Vanabai Pandit Patil And Anr vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15856 Bom

                                                      First Appeal No.2832/2017
                                      :: 1 ::



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                       FIRST APPEAL NO.2832 OF 2017


 Venabai Pandit Patil & anr.                          ... APPELLANTS

          VERSUS

 The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
 Minor irrigation, Jalgaon & ors.                     ... RESPONDENTS

                                .......
 Mr. V.S. Khairnar-Patil, Advocate for appellants
 Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 3
 Mr. s.r. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                                .......

                                  CORAM :       R. G. AVACHAT, J.

                                  DATE :        16th NOVEMBER, 2021
 PER COURT :


                  Heard.         Learned    counsel     for    the     appellants

submits that, in spite of there being existence of well in the

acquired land, the Reference Court has stated the land as

unirrigated and granted the compensation. In support of his

claim, he relies on 7/12 extract (Page 21 of the appeal

memo). He also relies on the written statement filed by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer before the Reference Court.

2. On close reading of this document, it is crystal

clear that the written statement filed by the State/ acquiring

First Appeal No.2832/2017 :: 2 ::

body is readymade and is filed in almost all the matters as it

is. Since admittedly there were no trees in the acquired land,

still vide paragraph No.10 of the written statement, it has

been narrated that, considering the existence of trees in the

acquired land, the compensation has been granted. As such,

admission, if any, in the written statement cannot be

considered. Moreover, the 7/12 extract relied on behalf of the

appellants pertains to the year 2008-2009. There is no 7/12

extract for the year in which the land has been acquired. As

such, the Reference Court has rightly granted the

compensation considering the appellants' land to be

unirrigated. In this factual backdrop, no interference is

warranted with the impugned judgment and order.

3. In the result, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

( R. G. AVACHAT ) JUDGE

fmp/-