State Of Maha vs Raghunath Digambarrao Kamtewad
2018 Latest Caselaw 656 Bom

                                         (1)                   932-FA 660 of 2005



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     932 FIRST APPEAL NO. 660 OF 2005

1.    The State of Maharashtra
      through Collector, Nanded.

2.    The Sub Divisional Officer and
      Land Acquisition Officer, Degloor,
      Nanded.

3.    The MIDC, a corporate body, per its
      Regional Officer, Latur, Regional
      Office at Latur.                       ..Appellants 

                                VERSUS

.     Raghunath s/o Digamberrao Kamtewad
      Age: 36 years, Occu.: Agril. & Service,
      R/o.Kushnoor, Tq.Biloli, Dist.Nanded.   ..Respondent

                             ...
             AGP for Appellant : Mr.S.P.Deshmukh
      Advocate for Respondents : Mr.M.M.Patil (absent)
                             ...
                               
                             CORAM :  M.S.SONAK, J.

DATE : 18th January, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1) Heard Mr.S.P.Deshmukh learned AGP for the

appellants. The respondent though served neither present

nor represented.

                                     (2)                     932-FA 660 of 2005



2)    The   challenge   in   this   appeal   is   to   the   impugned

Judgment and award dated 1.10.2003 by which the Reference

Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.42,000/- per

hectare to Rs.50,000/- per hectare.

3) Mr.S.P.Deshmukh learned AGP submits that two Sale-

Deeds on which reliance has been placed by the Reference

Court could not have been regarded as comparable

instances. He submits that the rate determined by the

Land Acquisition Officer is appropriate and there was no

case made out for any enhancement.

4) Upon perusal of the record, it is seen that the

Reference Court has relied upon the two sale instances

dated 09.01.1991 and 24.04.1991, which reflect the rates

of Rs.70,000/- per hectare and Rs.62,500/- per hectare.

5) In this case, Section 4 Notification was issued on

23.12.1993. This means, the sale instances are prior to

the issuance of Section 4 Notification. The Reference

(3) 932-FA 660 of 2005

Court has made appropriate deductions and therefore,

arrived at the figure of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. There

is absolutely no infirmity in the determination so made.

So, the appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

6) Apart from this, the enhanced rate in the present

case is well within the limit 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.

7) For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

[M.S.SONAK, J.] SPT/932-FA 660 of 2005