Ashok Laxman Adagale & Anor vs State Of Maha. Thru. Collector & 2 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7722 Bom

(Judgment) 2909  FA 920-2007                                                                  1/4

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.

                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 920/2007


             1]  Ashok Laxman Adagale,
                   Aged - Adult, Occu: Agriculturist,
                   R/o. Kurali, Taq. Umarkhed,
                   Distt. Yavatmal.
             2]  Hanumant Laxman Adagale,
                   Aged 55 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
                   R/o. Kurali, Taq. Umarkhed,
                   Distt. Yavatmal.                                           APPELLANTS

                                         .....VERSUS.....

             1]  The State of Maharashtra,
                   through Collector, Yavatmal. 
             2]  Executive Engineer, 
                   Lower Pus Project,
                   Pusad, District - Yavatmal.
             3]  The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                   Lower Pus Project,
                   Pusad, District - Yavatmal.                                RESPONDENTS

                           Shri S.M. Puranik, counsel for appellants.
                           Ms. R.V. Kalia, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3.
                           Shri Amol Patil, counsel for respondent no.2.


                           CORAM:  S.B. SHUKRE, J.

                           DATE    : SEPTEMBER 29, 2017.


                           ORAL JUDGMENT :  

Heard Shri Puranik, learned counsel for the

(Judgment) 2909 FA 920-2007 2/4

appellants. He makes an oral request of restoration of

appeal against the respondent no.2, which was

dismissed on a technical ground of not making efforts

for effecting service upon merits on the respondent

no.2. He submits that Shri Patil is already present

today and he represents respondent no.2.

2] Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent

no.2 is present and has no objection if this appeal is

restored against respondent no.2. He also waives

notice on behalf of respondent no.2. Accordingly,

appeal is restored against respondent no.2.

3] I have heard finally by consent, Shri

Puranik, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Ritu

Kalia, learned AGP for the respondent nos.1 and 3

and Shri Patil, learned counsel for the respondent

no.2.

4] Shri Puranik has placed his reliance upon

the judgment of this Court rendered in the group of

appeals, starting with First Appeal No. 1151/2008,

(Judgment) 2909 FA 920-2007 3/4

decided on 04/07/2017, wherein, this Court

determined the market value of the acquired land to

be at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per hector and

accordingly granted compensation together with all

statutory benefits in the same manner as granted by

the reference court, but on the rate determined by this

Court.

5] Shri Patil as well as learned AGP concede

that issue involved in this appeal, there being

similarity of lands, is covered by the same judgment of

this Court. Therefore, this appeal also deserves to be

disposed of on similar lines, as has been done by this

Court in the group of appeals starting with First

Appeal No.1151/2008, decided on 04/07/2017.

6] Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed

and it is declared that the appellants are entitled to

receive compensation at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per

hector, together with same statutory benefits, as are

granted by the reference court.

 (Judgment) 2909  FA 920-2007                                                                   4/4

                                7]            Award   of   the   reference   court   stands

                                modified in above terms.



                                8]            Parties to bear their own costs.




                                                                             JUDGE 
                                Yenurkar