The State Of Maha. Thru. Collector vs Krushna Vishwanath Sahase
2017 Latest Caselaw 9244 Bom

                                                 1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

First Appeal No.  970 of 2008


Appellant                :          The State of Maharashtra, through 
                                    Collector, Buldana 

                                    versus

Respondent               :          Krushna Vishwanath Sahase, aged about 

62 years, Agriculturist, resident of Kardi, Tahsil and District Buldhana

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 8.2.2005 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. 82 of

1993, 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 land having irrigation facility where there were

well standing 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. 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