Dinkar Bhanudas Bhavar vs State Of Maha Thr Collector, ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 715 Bom

                                        1                                                               fa812.06


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

                         FIRST APPEAL (FA) NO. 812 OF 2006

Dinkar Bhanudas Bhavar,
aged about 69 years, Occupation
Agriculturist, R/o Godri, Taluka
Chikhali, District Buldana.                                      ... APPELLANT

                                          VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, 
Through the Collector, Buldana,
District Buldana.                                                ... RESPONDENT

                                     ....
Shri S.P. Pawar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.
                                     ....


                                        CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and

order dated 04th March, 2006 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Buldana (hereinafter referred to as the reference Court) in Land

Acquisition No. 124 of 1995, whereby the reference Court has partly

allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation payable to the

appellant for acquisition of his land from compensation granted by the

Land Acquisition Officer in his award at Rs.23,000/- per hectare to

Rs.35,000/- per hectare. It is the case of the appellant that the

2 fa812.06

enhancement granted by the reference Court was not sufficient.

2. In the instant case, the land belonging to the appellant situated

at Gat No.310 at village Godri, Tahsil Chikhali, District Buldana

admeasuring 1 Hectare 1 R was acquired by the respondent by initiating

process with issuance of Notification dated 25.03.1993 under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Upon completion of the proceedings, the

Land Acquisition Officer passed the award granting compensation at the

rate of Rs.23,000/- per hectare. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant

preferred the reference application under Section 18 of the said Act for

enhancement of compensation. By the impugned judgment and order,

the reference Court has increased the quantum of compensation to

Rs.35,000/- per hectare.

3. The appellant claimed that the enhancement granted by the

reference Court is not sufficient because there was ample material on

record to show that higher compensation ought to have been granted.

4. Shri S.P. Pawar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant, after pointing out the facts of the instant case, referred to

judgment and order dated 25th July, 2017 passed by this Court in First

Appeal No. 103 of 2006 and connected appeals, which arose out of the

same Notification dated 25.03.1993 issued under Section 4 of the said Act.

3 fa812.06

In the said judgment and order, this Court has further enhanced

compensation and it has been held that the claimants therein are entitled

to receive compensation at the rate of rupees one lakh per hectare. The

learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the said judgment and

order of this Court can be relied upon for deciding the instant appeal.

5. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court

shows that in the cases before this Court, the reference Court had granted

Rs.43,000/- per hectare, taking into consideration the fact that the lands in

question therein were irrigated and that there were wells and pipe line in

the said lands. In the instant case, although all the other features of the

said lands having black soil which were fertile were found to be present,

the only feature missing was the existence of well for irrigation of the land.

In fact, in the impugned judgment and order of the reference Court, it is

found that reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants/claimants on

the orders passed in cases where compensation had been granted at the

rate up to Rs.45,000/- per hectare. But, the reference Court had

distinguished the present case on the ground that there was no well

irrigating the land in question. Therefore, although the aforesaid

judgment and order dated 25th July, 2017 passed in First Appeal No. 103 of

2006 and connected appeals can be relied upon, but since in those cases

the lands in question were irrigated by means of well and such a feature is

absent in the land in the instant case, I deem it fit that the appellant shall

4 fa812.06

be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.75,000/- (rupees

seventy-five thousand only) per hectare.

6. I have taken into consideration the distinction between

irrigated land on the one hand and the land wherein source of irrigation

like well is absent like in the present case. I find that enhancement of

compensation in the present case to Rs.75,000/- per hectare would meet

the ends of justice.

7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order

of the reference Court is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be

entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per hectare along with

statutory benefits. There is no order as to costs.

JUDGE

*rrg.