Bombay High Court
Mah. Industrial Devp. Corpn. ... vs Sitabai Rambhau Warghane And ... on 30 November, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-fa746.06.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.746 OF 2006
AND
CROSS OBJECTION No.11 OF 2008
=====
FIRST APPEAL No.746 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...
1. Sau. Sitabai w/o. Rambhau Warghane,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Cultivation,
Resident of Post Butibori,
Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur.
2. The Collector, Nagpur,
(Special Land Acquisition Officer, General)
Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
AND
CROSS OBJECTION No.11 OF 2008
Maharashtra Industrial Development
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:13:16 :::
J-fa746.06.odt 2/5
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...
1. Sau. Sitabai w/o. Rambhau Warghane,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Cultivation,
Resident of Post Butibori,
Tahsil Hingna, (Nagpur Gramin),
District Nagpur.
2. The Collector, Nagpur,
(Special Land Acquisition Officer, General)
Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
1. Sau. Sitabai w/o. Rambhau Warghane,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Cultivation,
Resident of Post Butibori,
Tahsil Hingna, (Nagpur Gramin),
District Nagpur. : CROSS-OBJECTOR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Cross-objector.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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
J-fa746.06.odt 3/5
No.393/1993, 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 No.1 (in short, "claimant"). The respondent
No.2 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
claimant and the State).
2. The land of the claimant bearing Survey No.51, admeasuring
1.54 HR, situated at village Rengapar, Tahsil and District Nagpur was
acquired by the State for the purpose of development of industrial area
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.48,302/-, whereas amount of Rs.75,000/- 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 claimant. 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
J-fa746.06.odt 4/5
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.48,302/- granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is
quite on the lower side. I am afraid, the argument cannot be accepted,
there being no evidence worth mentioning to support such a claim. The
valuer has not been examined by the claimant and so it is not possible for
this Court to make any guess work of the cost of construction of the Well,
which has already been evaluated by the Land Acquisition Officer at
Rs.48,302/- by considering the expert's opinion. Therefore, the cross-
objection cannot be allowed. In the result, the appeal deserves to be
allowed partly and the cross-objection deserves to be
dismissed.
4. The appeal is allowed partly.
5. The cross-objection stands dismissed.
6. It is declared that the claimant is entitled to receive
compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per hectare for his acquired land
J-fa746.06.odt 5/5
together with same statutory benefits at same rates as are given by the
Reference Court.
7. The cross-objection stands dismissed.
8. Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
okMksns
