Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Suresh Champalal Todarwal And 4 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12304 Bom

                               1                217.FA.806-2015 JUDGMENT.odt




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

                FIRST APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2015

          Vidarbha Irrigation Development
          Corporation, Through Executive
          Engineer, Bembla Project Division,
          Yavatmal.                                 APPELLANT


           Versus

   1.     Suresh Champalal Todarwal,
          Aged 48 years, Occu. Agriculturist,


   2.     Prakash Champalal Todarwal,
          Aged 38 years, Occu. Agriculturist,


   3.     Sanjay Champalal Todarwal,
          Aged 35 years, Occu. Agriculturist,

          All R/o. Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
          District Yavatmal.


   4.     State of Maharashtra,
          Through Collector, Yavatmal.


   5.     Special Land Acquisition Officer,
          Minor Irrigation Works No.II,
          Bembla Project, Yavatmal.                RESPONDENTS


-----------------------------------------------
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5/State.
-----------------------------------------------
                                       2                217.FA.806-2015 JUDGMENT.odt




                      CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                      DATED        : 29th NOVEMBER, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant,

and Ms. Deshmukh, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 4 and

5/State. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 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 11.05.2000

Property Area of property LAO Award Dated Ref. Court details 17.10.2003 Award Dated 06.03.2012

Plot No: 585 Plot Area : Rs.80/- per Rs.900/- per Village: Pahur 314.80 Sq.mtr. Sq.mtr. Sq.mtr.

 Tahsil
 Babhulgaon        Construction:          Rs.1,850/- per Sq. Rs.2,313/- per
 District :        303 Sq.mtr.            mtr.               Sq.mtr.
 Yavatmal




3.           The     appeal    challenges        the   judgment             of        the

Reference Court dated 06.03.2012, whereby the learned

Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for the open 3 217.FA.806-2015 JUDGMENT.odt

plot to Rs.900/-per sq.mtr. and has granted compensation for

the constructed area at the rate of Rs.2,313/- per sq.mtr., in

respect of Plot No.585 as detailed above.

4. In Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs.

Shri Vasant Nanaji Patre & Ors., First Appeal (ST) No. 189/2018

with Cross Objection No. 119/2018 decided on 19.12.2018 , this

Court, while considering the claim for enhancement of

compensation in respect of plots at Village Pahur had decided

the compensation to Rs.750/- per sq.mtr., on the ground that as

many as 475 land owners from Village Pahur had agreed to

receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 750/- per sq.mtr. for

open land.

5. That apart, 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

Shri Vasant Nanaji Patre & Ors. (supra).

6. The evidence of PW-2 Anil Govindrao Mahajan, at

Exh.26 the valuer, who claims the market rate to be Rs. 3,554/-

4 217.FA.806-2015 JUDGMENT.odt

per sq.mtr. for open plot, would demonstrate that he has not

inquired about any sale instance, from the same Village or from

the neighbouring Village, in order to arrive at the rate has been

quoted in his report at Exh. 39 except for the sale deed of

Sisodia, Exh. 23, in respect of which, he has admitted in his

cross-examination that the same is situated in the central

market area, equipped with chemist shop, dispensary and is

surrounded by temple of Lord Maroti. He further in his evidence

does not state, that the distance between the plot of Sisodia and

the property in question i.e. Plot No. 585, nor about the

facilities available therein, and therefore, his evidence as well as

the report clearly does not depict the correct factual position,

and therefore, is not worthy of credence. Insofar as the sale

deed at Ex. 24 dated 15.07.1992 is concerned, it is by

Vasantkumar Shantilalji Ostwal in favour of Nemichand

Tarachand Kotecha and the same indicates, that the open plot

was sold for Rs. 19,000/- which would give the rate as

Rs. 302.64/- sq.mtr. The sale deed at Exh. 25 is of Village Dighi

and since the sale instances of Village Pahur are available, the

question of considering the sale instances from another Village

would be otiose. Considering the rate, which are spelt out from 5 217.FA.806-2015 JUDGMENT.odt

the sale deed at Exhs. 23 and 24, the grant of rate of Rs. 750/-,

would clearly be justified, as admittedly, the rate in the year

1998 as per Exh. 24 works out to Rs. 302.64/- sq.mtr.

7. Insofar as the rate of construction is concerned, as

awarded by the learned Reference Court, it is within the

enhancement of 25% as contemplated by Shri Vasant Nanaji

Patre & Ors. (supra), and therefore, does not need any

interference.

8. That being the position, in view of the rate of open

plot of Village Pahur, having already been determined by this

Court at Rs.750/- per sq.mtr., the appellant, would only be

entitled to that benefit and nothing else.

9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the

impugned judgment under reference is modified by decreasing

the rate of open plot as granted by the learned Reference Court

at Rs.900/- per sq.mtr., to Rs.750/- per sq.mtr, as held in Vasant

Nanaji Patre (supra). Rest of the judgment of the learned

Reference Court is maintained.

6 217.FA.806-2015 JUDGMENT.odt

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 shall also be

deposited by the appellant with this Court within eight weeks, if

any.

11. The First Appeal is partly allowed in the above

terms. No costs.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of

accordingly.

( AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

S.D.Bhimte

Signed By:SHRIKANT DAMODHAR BHIMTE

Signing Date:02.12.2022 14:50