Maharashtra Industrial ... vs Kisan Gangram Ghule (D) Thr. Lrs. ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 43 Bom

                                                                  FA 1222.2013 judgment.odt
                                             1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 1222 OF 2013

 Maharashtra Industrial Development
 Corporation having its office at Marol
 Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
 Mumbai and having its Regional
 Office at By Pass road, Amravati,
 through its Chief Executive Officer.                                       ..... Appellant

                                         .....Vs.....

 Kisan Gangram Ghule
 Since dead through his LR's:
 1.     Ramesh Kisan Ghule,
        aged 61 years, occu. Agriculturist

 2.     Smt. Shantabai Kisan Ghule,
        Aged 76 years, Occu. Agriculturist,

        Both 1 and 2 resident of Forest Colony,
        Amravati.

 3.     Sou. Sunanda Dinkarrao More,
        aged 51 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
        Warun Nagar, Amravati.

 4.     Sou. Madhumala Pradeep Dharmale,
        aged 48 years, resident of Yashodha
        Nagar, Amravati, District Amravati.

 5.     State of Maharashtra
        through Collector, Amravati.

 6.     Land Acquisition Officer cum
        Sub. Divnl. Officer, Amravati.                                 ..... Respondents

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri. S. Thakre h/f. Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.
 Shri Vinay Dahat, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4
 Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, AGP for respondent nos. 5 and 6
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019                          ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2019 22:29:54 :::
                                                             FA 1222.2013 judgment.odt
                                         2


                                     CORAM :      M. G. GIRATKAR, J.

                                     DATED :     15/10/2019

 ORAL JUDGMENT


 1]                This is an appeal filed by M.I.D.C. against the judgment of

2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as

the "Reference Court") in L.A.C. No. 603 of 1999.

2] The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be

summarized as under:

(i) The land of respondent nos. 1 to 4 bearing Gat No. 179 area

admeasuring 2.05 H.R. situated at village Wagholi was acquired for

industrial development. The notification under Section 32 of M.I.D.C.

Act was published on 02.06.1994. The Land Acquisition Officer passed

an award on 20.03.1997 and granted compensation at the rate of

Rs.37,900/- per hectare.

(ii) The land owners/respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed reference

before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati. The said reference was

decided by the impugned judgment on 29.04.2013. The Reference Court

granted compensation at the rate of Rs.85,000/- per hectare. Hence, the

present appeal by the acquiring body/M.I.D.C.

FA 1222.2013 judgment.odt

3] Heard learned Counsel Shri Thakre holding for learned

Counsel Shri M. M. Agnihotri for the appellant. He has submitted that

the Reference Court has relied on the judgment of L.A.C. Nos. 103 of

1999 Exh. 36 as well as judgment in L.A.C. No. 130 of 1999 Exh. 38.

Learned Counsel has submitted that both the judgments are under

challenged before this Court, therefore, the present appeal be allowed.

4] Heard Mrs. Prabhu, learned AGP for respondent nos. 5 and

6. She has supported the argument advanced by Shri Thakare learned

Counsel for the appellant. Learned AGP has submitted that the amount

of Rs.85,000/- per hectare is an exorbitant amount and, therefore, the

appeal be allowed.

5] Heard learned Counsel Shri Dahat for respondent nos. 1 to

4. He has submitted that the Reference Court has rightly relied on the

judgments of other L.A.C. Nos. 103/1999 and 130/1999. As per Section

28A of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondent nos. 1 to 4 are entitled

for the same compensation as granted to other land owners whose lands

were acquired.

6] There is no dispute that the Reference Court has granted

compensation at the rate of Rs.85,000/- per hectare in L.A.C. Nos.

103/1999 and 130/1999. Copies of the judgments of both Land

Acquisition Cases were filed at Exh. Nos. 36 and 38 before the Reference

FA 1222.2013 judgment.odt

Court. The land of respondent nos. 1 to 4 is acquired for the same

purpose and by the same notification. Therefore, respondent nos. 1 to 4

are entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs.85,000/- per hectare

as granted to the land owners in L.A.C. Nos. 103/1999 and 130/1999.

Judgments in L.A.C. Nos. 103/1999 and 130/1999 are not set aside till

date. Moreover, compensation of Rs.85,000/- per hectare is not

exorbitant.

7] In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

8] Respondent nos. 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw the

amount of compensation deposited by the appellant before this Court

alongwith accrued interest, if any.

 9]                Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.




                                                             JUDGE
 SMGate