Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Dileep Tukaram Solanke on 18 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
(1) 925-FA 344 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
925 FIRST APPEAL NO.344 OF 2005
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Gaothan, Jalna.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Jalna. ..Appellants
VERSUS
. Dileep S/o Tukaram Solanke
Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agril.
R/o.Likhit Pimpri,
Taluka, Partur, Dist.Jalna. ..Respondent
...
AGP for Appellants : Mr.A.M.Phule
Advocate for Respondent : Mr.R.K.Shinganapure &
Mr.S.D. Deshpande (absent)
...
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE : 18th January, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1) Heard Mr.A.M.Phule learned AGP for the appellants.
The respondent though served neither present nor
represented.
(2) 925-FA 344 of 2005
2) Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and
award dated 31.8.2002 by which the Reference Court has
enhanced the compensation from Rs.290/- per Are to
Rs.900/- per Are.
3) Mr.A.M.Phule learned AGP submits that the Sale-Deed
relied upon by the Reference Court cannot be regarded as
comparable instance. He submits that the Sale-Deed was
in respect of the land, which was almost 1 and ½ kms.
away from the acquired land and there is no proper
evidence as regards comparability. In view of this,
Mr.A.M.Phule submits that enhancement granted by the
Reference Court is not justified.
4) The Reference Court has relied upon the sale
instance at Exh.7, by which land ad-measuring 1 hectare
38 Are was sold for Rs.1,75,000/-. This means that it
comes to approximately 1,238/- per Are. The Reference
Court has placed reliance on other sale instance as well
(3) 925-FA 344 of 2005
and came to the conclusion that the market value of the
land in or around the acquired land is in the range of
Rs.773/- to Rs.975/- per Are. The sale instance in
respect of land admeasuring hardly 1 and ½ kms. away and
there is substantial evidence on record on the aspect of
comparability. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there
is any error in the determination of the market value by
the Reference Court.
5) Apart from this, the enhanced rate in the present
case is well within the limits prescribed in the
Government Resolution dated 3.11.2016 as amended from
time to time. This Government Resolution relates to the
policy of the State Government that it shall not
institute or pursue appeals where the enhanced
compensation is less than four times of the Ready
Reckoner Rate prevalent on the date of the issue of
Section 4 Notification.
(4) 925-FA 344 of 2005
6) There is no dispute that the rate of Rs.290/- per
Are determined by the Land Acquisition Officer
corresponds to the Ready Reckoner Rate on the date of
issuance of Section 4 Notification. The enhanced rate is
therefore, well within the limits prescribed in the
Government Resolution dated 3.11.2016.
7) For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
8) There shall be no order as to costs.
[M.S.SONAK, J.]
SPT/925-FA 344 of 2005
