Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra ... vs Narayan Tatya Bolare And Others on 30 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 FA 113/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
7 FIRST APPEAL NO.113 OF 2004
1] The State of Maharashtra, through APPELLANTS
District Collector, Nanded
2] The Special Land Acquisition Ofcer,
B & C, First Floor, Janta Market,
Nanded
VERSUS
1] Narayan S/o Tatya Bokare, Age 40 years, RESPONDENTS
Occupation Agriculture, Resident of
Ranati, Tq & Dist. Nanded
2] Laxman S/o Narayan, Age 30 years,
Occupation & resident of as above
...
Mr. B.V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for the appellants-State
Nobody present for the respondents
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 30th APRIL, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the State challenging
the Judgment and Award dated 8th April, 1994, passed by
the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, in Land
Acquisition Reference No. 73 of 1991 enhancing amount
of compensation from Rs.7,000/- per acre to
Rs.18,000/- per acre towards land acquired.
2 FA 113/2004
2. The land in question was required for
submergence of water of Vishnupuri Project. The
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
30th January, 1986 and Award was passed on 8th June,
1987. The claimant being dissatisfied with the amount
of compensation granted by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, preferred a reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement
of the amount of compensation which is partly allowed
vide impugned judgment and award dated 8th April, 1994.
The correctness of the same, is under challenge in the
present appeal.
3. Heard the learned A.G.P. for the appellants-
State. None present for the respondents though served
with notice.
4. The learned A.G.P. submits that the
enhancement granted by the Reference Court is
erroneous and the amount granted by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer was just and fair and, therefore,
no interference ought to have made by the reference
Court. He further points out that in view of the Full
Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra versus Kailash Shiva Rangari , reported in
2016 [4] All M.R. 513, the interest ought to have been
granted from the date of Award.
3 FA 113/2004
5. After going through the record and
proceedings and after perusing the Judgment and Award,
it is revealed that the learned Reference Court after
scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record, enhanced the amount of
compensation.
6. It is further revealed that the learned
Reference Court has considered all the relevant
factors as per the well settled provisions of law
relating to determination of the market value and
compensation towards land acquisition.
7. It is clear from the impugned judgment that
the reference Court has considered the prevailing
price of adjacent land at the time of acquisition and
recorded its reasons accordingly.
8. Learned A.G.P. failed to point out any
perversity or error in the findings recorded by the
learned Reference Court while granting enhancement of
compensation. In that view of the matter, I do not
find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( ANIL S. KILOR, J. )
SRM/30/4/21
