Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Pramila W/O Devichand Labde & Anr on 8 January, 2018
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 222Jud.FA 690.05.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 690/2005
APPELLANT:- Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief
Executive Officer, having its office at
Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai & Regional Office at Bypass
road, Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. Sau. Pramila w/o Devichand Labde,
aged adult, Occ. Household, R/o. Near
Jyoti Vidyalaya, Gorakshan Road, Tq.
& Dist. Akola.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through L.A.O./S.D.O., Akola,
Tq. & Dist. Akola.
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, with Shri Sharad Thakare, Advocates for appellant.
Ms. K. S. Funde, Advocate for respondent No.1
Shri M. A. Barabde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : MANISH PITALE
, J.
DATE : 08.01.2018.
Oral Judgment :-
This is an appeal filed by the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation challenging the judgment and order dated
23.08.2005 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Akola
(hereinafter referred to as "Reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case
No. 21/98 whereby, the compensation for acquisition of land granted to
the respondent No.1 was enhanced.
2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on
2 222Jud.FA 690.05.odt
13.08.1992, a Notification was issued for acquisition of 2583.36 sq. ft.
land belonging to respondent No.1 in village - Shivani, Dist. Akola. The
said Notification was also published on 05.09.1993 and 06.09.1993. In
pursuance of the said Notification, acquisition proceeding was
undertaken and award was passed by the Competent Authority on
20.03.1997 awarding total compensation of Rs. 7335/- at the rate of Rs.
16.50 per square meter to respondent No. 1.
3. Aggrieved by the said rate of compensation granted to
respondent No.1, she preferred a reference seeking enhancement of
compensation, claiming that plots in the vicinity at the relevant time
were sold for as high as at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet.
Therefore, compensation granted under the award was meager. In
support of her claim for enhancement of compensation, the respondent
No.1 placed on record before the Reference Court certified copies of
Index-II of plots showing that other lands situated in the same village
Shivani were sold at rates ranging from Rs. 10/- per square feet to
Rs. 15/- per square feet, during the relevant period.
4. On the basis of material placed on record, the Reference
Court, by impugned judgment and order partly allowed the reference
and held that respondent No.1 was entitled to compensation at the rate
of Rs. 10/- per square feet for the said plot admeasuring 2583.36 square
feet.
3 222Jud.FA 690.05.odt
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has filed the present
appeal. Mr. M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate assisted by Mr. Sharad Thakare
Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation has submitted that impugned judgment and
order deserves to be interfered with because sufficient material was not
placed on record by respondent No.1 while claiming enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted that sale-deeds were not placed on
record and that the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court was
not reasonable.
6. On the other hand, Ms. K.S. Funde, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of contesting Respondent No.1 submitted that the
Reference Court was justified in passing the impugned order as the plot
in question was converted to non-agricultural use and that it was in the
vicinity of Akola City. It was submitted that sufficient material was
placed on record concerning sale of similar pieces of lands of village
Shivani which were correctly taken into consideration by the Reference
Court while granting enhancement of compensation.
7. Having considered the contentions raised on behalf of
respective parties and having perused the impugned order and the facts
on record, the following points arise for determination in this First
Appeal:-
4 222Jud.FA 690.05.odt
Nos. Points Finding
(i) Whether the impugned judgment and
order dated 23.08.2005 passed by the
No
Reference Court deserves to be interfered
with?
(ii) What order? Appeal dismissed
REASONS
8. I have perused the impugned judgment and order and I find
that the reasons given by the Reference Court in paragraph Nos. 9 and
10 are based upon appropriate appreciation of the material placed on
record. The Reference Court has taken note of the fact that the
respondent No. 1/claimant had placed on record certified copies of
Index-II pertaining to instances of sale of plots of lands of the same
village - Shivani wherein the acquired land of respondent No.1 was
located. It was found that around the years 1992 - 1994, the plots of
the lands were sold for rates between Rs. 10/- per square feet and Rs.
15/- per square feet. The Reference Court has also taken into
consideration the fact that the acquired land was converted to non-
agricultural use and that it was in the vicinity of Akola City. Moreover
the Notification for acquisition in the present case was dated
13.08.1992. The Reference Court has arrived at reasonable conclusion
while rejecting the claim of the respondent No.1 seeking enhancement
of Rs. 20/- per square feet but, it has correctly arrived at the conclusion
that the reasonable rate of compensation for the said plot of land was at
5 222Jud.FA 690.05.odt
the rate of Rs. 10/- per square feet.
9. As the findings of Reference Court are based on the
appropriate appreciation of the evidence and material on record and
appellant - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has failed
to demonstrate any error in the reasoning of the Reference Court, I find
that the appeal is without any merit and that it deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
Gohane
