Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Krushna Narayan Adhagale vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12229 Bom

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 12229 Bom
Judgement Date : 5 December, 2023

Bombay High Court

Krushna Narayan Adhagale vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 5 December, 2023

2023:BHC-NAG:16897
                                                                     FA952.2023jud.odt




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

                              FIRST APPEAL NO. 952 OF 2023

             Krushna Narayan Adhagale,
             Aged about 73 years,
             Occupation : Agriculturist,                       ... Appellant
             R/o. Kurli, Tah. Umarkhed,
             Dist. Yavatmal
                                 Versus
          1. State of Maharashtra,
             Through Collector, Yavatmal,
             Tah. & District - Yavatmal

          2. The Executive Engineer,
             Minor Irrigation Division, Pusad,                ... Respondents
             District - Yavatmal.

          3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
             Lower Pus Project, Pusad,
             Tah. Pusad, District - Yavatmal.


          Mr. V.N. Patre, Advocate for appellant.
          Ms. M.R.Kavimandan, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 3.
          Ms. Mallika Babhulkar, Advocate h/f Mr. M.A. Kadu, Advocate for
          respondent No.2.

                                     CORAM    : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
                                  RESERVED ON : 26.10.2023.
                             PRONOUNCED ON    : 05.12.2023.


          JUDGMENT:

Heard finally by consent of both the learned counsel for the parties.

PAGE 1 OF 6 FA952.2023jud.odt

(2) Being partly aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 07.08.2006 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pusad,

District - Yavatmal, in LAC No.289/2002. The appellant has filed this

appeal.

(3)               Brief facts of the appeal are as under :



(4)               The appellant was the owner of the land bearing

Gut Survey No.37 admeasuring area 1.91 H.R. situated at Village -

Kurli, Tahsil - Umerkhed, District - Yavatmal. The said land was

acquired for the purpose of submergence area of Amdapur Project,

vide Land Acquisition Case No.5/47/96-97 of Village Kurli. The

Notification under Section 4 was published in the Official Gazette of

State of Maharashtra on 21.08.1997 and the land of the appellant was

acquired. The award under Section 11 was passed on 27.11.2000 by

the Land Acquisition Officer, granting the compensation @ of

Rs.17,000/- per hectare. The appellant has accepted the said

compensation under the protest. Being aggrieved by said award, the

appellant has preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 and claimed an additional compensation of

Rs.2,51,991/- with other statutory benefits. The reference Court partly

PAGE 2 OF 6 FA952.2023jud.odt

allowed the claim of the appellant and granted the compensation @ of

Rs.27,000/- per hectare and rejected the major claim of the appellant

for the land as well as trees. Hence, being aggrieved by the same, the

appellant has filed this appeal. There is a delay of 4879 days in filing

this appeal which is condoned in civil application made in this behalf

on waiver of interest and statutory benefit for the delayed period.

(5) Mr. Patre, learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that for acquisition under the same project in the same village

under the same Notification dated 21.08.1997 and the award of the

same date i.e. 27.11.2000, this Court by Order dated 20.01.2020 in

First Appeal No.1412/2019 has directed the respondent-Acquiring

Body to pay compensation @ of Rs.83,000/- per hectare. The learned

counsel for the appellant has further submitted that as this Court has

fixed the compensation in said appeal in First Appeal (Stamp)

No.2525/2022, this Court has passed the following said judgment on

16.11.2022 and he has submitted that in view of settled law that

similarly situated land owners should receive parity, this appeal also

needs to be allowed and the appellant deserves to be granted

compensation @ of Rs.83,000/- per hectare.

PAGE 3 OF 6 FA952.2023jud.odt

(6) Ms. Babhulkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2

- Acquiring Body has not disputed the factual aspects in this matter.

He confirms that the decision of this Court dated 20.01.2020 in First

Appeal No.1412/2019 has not been challenged and has attained

finality and this Court may accordingly passed orders.

(7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

with their able assistance, I have perused the papers, proceedings and

the decision relied upon by them.

(8) While deciding the First Appeal, this Court has

relied on the judgments of Apex Court where the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Ram Chander (deceased) through his legal

representatives and others Vrs. Union of India and another (2020) 15

SCC 491, has observed that if the similarly situated land owner has

received higher compensation then the benefits of such higher

compensation should be allowed to be appellants provided that there

is no interest payable for the delayed period to him. From the

judgment dated 20.01.2020 in First Appeal No.1412/2019 and First

Appeal (Stamp) No.2525/2022, referred by the learned counsel for

claimants, it is quite clear that the said judgment also refers to the

PAGE 4 OF 6 FA952.2023jud.odt

same Amdapur Project for which land subject matter of this appeal has

been acquired. The Notification under Section 4 (1) of the said Act, in

the present case is also of 21.08.1997. The award passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer is also of 27.11.2000. Learned AGP has not raised

any dispute as to the type or quality of land acquired in both the cases.

As such, the facts of this case and the facts in First Appeal decided by

this Court are similar and the appellants in both these cases appeared

to be similarly placed.

(9) In view of the above discussion, it emerges that the

appellant herein would also be entitled to a compensation @ of

Rs.83,000/- per hectare.

(10) In view of the above well settled principles, the

impugned order of Reference Court is hereby modified and the

respondents are directed to pay compensation to the appellant @ of

Rs.83,000/- per hectare for the land acquired under the subject

notification by depositing the amount of compensation in respect of

1.91 hectare calculated as above in the Saving Bank account of the

appellant within a period of six months subject to (i) waiver of interest

and statutory benefit for the delayed period of 4879 days and (ii) due

PAGE 5 OF 6 FA952.2023jud.odt

verification of the Registrar of this Court.

(11) The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.

(12) Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of

accordingly.





                                                           [MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.]


                     Prity




Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane                                                        PAGE 6 OF 6
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/12/2023 19:23:46
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter