Surendra Pandurang Kakde vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12496 Bom

                                                                 1                 112fa17.22.odt


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

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2022


APPELLANT :                                    Surendra Panduang Kakde
                                               aged 60 years, Occ. Agriculture
                                               R/o. Ghuikhed, Tq. Chandur Rly,
                                               Dist. Amravati.
                                               Versus.
RESPONDENTS                       1]           The State of Maharashtra, through
                                               the Collector, Camp Amravati.
                                  2]           Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                                               Upper Wardha Project No.4
                                               Amravati Collector's Compound,
                                               Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
                                  3]           The Executive Engineer,
                                               Bembla Project Division, Yeotmal,
                                               Tq. And Dist. Yeotmal
Office Notes, Office Memoranda                         Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. N.S.Bhelkar, Advocate for the appellant
                                  Mr. A.M.Kukday, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                  Ms. S.S.Jachak, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

                  Oral Judgment

                                  CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 02nd DECEMBER, 2022.

1] Heard learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

2] The factual position in the present

appeal is as under -

2 112fa17.22.odt

BEMBLA RIVER PROJECT, DISTRICT YAVATMAL

DATE OF NOTIFICATION U/S 4 OF THE LAC 26.10.2005 ACT Property Area of LAO Award Ref. Court details property as per Dated Award Dated award 06.09.2008 09.06.2015

Plot Plot Area : Rs.140/- per Rs.500/- per No:379 328.10 Sq.mtr. Sq.mt Sq.mtr. Village:

Ghuikhed Construction: Rs.1891.09/- per Rs.2552.97/- Tahsil 181.76 Sq.mtr. Sq. mtr. per Sq. mtr. Chandur Railway District :

Amravati

3] The appeal challenges the judgment of the

Reference Court dated 09.06.2015 whereby the

learned Reference Court has enhanced the

compensation for the open plot to Rs.500/-per

sq.mtr. and has granted compensation for the

constructed area at the rate of Rs. 2552.97 /- per

sq.mtr., in respect of plot No.379 as detailed above.

These details are not disputed by the learned

counsel for respondent No.3.

4] In First Appeal No. 1378/2018 (Sharad

Gangadhar Gulhane Vs. State of Maharashtra & 3 112fa17.22.odt

Ors.) and First Appeal No. 389 of 2018 (Lilabai

Omkarrao Giri and others Vs. State of Maharashtra

& Ors.) decided on 06.09.2021, this Court, while

considering the claim for enhancement of

compensation in respect of plots at Village Ghuikhed

had decided the compensation to Rs.575/- per

sq.mtr. The fixing of the said rate, of open plot, was

based upon the fact that the said Village is located

on the border of the State Highway i.e. Aurangabad

- Nagpur Highway, about half kilometer from the

highway, from there is an approach road to the

Village and considering the sale deed dated

30.03.1995 of the same village, the compensation

was enhanced considering the escalation / increase

per year for a period of 10 and half years and the

aforesaid rate of Rs.575/- per sq.mtr. for open plot

has been fixed.

5] In the instant matter, no material, has

been brought to my notice existing on record, for me

to take a different view than what has been already 4 112fa17.22.odt

taken by this court in First Appeal No. 1378/2018

(Sharad Gangadhar Gulhane Vs. State of

Maharashtra & Ors.) (Supra).

6] The evidence of Chandrashekhar

Wankhede PW-2, the Valuer, at Exh. 36, who claims

the market rate to be Rs.1500/- per sq.mtr. for open

plot, a perusal whereof would demonstrate that he has

not enquired about any sale instance, from the same

village, or from the neighbouring village, in order to

arrive at the rate as been quoted in his report Exh.37.

He further, admits in his cross-examination that for the

purpose of determining the value of the plot, the value of

the neighbouring properties, has to be ascertained which

has not been done by him. Neither he has enquired from

the Gram Pachayat, when the construction was made,

apart from which, there is nothing in his report or on

record to indicate the nature of the construction,

considering which, there is no reason, to accept the value

of construction pegged by him or any reason whatsoever

for the rate accepted by the learned Reference Court

insofar as construction is concerned, to be interfered.

                           5                      112fa17.22.odt


7]          That being the position, in view of the

rate of open plot for Village Ghuikhed, having

already being determined by this Court at Rs.575/-

per sq.mtr., the appellant, would only be entitled to

that benefit and nothing else.

8] In so far as the construction is concerned,

the PW-2 Chandrashekhar Wankhede quotes the

rate of Rs.4000/- per sq.mtr however, in his

evidence, does not indicate any material to

substantiate this rate and therefore, the same had

rightly been discarded by the learned Reference

Court. There is nothing brought on record by the

applicant regarding the nature and quality of the

construciton for me to take a view different than

what has been taken by the learned Refence Court

in so far as the rate of construction as awarded by

the Reference Court is concerned, considering the

nature and quality of the construction already on

record and therefore, the said rate does not need

any interference.

                                 6                      112fa17.22.odt


          9]        In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

and the impugned judgment under reference is

modified by enhancing the rate of open plot as

granted by the learned Reference Court at Rs.500/-

per sq.mtr. to Rs.575/- per sq.mtr, as held in Sharad

Gangadhar Gulhane (supra). Rest of the judgment

of the learned Reference Court is maintained.

10] The difference in the amount of

compensation and all ancillary benefits arising

therefrom as per the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, as applicable thereto be calculated

and deposited in the Reference Court within a

period of eight weeks from today. The difference in

court fees, if any, shall also be deposited by the

appellant with this Court within eight weeks.

11] The First Appeal is partly allowed in the

above terms. No costs.

                                        JUDGE     Digitally sign byRAJESH
                                                  VASANTRAO JALIT
                                                  Location:
                                                  Signing Date:06.12.2022 14:29
Rvjalit