Executive Engineer (V.I.D.C.) ... vs Chandrashekhar Parashram ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8307 Bom

fa.418.16.jud                                                                                 1/4

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

                            FIRST APPEAL NO.418 OF 2016

Appellant              :        Executive Engineer (V.I.D.C.),
On R.A.                         Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal,
                                Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.

                                -- Versus --

Respondents            : 1] Chandrashekhar Parashram Wanjari,
On R.A.                     Aged 28 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
                            R/o. Takalgaon, Tq. Babhulgaon,
                            Distt. Yavatmal.

                           2] The State of Maharashtra,
                              through the Collector, Yavatmal.

                           3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                              Bembla Project, Yavatmal.

             =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                  Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for the Appellant.
              Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
              Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
             =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                CORAM                      :    S.M. MODAK, J.

                RESERVED ON                :    15th JUNE, 2021.
                PRONOUNCED ON              :    22nd JUNE, 2021.


J U D G M E N T :-

There is an application for withdrawal of the remaining amount

filed by respondent No.1-original claimant. In view of the narrow

controversy involved, the appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent

of the parties.

 fa.418.16.jud                                                                          2/4

02]          The Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at

the rate of Rs.35,500/- per hectare, whereas the Reference Court

enhanced it to Rs.1,43,000/- per hectare. The said enhancement is

challenged by the appellant - V.I.D.C.

03] The award was delivered on 16/02/2013 by the 2 nd Joint Civil

Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal. The land owned by respondent No.1-

original claimant is situated at Mouza Takalgaon, Tah. Babhulgaon, District

Yavatmal. It was acquired for the purpose of construction of Bemble

Project. As said above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer quantified

compensation at the rate of Rs.35,500/- per hectare. The claimant

withdrew the compensation on 15/03/2000 and filed reference on

26/04/2000.

04] Before the Reference Court, he gave evidence and relied upon

the documentary evidence in the form of contemporaneous sale-deeds

and the awards declared by the Reference Court.

05] The contention of the appellant is that the rate fixed by the

Reference Court in a referred award cannot be considered, because the

lands are not situated in similar location. There is also an argument that

the amount is accepted by the claimant and it is without reserving right

to challenge it. The Reference Court only relied upon the rate fixed in the

fa.418.16.jud 3/4

L.A.C. No.264/2000. In that proceedings, Section 4 notification was issued

on 25/08/1994, whereas in the present proceeding, it was issued on

29/05/1997 i.e. almost after three years. The rate of Rs.1,10,000/- per

hectare was fixed in L.A.C. No.264/2000. The Reference Court in the

present proceedings added an amount at the rate of 10% while fixing the

rate of Rs.1,43,000/- per hectare.

06] No doubt, certainly the Reference Court was right in enhancing

the rate. But the Reference Court has overlooked one fact in L.A.C.

No.264/2000 a portion of the land was irrigated land, whereas, the

present claimant does not say that his land is irrigated land. 7/12 Extract

is filed at Exh.59 and the judgment in L.A.C. No.264/2000 is at Exh.65.

So, to that extent only, this Court does not agree with the rate of

Rs.1,43,000/- per hectare fixed by the Reference Court. So, this Court

feels that the rate of Rs.1,40,000/- per hectare will be the proper rate.

So, modification to that effect is required. Hence, the appeal has to be

allowed in part. Hence, the following order :

I. The appeal is partly allowed.

II. The judgment passed by the Reference Court in Land

Acquisition Case No.207/2005, dated 16/02/2013 is

modified as follows :

fa.418.16.jud 4/4

(a) Instead of rate of Rs.1,43,000/- per hectare, the

compensation be paid at the rate of Rs.1,40,000/- per

hectare.

(b) Rest of the observations are confirmed.

III. The appellant to deposit the remaining compensation, if

any, within a period of three months at the above modified

rate in this Court.

IV. Once the amount is deposited, it be paid to respondent

No.1.

V. Pending civil application, if any, is disposed of in view of

disposal of the appeal.

VI. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms with no

order as to costs.

(S.M. MODAK, J.) *sandesh