State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Manohar Cintaman Sananse ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9235 Bom

                                                  1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No. 1051  of 2008

 

Appellants :             1)  State of Maharashtra 

                         2) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor
                         Irrigation Works, Buldhana

                         Versus

Respondents:             Manohar Chintaman Sananse (Dead)
                         LRs :

                         1) Sumanbai Manohar Sananse, Occ:
                         Labour

                         2) Sanjay Manohar Sananse, aged about
                         38 years

                         3) Usha w/o Suresh Dhorhaste, aged about 33
                         years, Occ: Labourer

                         Nos. 1 and 2 residents of Chikhla, tahsil and 
                         District Buldana and No. 3 resident of Mangrul
                         Navghare, tahsl Chikhli, Dist. Buldana

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

Shri B. M. Lonare, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants None appears for respondents

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 30th November 2017

Oral Judgment

1. This is an appeal which challenges the legality and

correctness of the judgment and order dated 13.4.2004 commonly passed

in about 81 land acquisition cases by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Buldhana. This appeal arises out of the Land Acquisition Case No. 123 of

1996, decided by the Reference Court.

2. The acquired land in the present case forms a chunk of all the

lands acquired for the purpose of construction of a water tank at mouza

Kardi, Tahsil and District Buldhana. In First Appeal No. 153 of 2008 and

First Appeal No. 209 of 2008, decided on 29 th November 2017, arising out

of the same judgment and order, as impugned herein, this Court has

confirmed the rates of land, well and trees determined by the Reference

Court. The rate of land with irrigation facility has been determined by the

Reference Court to be at Rs. 90,000/- per hectare while it is determined

at Rs. 75,000/- per hectare for dry-crop land and these rates have been

confirmed by this Court.

3. The acquired land in the present case, as stated earlier, is a

part of the larger chunk of the lands acquired for water tank project at

mouza Kardi. It was a land having irrigation facility where there were

standing trees and well. It being similar to those lands as are involved in

First Appeal No. 153 of 2008 and First Appeal No. 209 of 2008, there is

no reason for this Court to take a different view of the matter. The facts

of this case and the facts involved in the said appeals, particularly, FA No.

153 of 2008, are not disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader

for the appellant-State and so, this appeal would have to be decided on

the similar lines.

4. In the circumstances, I find that this appeal deserves to be

dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi