Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Udaykar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12227 Bom

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

                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 672 OF 2017

    1 Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Udayakar
      Age 38 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist
    2 Pramila Dnyaneshwar Udaykar
       Age 66 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist
    3 Dinesh Dnyaneshwar Udaykar
      Age 36 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist
    4 Vijay Dnyaneshwar Udaykar
       Age 30 Yrs. Occ. Agriculturist                    .. APPELLANTS
    5 Ranjana Vilash Mahulkar
      Age 43 Yrs. Occ. Agriculturist
      R/o Ghuikhed, Tq. Chandur Rly.
      Dist. Amravati
    6 Chaya Ravindra Warankar
       Age 40 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist
       R/o Amravati Tq. Dist. Amravati
                          Versus
1      The State of Maharashtra,
       Through the Collector, Camp, Amravati

2      Special Land Acquisition Officer,
       Uppar Wardha Project No.4,
                                                        .. RESPONDENTS
       Amravati Collector's Compound, Amravati,
       Tq. Dist. Amravati
3      The Executive Engineer,
       Bembla Project, Division, Yeotmal,
       Tq. Dist. Yeotmal

Mr. N.S. Bhelkar, Advocate for appellant
Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr. M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent No.3

                           CORAM:       AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                           DATE :       28th November, 2022
                                    2                       201-Q-fa-672-17-Judgment.odt



ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. N.S. Bhelkar, learned counsel for the

appellants, Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2

and Mr. Kadu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3

2. The factual position in the present appeal is as under -

Bembla River Project, District Yavatmal DATE OF NOTIFICATION U/S 4 OF THE LAC ACT 26/10/2005

Property Area of LAO granted by Ref. Court details property Award Dated granted by 06/09/2008 Award Dated 23/02/2015 Plot Nos: 14, Plot Area : Rs.140/- per Rs.500 per 104, 105 78.80 + 89.10 Sq.mt Sq.mtr.

 Village:         + 57.20 total
 Ghuikhed         225.10 Sq.mtr.
 Tahsil
 Chandur          Construction:        Rs.1558.48   per Rs.2103.96
 Railway          207.32 Sq.mtr.       Sq. mtr.         per Sq. mtr.
 District :
 Amravati

3. The appeal challenges the judgment of the Reference

Court dated 23/2/2015, 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.2103.96 per Sq. mtr., in respect of plot Nos. 14, 104 and 105, as

detailed above.

4. In First Appeal No. 1378 of 2018 (Sharad Gangadhar

Gulhane Vs. State) and First Appeal No. 389 of 2018 (Lilabai

Omkarrao Giri and others Vs. State) decided on 06/09/2021, this 3 201-Q-fa-672-17-Judgment.odt

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. Aurnagabad - Nagpur Highway, about half KM

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 10½ 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 that

what has been already taken by this court in First Appeal No.

1378/2018 (Sharad Gangadhar Gulhane Vs. State).

6. The evidence of Shri Chandrashekhar Wankhede, the valuer,

who claims the market rate to be Rs.1000/- per sq.mtr. for open plot,

a perusal whereof would demonstrate that he has not inquired

about any sale instance, from the same village, or from the

neighboring village, in order to arrive at the rate as been quoted in

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

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

neighboring properties, has to be ascertained which has not been

done by him. Neither he has inquired from the Gram Pachayat, when 4 201-Q-fa-672-17-Judgment.odt

the construction has 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.

7. That being the position, in view of the rate of open plot

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 the result, the impugned judgment under reference is

modified by enhancing the rate of open land as granted by the

learned Reference Court at Rs.500/- per sq.mtr. to Rs.575/- per

sq.mtr, as held in Sharad Gulhane (supra). Rest of the judgment of

the learned Reference Court is maintained. The difference in Court

fee be deposited in this Court by appellant.

9. 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.

Digitally signed by:MILIND P DESHPANDE Signing Date:30.11.2022 JUDGE 10:39 MP Deshpande