Bombay High Court
State Of Maha & Anr vs Vijay Sundarrao Lokhande on 17 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
FA 773/05
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.773 OF 2005
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector,Jalna.
2] The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Minor Irrigation Works,
Jalna, District Jalna.
...Appellants...
( Orig. Respondents).
Versus
Vijay Sundarrao Lokhande,
Age : 35 year, Occupation :
Agriculture, R/o : House
No.616, Arunoday Colony,
No.5, Aurangabad.
...Respondent...
(Orig. Claimant)
.....
Shri S.P. Deshmukh, AGP for appellants.
None present for respondent though served.
.....
CORAM: M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE: 17.01.2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] Heard learned AGP for the appellants. The
respondent, though served, is neither present nor
represented.
FA 773/05
- 2 -
2] Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and
award dated 28.1.2003 by which the learned Reference
Court has enhanced the compensation in respect of
acquired lands from Rs.290/- per Are to Rs.900/- per Are.
3] Learned AGP for the appellants submits that the
sale deeds, on which the Reference Court has relied upon,
do not pertain to lands adjacent to the acquired lands,
but rather some of the sale deeds were in respect of
lands from adjacent villages. Further, he points out
that the sale deeds were in respect of small area and,
therefore, were not comparable instances. He points out
that the Reference Court has erred in relying upon the
awards in LAR Nos.220/1996 and 117/1996 (Exhibits 20 and
21) because the lands, which were subject of the said
awards, were not comparable with the lands, which are the
subject matter of the present appeal. For all these
reasons, the learned AGP submits that the impugned award
may be set aside and determination by the LAO be
restored.
4] Having considered the submissions of the learned
AGP and perused the material on record, there is really
no reason to interfere with the impugned award. The
FA 773/05
- 3 -
Reference Court has basically relied upon Exhibits 20 and
21, which are awards in respect of lands situated in the
village Padmawati itself. The acquired lands, which form
the subject of the present appeal, are also situated in
the village Padmawati. In fact, the Reference Court has
observed that both the set of lands were acquired for one
and the same project and, therefore, there was no reason
to adopt any unequal yardstick in the matter of
determination of compensation.
5] In the awards at Exhibits 20 and 21, the
compensation determined was Rs.900/- per Are. The
material on record indicates that the acquired lands were
similar to the lands, which were the subject matter of
awards at Exhibits 20 and 21. The lands were from the
same village and were acquired for the same project. The
nature of the lands, including particularly the quality
and fertility, was also similar. Since this is the
position of the material on record, there is really no
reason to interfere with the impugned award.
6] Besides, in this case, it must be noted that the
enhanced compensation is less than four times the ready
reckoner rates as prevalent at the time of issuance of
Section 4 notification. This means that the enhanced
FA 773/05
- 4 -
compensation is well within the limits prescribed in the
Government resolution dated 3.11.2016, which records the
policy decision of the State Government or its
instrumentalities not to pursue the matters of this
nature.
7] For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S. SONAK, J.)
ndk/c171189.doc
