Vilas S/O Rajaram Mehetre vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 834 Bom

                                         1                                                               fa256.14


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

                         FIRST APPEAL (FA) NO. 256 OF 2014

Vilas Rajaram Mehetre,
aged about 50 years, Occupation
Agriculturist, R/o Bhatmarg, Tah.
Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal.                                      ... APPELLANT

                                           VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra,
     represented by Collector,
     Yavatmal.

2. Sub-Divisional Officer and 
     Land Acquisition Officer,
     Bembla Project, Yavatmal.

3. The Executive Engineer,
     Bembla Project, Division
     Yavatmal,Tah & Distt Yavatmal.                               ... RESPONDENTS

                                     ....
Smt. S.K. Paunikar, Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. M.A. Barabde, Assistant  Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 
and 2.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
                                     ....


                                        CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal filed on behalf of the landowner/claimant

challenging the judgment and order dated 24.08.2005 passed by the 2nd

Adhoc Additional District Judge, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as the

2 fa256.14

reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case No. 555 of 2003. It is the

contention of the appellant that the reference Court ought to have granted

higher compensation.

2. The land belonging to the appellant in Gat No.65 in village

Bhatmarg, District Yavatmal admeasuring 5 hectares 12 Rs was acquired

for submergence of Bembla Irrigation Project. The Notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 17.12.1998 and the

Land Acquisition Officer passed award granting compensation of

Rs.57,205/- per hectare. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred

the Reference Application under Section 18 of the said Act seeking

enhancement of compensation.

3. By the impugned judgment and order dated 24.08.2005, the

reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.82,500/- (approx) per

hectare. It is the contention of the appellant that higher compensation

ought to have been granted by the reference Court. During the course of

hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties

have invited my attention to the judgment and order dated 18.01.2018

passed in First Appeal No. 890 of 2016 concerning acquisition of land from

the same village, pursuant to the very same Notification dated 17.12.1998

issued under Section 4 of the said Act. In the said judgment, reliance has

been placed on earlier judgment and order concerning identical lands and

3 fa256.14

it has been held that claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of

Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for irrigated land. In the present case, Record of

rights i.e. 7/12 (Exh.25) shows that the land in question was irrigated land

and that two crops were taken annually by the claimants on the said land.

4. Since there is material on record showing that the acquired

land of the appellant/claimant was irrigated land, following the aforesaid

view of this Court, it is held that the appellant is entitled to further

enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare.

Accordingly, the order of the reference Court is modified to the above

extent and it is held that the appellant shall be entitled to compensation at

the aforesaid enhanced rate along with statutory benefits.

Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

*rrg.