Parties to bear their own costs.
6. The impugned judgment and orders stand modified in the above
terms.
7. Statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation shall be
computed in view of the judgment of this Court dated 5 th February, 2016
rendered in First Appeal No. 632 of 2013 and 1117 of 2007.
JUDGE
Gohane
