Bombay High Court
Mah. Industrial Devp. Corpn. Thr. ... vs Sampat Mahadeo Watmode Expired ... on 30 November, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-fa748.06.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.748 OF 2006
AND
CROSS-OBJECTION No.12 OF 2008
=======
FIRST APPEAL No.748 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai and having its Regional
At Udyog Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur,
Through its Chief Executive Officer. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
Sampat Mahadeo Watmode,
Aged about 68 years,
Occupation : Cultivation,
Resident on Butibori. (Expired on 31.5.2001)
Through Legal Representatives :
1. Bhagirata wd/o. Sampat Watmode,
Aged 78 years.
2. Namdeo s/o. Sampat Watmode,
Aged 59 years,
Both R/o. Butibori, Tahsil Hingna,
Distt. Nagpur.
3. Collector, Nagpur,
(Special Land Acquisition Officer, General)
Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:13:14 :::
J-fa748.06.odt 2/5
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent No.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
AND
CROSS-OBJECTION No.12 OF 2008
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai and having its Regional
At Udyog Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur,
Through its Chief Executive Officer. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
Sampat Mahadeo Watmode,
Aged about 68 years,
Occupation : Cultivation,
Resident on Butibori. (Expired on 31.5.2001)
Through Legal Representatives :
1. Smt. Bhagirata wd/o. Sampat Watmode,
Aged 78 years.
2. Namdeo s/o. Sampat Watmode,
Aged 59 years,
Both R/o. Butibori, Tahsil Hingna,
Distt. Nagpur.
3. Collector, Nagpur,
(Special Land Acquisition Officer, General)
Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
Sampat Mahadeo Watmode,
Expired on 31.5.2001
Through Legal Representatives :
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:13:14 :::
J-fa748.06.odt 3/5
1. Smt. Bhagirata wd/o. Sampat Watmode,
Aged 78 years.
2. Namdeo s/o. Sampat Watmode,
Aged 59 years. : CROSS-OBJECTORS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Cross-objectors.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent No.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 30
NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the judgment
and order dated 29th April, 2006, passed in Land Acquisition Case
No.395/1993, by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. The
appeal has been filed by the acquiring body, the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (in short, "MIDC") and the cross-objection has
been filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (in short, "claimants"). The
respondent No.3 is the State for the sake of convenience. The parties to
the appeal and the cross-objection are now hereinafter referred to as the
MIDC , the claimants and the State.
2. The land of the claimant bearing Survey No.91, admeasuring
1.06 HR, situated at village Rengapar, Tahsil and District Nagpur was
acquired by the State for the purpose of development of industrial area
J-fa748.06.odt 4/5
by the MIDC. The Reference Court determined the market value of the
acquired land to be at Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court,
however, did not grant the claim for enhancement of compensation for
the Well. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the
Well at the rate of Rs.16,593/-, whereas amount of Rs.60,000/- was
claimed for the Well by the claimant. The market value of the land
determined by the Reference Court was not acceptable to the MIDC and
rejection of the claim for enhancement of compensation for the Well was
also not acceptable to the claimants. Hence, the present appeal and the
present cross-objection.
3. So far as determination of the market value of the land is
concerned, I must say, the land involved in the present appeal being
similar to the land involved in another appeal being First Appeal
No.745/2006, decided by this Court on 29 th November, 2017, the same
determination would also be applicable to the land involved in the
present case. This determination is of Rs.90,000/- per hectare. Learned
counsel for the MIDC as well as learned counsel for the claimant do not
have any dispute in this regard. However, learned counsel for the
claimant submits that some more compensation on account of Well
deserves to be granted in the present case. He submits that
compensation of Rs.16,593/- granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is
quite low. I am afraid, the argument cannot be accepted in the face of
J-fa748.06.odt 5/5
clear cut admissions given by the claimants. The claimants admit that
the Well used to get dry within two hours of the drawing of the Well
water by diesel pump and that the Well was constructed in stone with
mud used as mortar. With these admissions, the valuation of the Well
made by the Land Acquisition Officer by relying upon the expert's
opinion at Rs.16,593/- appears to be just and reasonable and so, I find
that there is no substance in the cross-objection. In the result, the appeal
deserves to be partly allowed, while the cross-objection deserves to be
rejected.
4. The appeal is partly allowed.
5. It is declared that the claimants are entitled to receive
compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hectare.
6. The cross-objection stands dismissed.
7. The impugned judgment and order stand modified in the
above terms.
8. Parties to bear their own costs.
9. The M.I.D.C. is permitted to withdraw the amount which is
found to be in excess of the amount determined as compensation under
this order and which is lying in deposit with this Court, provided a joint
Pursis in this regard is filed on record by the M.I.D.C and the claimants.
JUDGE
okMksns
