Midc Thru Its Regional Officer ... vs Bharatlal Gangadin Prajapati And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9277 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:13317

                                                -1-           209.FA.467.2008.Judgment.odt



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 467 OF 2008
                                              IN
                                    L.A.C. NO. 233 OF 2003

                 APPELLANT                :      Maharashtra Industrial Development
                  (Ori. Deft. No.3)              Corporation, through its Regional
                                                 Officer having its office at Marol
                                                 Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
                                                 Mumbai and having its Branch Office
                                                 at M.I.D.C. Area (Lohara), Yavatmal.

                                                       //VERSUS//

                 RESPONDENTS              : 1. Bharatlal S/o. Gangadin Prajapati,
                 (Org. Claimant)               Aged about 42 years, Occu. Business,
                                               R/o. Lohara, Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal.
                 (Ori. Deft. No.1)            2. State of Maharashtra, through its
                                                 Collector Yavatmal.
                 (Ori. Deft. No.2)            3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-
                                                 Divisional Officer, Yavatmal.
                **************************************************************
                  Mr. Parth L. Sagdeo with Mr. Najeeb Sheikh, Advocates h/f. Mr.
                  M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Appellant.
                  Mr. D.A. Sonwane, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                  Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
                **************************************************************
                                      CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATED : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2023.

ORAL JUDGMENT

In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and award

dated 27th April, 2007, passed by the learned Ad-hoc District

-2- 209.FA.467.2008.Judgment.odt

Judge-1, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference

Court"), whereby the Reference Court in a Reference filed by

respondent No.1/claimant enhanced the compensation from

Rs.50,000/- to Rs.3,25,000/- per hectare.

02] The appellant is the Maharashtra Industrial

Development Corporation. The land bearing Survey No.27,

admeasuring 3.06 HR was acquired for the purpose of Extension

of Industrial Estate at Village Bhoyar, Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal. The

Land Acquisition Officer, after having followed the procedure,

passed the award on 27th November, 1997 and awarded

compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The

respondent No.1, being dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation, filed a Reference.

03] The parties adduced the evidence before the Reference

Court. The Reference Court, on the basis of the material on record,

found that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition

Officer was inadequate and therefore, it was enhanced to

Rs.3,25,000/- (rupees three lakhs twenty five thousand only) per

hectare. Being aggrieved by this enhancement, the appellant has

come before this Court.

                            -3-          209.FA.467.2008.Judgment.odt



04]       I have heard Mr. Parth L. Sagdeo, learned advocate

holding for Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, learned advocate for the

appellant, Mr. D.A. Sonwane, learned advocate for respondent

No.1 and Mr. M.A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record and proceedings.

05] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the

compensation enhanced by the Reference Court is excessive and

exorbitant. Learned advocate submitted that in respect of land

bearing Survey Nos.28/1 and 29/1 in First Appeal No.1428 of

2008 with Cross-objection No.24 of 2012, decided on 24 th April,

2018 [Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through

its Chief Executive Officer Vs. Rameshchandra Ishwaryya Kokle

and Others] the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court

was reduced to Rs.1,10,000/- per hectare. Learned advocate

submitted that the land of the respondent No.1 and the land

bearing Survey Nos.28/1 and 29/1 were similarly situated and

therefore, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is

required to be reduced. Learned advocate has placed on record the

copy of the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.1428 of

2008 with Cross-objection No.24 of 2012. Learned advocate

pointed out that the claimant in the said appeal did not challenge

-4- 209.FA.467.2008.Judgment.odt

the order, passed by this Court, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

06] Learned advocate for respondent No.1/claimant

submitted that for the purpose of same project, the land of

Sindhubai Prajapati bearing Survey No.32/1 of the same village

was acquired. Sindhubai Prajapati had preferred an appeal in the

Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded the compensation at the rate

of Rs.2,25,000/- (rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand only) per

hectare. Learned advocate took me through the judgment and

submitted that the case of the respondent No.1 would be squarely

covered by this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned

advocate submitted that the land of the respondent No.1 was

having non-agricultural potentiality.

07] In order to satisfy myself about the location of the land

of the respondent No.1 bearing Survey No.27 and the land bearing

Survey No.32/1, I have perused the map available on record. The

land of the respondent No.1 is situated at a short distance from the

land bearing Survey No.32/1. It is true that in respect of the

adjoining land bearing Survey Nos.28/1 and 29/1, this Court has

awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,10,000/- (rupees one

-5- 209.FA.467.2008.Judgment.odt

lakh ten thousand only) per hectare. It is seen that the owner of

Survey Nos.28/1 and 29/1 had not challenged the order, passed by

this Court, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

08] The question, therefore, is as to whether the

compensation has to be determined on the basis of the judgment of

this Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant or

on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of [Ramrao Shankar Tapase Vs. Maharashtra Industrial

Development Corpn & Others, dated 19th April, 2022 in Civil

Appeal No.2732 of 2022]. In my view, the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court is required to be followed for the purpose

of deciding the compensation of the land of the respondent No.1.

09] Perusal of the record would show that the land of the

respondent No.1 is, in all respect, similarly situated with the land

bearing Survey No.32/1 of Sindhubai Prajapati. Therefore, in this

case, the respondent No.1 would be entitled to get compensation at

the rate of Rs.2,25,000/- (rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand

only) per hectare. The rejection of the submissions on behalf of the

respondent No.1 would amount to discrimination between the

land owner of Survey No.32/1 and the respondent No.1. In my

-6- 209.FA.467.2008.Judgment.odt

view, such discrimination cannot be allowed. As such, I hold that

the respondent No.1 is entitled to get compensation at the rate of

Rs.2,25,000/- (rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand only) per

hectare.

10] Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The

compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of

Rs.3,25,000/- (rupees three lakhs twenty five thousand only) per

hectare is reduced to Rs.2,25,000/- (rupees two lakhs twenty five

thousand only) per hectare. The remaining part of the impugned

judgment and award is maintained as it is. No order as to costs.

(G. A. SANAP, J.)

Vijay

Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2023 19:07:56