Bombay High Court
Smt. Purnabai Sagarmal Manakshe vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 September, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
FA 752.06.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.752 OF 2006
Smt. Punabai wd/o Sagarmal Manakshi,
Aged about 62 years,
Resident of Akola Bazar, Taluka and
District-Yavatmal.
(Original Applicant on R.A.) .. APPELLANT
.. VERSUS ..
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Revenue and Forests Department,
Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai-400 032.
2] The Collector, Collector Office,
Yavatmal, District-Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Works No.1, Yavatmal,
Collector Office, Yavatmal,
District-Yavatmal. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Smt. Vijaya Thakare, Advocate for Appellant,
Shri H.D. Dubey, AGP for Respondents.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 12, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal takes an exception to the judgment
and award dated 21.9.2004 passed by the learned Joint Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:12:44 :::
FA 752.06.odt 2
No.92/1997. By the said judgment and award, Reference
Court enhanced the compensation of the acquired area 0.14
H.R. at the rate of Rs.50,000/- with consequential benefits
thereof.
2] The facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated
in brief as under :
(i) The land of appellant was situated near
village Akola Bazar. 0.14 R land was acquired by the State
of Maharashtra for extension of Akola Bazar gaothan.
Section 4 notification was issued on 21.01.1993. The award
was passed on 21.09.2004. Being dissatisfied with the
award, appellant filed present appeal under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
(ii) It is the contention of appellant that her
land is situated within the benefited area of irrigation
project. It was used to produce crops like cotton, jawar, tur
and she was getting net income of Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.12,000/- per acre per year. A grievance is made that the
sale instance of village Akola Bazar pertaining to adjoining
villages were not taken into consideration by the Land
Acquisition Officer while determining compensation.
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:12:44 :::
FA 752.06.odt 3
3] Respondents resisted the claim vide written
statement (Exh.13). The submission was that considering
all the facts, Land Acquisition Officer determined the
compensation and no interference is required in the
reference filed by the claimant.
4] On the rival contentions of parties, issues came to
be framed by the reference court. Claimant examined her
son PW-1 Radheshayam Manakshe in support of her case.
The reliance was also placed on the sale instance.
Respondents did not examine any witness.
5] Considering the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the parties, reference court awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hector as stated
in paragraph 1 above. Being aggrieved, claimant has
preferred this appeal.
6] Smt. Vijaya Thakare, learned counsel for appellant,
submits that this court in First Appeal No.699/1991 vide
judgment and order dated 1.4.2010 has awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.3/- per square feet regarding
adjoining land belonging to the husband of appellant and on
the similar lines compensation can be awarded to the
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:12:44 :::
FA 752.06.odt 4
appellant in this case. She submits that Section 4
notification in First Appeal No.699/1991 was issued on
2.3.1989 and in present case, it was issued on 21.1.1993.
She submits that considering the date of notification 10%
increase per year in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (i) Gianchand and others .vs. Union of
India [(2007) 15 SCC 641 and (ii) Sardar Jogendra
Singh (Dead) by Lrs .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another [(2008) 17 SCC 133] to arrive at the market
value of the acquired land may be granted.
7] The learned counsel placed on record a chart
indicating total amount of compensation for the acquired
land inclusive of 10% increase in the market value. The
chart is taken on record and marked as 'X-1' for the purpose
of identification.
8] The learned A.G.P. does not dispute the settled
legal position regarding 10% increase in the market value of
land and calculations arrived at as per chart 'X-1'. It can be
seen from the judgment and order in First Appeal
No.699/1991 that part of land of Gat No.36/2 situated at
Akola Bazar was the acquired land. In the case on hand
controversy is regarding part of Gat No.36/1 adjoining land
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:12:44 :::
FA 752.06.odt 5
Gat No.36/2.
9] In this view of the matter and for the reasons
stated in the judgment and order dated 1.4.2010 in First
Appeal No.699/1991, this court holds that appellant is
entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq. ft. and
considering the difference in the date of notification also
entitled to 10% increase in the market value of acquired
land. To this extent, judgment and award passed by
reference court needs to be modified. Hence, the following
order :
ORDER
(i) Respondents to pay compensation of Rs.63,651/-
to appellant as shown in chart 'X-1' along with all
consequential benefits as per the rate awarded by reference
court.
(ii) First Appeal No.752/2006 is partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
(iii) No order to costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
