Bombay High Court
Arun S/O Sheshrao Baradkar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 5 December, 2023
2023:BHC-NAG:16928
50-fa 1486-20.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1486 OF 2019
Arun Sheshrao Mahalle, aged about 64
years, occup. Agriculturist, R/o Barad,
Tq.Babulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through the
1 Collector, Yavatmal.
2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Benefited Zone, Yavatmal.
3 Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation, Nagpur
through Executive Engineer, Bembala
Project, Yavatmal Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.V.Ingole, counsel for the appellant.
Mr.S.C.Joshi AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. Mallika Babhulkar h/f Mr. M.A.Kadu, counsel for respondent
No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
Reserved on :8th November, 2023
Pronounced on: 5th December, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by
the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in LAC No. 89 of
Kavita.
50-fa 1486-20.odt
2006. The land of the appellant is acquired by the respondents
from gat No. 160 admeasuring 6 H 94 R situated at village Barad
Tq. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal for Bembla project. The
notification under Section 4 was published on 24/07/2003. The
Land Acquisition Officer declared an award granting compensation
of Rs. 81,979/- per H for the land and Rs.83, 473/- for trees. The
appellant has preferred a reference claiming enhanced
compensation @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per Hectare and for
enhancement of the compensation. The 2 nd Jt. Civil Judge Senior
Division decided the reference vide Land Acquisition Case No. 89
of 2006 on 08.11.2022 and granted the enhanced compensation of
Rs. 1,75,000/- per hectare and Rs. 1,00,000/- for well and rejected
the rest of the claim.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
08/11/2011 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,
Yavatmal, the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement
of compensation under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act r/w
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Kavita.
50-fa 1486-20.odt
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
enhancement granted for the land was without any sufficient
evidence in that regard. The sale instance could not have been
relied upon in view of the fact that the comparable distance and
location from the acquired land was not brought on record. There
is no oral or documentary evidence led by the respondents. The
evidence led by the respondents goes un-challenged. The land is
known as Gavkhari and land is acquired for the purpose of sub-
mergence under the Bembla Project, village Barad is near to
Babhulgaon Tahsil place having gram panchayat Chawadi and
other facilities. The 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division has not
considered the facts, which are necessary for determining the
compensation and not granted the compensation claimed for.
5. Mr. S.C.Joshi, the Assistant Government Pleader appeared
for the concerned respondent. In the light of the submissions as
urged, the following point arise for adjudication:
"Whether the a judgment of the Reference Court is liable to
be modified by reducing/enhancing the amount of compensation
as awarded"?
Kavita.
50-fa 1486-20.odt
6. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the record.
The claimant examined himself and has refereed to sale instances in
respect of sale of land from village Kopra. The sale instance is from
village Kolhi which is dated 19/04/1994. There is however no map
placed on record to indicate the distance between those villages in
comparison with village Barad. It is to be noted that in First Appeal
No. 1062 of 2014, a similar sale instance at village Kopra has been
referred to. By observing the village Kopra, Barad and Kolhi were
from the same Tahsil that sale deed was accepted in the said appeal
and the rate of Rs.1,23,000/- was approximately accepted for the
year 1994. Though it is true that there is no map in the aforesaid
decision which pertains to the acquisition of land from village
Dighi, Tal.Babhulgoan, said sale-instance can be taken into
consideration. That would be subject to applying some guesswork
in that regard. In the light of the fact that the sale deed is of the year
1994 and the present application is of the year 2002, the amount of
Rs. 2,10,000/- which was considered is reasonable compensation
for the land in First Appeal No. 1062 of 2014 and said judgment
is followed in this first appeal, by this Court. Hence, it is held that
the claimant is entitled to compensation for the land at
Kavita.
50-fa 1486-20.odt
Rs. 2,10,000/- per Hectare. As regards the well, and the tress
which the appellant has mentioned the reference Court has granted
Rs.1,00,000/- for the compensation for well situated in gat No.
160 has not granted any compensation for the orange trees as there
was no evidence. Therefore, except the enhancement to the land
the judgment of Reference Court is confirmed.
7. The judgment in LAC No. 89 of 2006 dated 8 tch
November 2011 is partly modified. The compensation for the land
is determined at Rs. 2,10,000/- per Hectare and the compensation
for the well is confirmed as per the order of the Trial Court. The
appeal is partly allowed with the no orders as to costs.
8. If the amount of compensation is not deposited by the
acquiring body, the same shall be deposited within five months in
this Court. This Court has condoned the delay and waived the
interest till the date of condonation of delay. Hence, the petitioner
shall waive the amount for the delayed period till the date of order
on application for condonation of delay.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J)
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/12/2023 14:46:22 Kavita.
