Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Supadu Ramjan Tadvi on 5 May, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 1765-2004-FA+Group.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1765 OF 2004
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
SUPADU RAMJAN TADVI
...
AND FA/1584/2004 AND FA/1749/2004
AND FA/1750/2004
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr. B.V. Virdhe
Advocate for Respondents-claimants : Mr. Ajeet B. Kale
...
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8461 OF 2009 IN FA/1765/2004
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 5th MAY, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-
1. The appellant- State of Maharashtra has filed these appeals
challenging the Judgments and Awards, dated 31-03-2004, 30-04-2004 and
26-04-2004 passed by learned 4th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Jalgaon,
in Land Acquisition References No. 1695 of 1998, 1715 of 1998, 1691 of
1998 and 1699 of 1998 enhancing the amount of compensation.
2. The lands-in-question were acquired by the appellant for
construction of Ambhora Dam Project. The notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A.Act) was issued on 30-12-1993 and
Award was passed on 23-01-1997. The Special Acquisition Officer granted
Rs.330/- per R, Rs.470/- per R, Rs.41,000/- per Hectare and Rs.41,000/-
2 1765-2004-FA+Group.odt
per Hectare which was enhanced @ Rs.1,000/- per R for the Jirayat lands,
whereas, Rs.500/- per R. for the barren land by the Reference Court vide
impugned Judgment and Award, the same is under challenge in the present
Appeals.
3. I have heard the learned A.G.P. for the appellant and
Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants.
4. Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, at the
outset, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court, dated 25 th February, 2009 passed in First
Appeal No. 208 of 2008 [Special Land Acquisition Officer (I) Upper Tapi
Project (Hatnur), Jalgaon and others Versus Ramchandra Motiram
Choudhari (Died) through L.Rs Sandu Ramchandra Choudhari] , whereby
the Appeals preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer were
dismissed.
5. It is submitted that the land involved in the said First Appeal
was from the same village, in same land acquisition proceedings and for
the same purpose the lands were acquired as in the present appeal. It is
further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, after considering
the matter on merit, did not find any substance in the appeal and,
accordingly, appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel for the
respondents-claimants submits that the present appeals are apparently
covered by the said Judgment as the land acquired in this matter is from
3 1765-2004-FA+Group.odt
same proceeding. The said fact is not disputed by the learned AGP.
6. In that view of the matter, since in the connected matters
arising out of the same Land Acquisition proceedings, the Division Bench of
this Court has already taken a view vide Judgment dated 25th February,
2009 and since it was not challenged in the Apex Court, I do not want to
deviate from the said view and take a different view, accordingly, I adopt
the same view.
7. The First Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. In view of the dismissal of First Appeal no. 1765 of 2004, Civil
Application no. 8461 of 2009 stands disposed of.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
arp/-
