Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Atmaram Shriram Raut And Others on 11 October, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-fa54.06.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.54 OF 2006
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Having it's Regional Office at Amravati
Industrial Estate By-pass Road, Amravati. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. Atmaram s/o. Shriram Raut,
Aged about 67 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
Amended, LRs. of
Respondent No.1 on 1(a) Smt. Shantabai wd/o. Atmaram Raut,
record, as per Courts
order dt.17.7.2017. Aged about 66 years,
Occupation : Household.
1(b) Shrikrushna s/o. Atmaram Raut,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
Respondent No.1(a)&1(b) are residing of Bhari,
Tq. And District Yavatmal.
2. Nana s/o. Shriram Raut,
Aged about 57 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
Both Resident of Bhari, Tq. And District Yavatmal.
3. State of Maharashtra,
through it's Collector, Yavatmal.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer,
i.e. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Distt. Yavatmal. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 2.
Shri A.D. Sonak, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:23:40 :::
J-fa54.06.odt 2/5
AND
CROSS OBJECTION No.95 2017
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.54 OF 2006
1. Atmaram s/o. Shriram Raut (Dead)
through his legal heirs.
1-a] Shantabai Atmaram Raut,
Aged 66 years,
Occupation : Household.
1-b] Shrikrushna Atmaram Raut,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Nana s/o. Shriram Raut,
Aged about 57 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
Both Resident of Bhari,
Tq. And District Yavatmal. : CROSS OBJECTORS
...VERSUS...
1. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Having it's Regional Office
at Amravati Industrial Estate By-pass Road,
Amravati.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Distt. Yavatmal. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for the Cross-objectors.
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Shri A.D. Sonak, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:23:40 :::
J-fa54.06.odt 3/5
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 11
OCTOBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The appeal and the cross-objection, both challenge the
legality and correctness of the award passed by the Reference Court in
Land Acquisition Case No.33/1997 on 9th August, 2004. While the
appeal questions the award on the ground that the rate of the acquired
land determined by the Reference Court is exorbitant, the cross-objection
expresses dissatisfaction over the rate determined by the Reference Court
by calling it unjust and inadequate. The appellant in First Appeal
No.54/2006 is the acquiring body and the cross-objectors in the
cross-objection are the claimants. They are now being referred to as the
appellant and the cross-objectors, for the sake of convenience.
2. The land bearing Survey No.89, admeasuring 1.37 hectares,
situated at village Madkona, District Yavatmal was acquired by the
appellant for the purposes of development of industrial area.
Notification under Section 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Act, 1961 (for short, "MID Act, 1961"), which is equivalent
to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, "LA Act") was issued on 28.10.1992. The Land Acquisition
Officer determined the rate of the acquired land to be at Rs.13,500/- per
hectare and granted it accordingly by his award passed on 6 th January,
1997. The Reference Court, in the reference application filed under
J-fa54.06.odt 4/5
Section 34 of the MID Act, equivalent to Section 18 of the LA Act
enhanced the compensation by determining the market value of the
acquired land to be at Rs.50,000/- per hectare. Since the appellant and
the claimants both were dissatisfied with such determination, are now
before this Court in the present appeal and the cross-objection.
3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned
counsel for the claimants and learned A.G.P. for the State, the only point
which arises for my determination is :
Whether the compensation granted by the Reference
Court is just and proper ?
4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the issue
involved in these matters is squarely covered by common judgment of
this Court dated 2nd April, 2016, rendered in a bunch of First Appeals,
starting with First Appeal No.650/2002, Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation and another vs. Pradip Jogeshwar Babhulkar
and others. Learned counsel for the appellant graciously concedes this
fact. The land involved in the present matter is similar to the land
involved in the said common judgment dated 2 nd April, 2016 and is also
covered by the same notification and award of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. Therefore, I see no difficulty in answering the
question involved in this appeal on the similar lines as has been done by
this Court in the said common judgment dated 2nd April, 2016.
5. In the common judgment dated 2nd April, 2016 rendered in
group of appeals, starting with First Appeal No.650/2002, this Court
J-fa54.06.odt 5/5
found that the true market value of the acquired land involved therein
would be of Rs.1,17,000/- per hectare. For the reasons stated earlier,
same value would also have to be found in the case of land acquired in
the present matter which I do so. The point is answered accordingly.
6. In the circumstances, the first appeal deserves to be
dismissed and the cross-objection deserves to be partly allowed.
7. The First appeal stands dismissed.
8. The Cross-objection stands allowed.
9. It is declared that the claimants are entitled to receive
compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,17,000/- per
hectare from the appellant together with all statutory benefits on the
enhanced compensation at the same rates as are granted by the
Reference Court.
10. However, it is made clear that the claimants shall not be
entitled to receive any interest for the delayed period on the
compensation enhanced under this order from 9th August, 2004 till today.
11. Additional Court fee, as applicable be paid by the claimants
within four weeks from the date of order.
12. The impugned award stands modified in the above terms.
13. Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
okMksns
