Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Sawai Jemla Rathod & Others on 29 September, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
fa.120.06.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.120 OF 2006
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No.2, District Akola. .... Appellant
-- Versus -
01] Sewai Jemla Rathod,
Aged about adult,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Gavandgaon, Tq. Patur,
District Akola.
02] The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Akola. .... Respondents
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and
award dated 31/08/205 passed by the learned 3 rd Ad hoc
Additional District Judge, Akola under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short).
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 00:11:18 :::
fa.120.06.jud 2
02] For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
in their original status as they were referred before the
Reference Court.
03] The facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated in
brief as under :
i. Claimant was the owner of agricultural land bearing
Survey No.85/3, admeasuring 1 H 83 R situated at
Mouza Gavandgaon, Tahsil Patur, District Akola. The
said land was acquired for Vishwamitra Tank Project.
The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at
the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. Being dissatisfied
with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed
reference for enhancement under Section 18 of the
Act.
ii. It was the contention of claimant that land is having
black soil. Claimant was taking 2-3 crops a year and
the yield from the said land was good. According to
claimant, compensation determined by the Land
Acquisition Officer was not as per the market value. It
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 00:11:18 :::
fa.120.06.jud 3
was on too lower side. It was submitted that the
actual price of the land at the relevant time was
Rs.20,000/- per acre. Claimant, therefore, claimed
difference to the tune of Rs.75,050/- along with other
consequential benefits.
iii. Respondents resisted the claim vide Written
Statements [Exhs.21 and 31]. The submission is that
compensation was determined as per the market
value and following all the fundamental principles for
awarding compensation. It was submitted that
claimant is not entitled to enhancement and reference
deserves to be dismissed.
iv. Considering the rival pleadings raised by the parties,
Reference Court framed issues at Exh.22. Claimant
examined himself as PW-1 and placed reliance on the
award and judgment passed in the previous case.
Considering the material brought on record, Reference
Court came to the conclusion that market value of the
acquired land at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre with
5% per annum increase in the market value from the
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 00:11:18 :::
fa.120.06.jud 4
date of earlier notification dated 14/03/1988 would be
the just and fair compensation. Being dissatisfied with
the enhancement of compensation, acquiring body
has challenged the impugned judgment and award in
present appeal.
04] Heard Shri A.B. Patil, learned Counsel for appellant,
Shri V.K. Paliwal, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mrs.
H.N. Prabhu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent No.2.
05] Learned Counsel for appellant referring to the pursis
dated 12/09/2017 submitted that controversy has been set at
rest by this Court vide judgment and order in First Appeal
No.293/2006 with connected matters, wherein lands were
acquired for the same project and compensation enhanced by
the Reference Court was held as just, fair and reasonable with
slight clarification. The learned Counsel submits that on the
similar line, present appeal can be disposed of.
06] Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 does not dispute
and states that similar order be passed in this case.
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 00:11:18 :::
fa.120.06.jud 5
07] In paragraph 10 of the abovesaid judgment, the
learned Single Judge has observed thus :
"10] As regards judgment and award
dated 23.12.2005, the operative part reads thus :
'II) The price of the land is fixed at Rs.15,000/per
acre with 5% per annum increase in the market
value from the date of notification.'
I agree with the submission of Shri Amol B. Patil,
learned counsel, that these directions are ambiguous.
Therefore, instead of mentioning that there shall be
5% increase per annum from the date of notification,
it is necessary to quantify such increase to which
landowners are entitled to. The earlier decision which
is based on the enhanced amount of compensation
pertains to the calculation of the lands in pursuance
to the notification issued in the year 1989, therefore,
5% increase for 2 years (on Rs.15,000/) will be
Rs.1,500/-. Thus, in LAC Nos.84 of 1994, 86 of 1994,
21 of 1994 and 75 of 1994, the market value of the
land fixed at the rate of Rs.15,000/ per acre shall be
read Rs.16,500/ per acre. To this extent the judgments
and awards in the aforestated Land Acquisition Cases
shall stand modified."
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 00:11:18 :::
fa.120.06.jud 6
08] In view of the above and for the similar reasons, this
Court does not find any substance in the appeal. Hence, the
following order :
ORDER
I. First Appeal No.120/2006 isdismissed with clarification
and modification as stated above.
II. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J)
At this stage, learned Counsel for respondent no.1
submits that appellant has not deposited the decretal amount so
far. Learned Counsel for appellant seeks three months' time to
deposit the same. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 submits
that appellant be directed to deposit the amount with the
Registry of this Court.
Three months' time is granted to appellant to deposit
the decretal amount with consequential benefits, if any, with the
Registry of this Court. In case the amount is not deposited
within time, claimant shall be at liberty to take recourse to the
appropriate steps in accordance with the law.
*sdw (Kum. Indira Jain, J)
