Vitthal Natthusa Sirsode vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12507 Bom

                                                                1                   108fa 849.19.odt


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

                              FIRST APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2019


APPELLANT :                       Vitthal Natthusa Sirsode
                                  Aged 80 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. M.A.Kadu, 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 108fa 849.19.odt

BEMBLA RIVER PROJECT, DISTRICT YAVATMAL

DATE OF NOTIFICATION U/S 4 OF THE 26.10.2005 LAC ACT Property Area of LAO Award Ref. Court details property Dated Award Dated 06.09.2008 04.07.2017

Plot No:178 Plot Area : Rs.140/- per Rs.500/- per Village: 113.30 Sq.mt Sq.mtr.

  Ghuikhed         Sq.mtr.
Tahsil Chandur
   Railway         Construction:   Rs.2709.15/-      Rs.3657.35/- per
   District :      86.30           per        Sq.    Sq. mtr.
  Amravati         Sq.mtr.         mtr.




         3]          The appeal challenges the judgment of the

Reference Court dated 04.07.2017, 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.3657.35/- per

sq.mtr., in respect of plot No.178 as detailed above.

The learned counsel for the respondents do not

dispute the above factual position.

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

Gangadhar Gulhane Vs. State of Maharashtra &

Ors.) and First Appeal No. 389 of 2018 (Lilabai 3 108fa 849.19.odt

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

taken by this court in First Appeal No. 1378/2018 4 108fa 849.19.odt

(Sharad Gangadhar Gulhane Vs. State of

Maharashtra & Ors.) (Supra).

6] There is no evidence by any expert led by

the claimant who has examined himself alone and

has relied upon the sale deeds dated 30.05.1995 in

respect of property no. 463 of the same village

under which land admeasuring 190 sq.ft. (17.65

sq.mtr) has been sold for Rs. 25,000/- which

translates to Rs. 1416.43 per sq.mtr, which would

indicates the consolidated rate for the plot as well as

to the construction and not the individual rate of the

plot or the construction and therefore has rightly

been discarded by the Reference Court.

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 rate of Rs. 3657.35 per sq. mtr., granted by the 5 108fa 849.19.odt

learned Reference Court appears to be on the higher

side, however, since there is no appeal or cross

objection by the acquiring body against the same, it

cannot be interfered in this appeal, which is by the

claimant.

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.

                               6                   108fa 849.19.odt


          11]       The First Appeal is partly allowed in the

          above terms. No costs.


          12]       Pending applications, if any, shall stand

          disposed of accordingly.




                                       JUDGE
Rvjalit




                                                Digitally sign byRAJESH
                                                VASANTRAO JALIT
                                                Location:

Signing Date:06.12.2022 14:29