Hemant Shankar Jadhao vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12315 Bom

                              1                290.FA.1280-2017 JUDGMENT.odt




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

               FIRST APPEAL NO. 1280 OF 2017

     Hemant Shankar Jadhao,
     Aged 47 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
     R/o Ghuikhed, Tq. Chandur Rly.,
     District Amravati.                               APPELLANT


      Versus

 1. State of Maharashtra,
    Through the Collector, Amravati,
    District Amravati.

 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
    Upper Wardha Project No.4, Amravati,
    District Amravati.

 3. The Executive Engineer,
    Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal,
    Tq. & District Yavatmal.                       RESPONDENTS

-----------------------------------------------
Ms. D.V. Sapkal, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
-----------------------------------------------

                   CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                   DATED     : 29th NOVEMBER, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-


           Heard    Ms.    Sapkal,   learned    Counsel           for      the
                                       2                290.FA.1280-2017 JUDGMENT.odt




appellant,    Ms. Deshmukh, learned AGP for the respondent

Nos.1 and 2/State 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 property LAO Award Dated Ref. Court details 06.09.2008 Award Dated 31.03.2015

Plot No: 56/03 Plot Area : Rs.140/- per Rs.500/- per Village: 129.60 Sq.mtr. Sq.mt Sq.mtr.

 Ghuikhed
 Tahsil            Construction:          Rs.4,063/- per Sq. Rs.5,486/- per
 Chandur           120.60 Sq.mtr.         mtr.               Sq. mtr.
 Railway
 District :
 Amravati




3.           The     appeal    challenges        the   judgment             of     the

Reference Court dated 31.03.2015, 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.5,486/- per sq.mtr., in

respect of plot No.56/03 as detailed above.

3 290.FA.1280-2017 JUDGMENT.odt

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

Gulhane Vs. State of Maharashtra & 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 taken by this court in First Appeal

No. 1378/2018 (Sharad Gangadhar Gulhane Vs. State of

Maharashtra & Ors.) (Supra).

4 290.FA.1280-2017 JUDGMENT.odt

6. The evidence of PW-2 Chandrashekhar Wankhade at

Exh.38 the valuer, who claims the market rate to be Rs.2,000/-

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 at Exh. 39. 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 Panchayat, when 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, the rate awarded by the learned Reference Court cannot

be interfered with. Moreover there is no cross appeal by the

acquiring body regarding the rate of construction as awarded by

the learned Reference Court. Though the rate for construction

appears to be on a higher side, however, considering that there

is no appeal or cross objection by the acquiring body, the same

cannot be interfered in this appeal, which is by the claimants.

7. That being the position, in view of the rate of open 5 290.FA.1280-2017 JUDGMENT.odt

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 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.

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. The difference in court fees shall also be

deposited by the appellant with this Court within eight weeks.

10. The First Appeal is partly allowed in the above

terms. No costs.

6 290.FA.1280-2017 JUDGMENT.odt

11. 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