State Of Maharashtra & Ano vs Pundalik Kacharu Sapkal & 2 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9241 Bom

                                                 1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No.  987 of 2008



Appellants               :          1) State of Maharashtra, through 
                                    Collector, Buldana 

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

                                    versus

Respondents              :          1)  Pundalik Kacharu Sapkal, aged 53 years

2) Namdeo Kachru Sapkal

3) Trambak Kacharu Sapkal

All Agriculturists and residents of Kardi, Tahsil and District Buldana

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ms H N. Jaipurkar, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Appellant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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. 143 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 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 dry-crop land with some trees. 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, First Appeal No. 209 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