Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Shri.Kisan Nana Zankar (Since Deceased ... on 25 January, 2024
Author: M.M. Sathaye
Bench: M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:4289
30-FA-1595-2008.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1595 OF 2008
The State Of Maharashtra. ...Appellant.
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD
Versus
PATIL
Shri.Kisan Nana Zankar (Since Deceased)
Digitally signed
Through His Legal Heirs
by
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD PATIL 1A.Kumar Kisanrao Tajanpure and Ors. ...Respondents
Date:
2024.01.30
12:17:10 +0530
************
Mr. A.R. Patil, Addl. G.P. for Appellant-State.
Ms. Rukmini Khairnar i/b Pramod Joshi, for Respondents.
************
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2024
P.C. :
1. Heard learned AGP for the Appellant/State and learned
counsel for the Respondents.
2. This is an Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the said Act") challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 07.04.1995 passed by Joint District
Judge, Nashik (the Reference Court) in group of Land References
including the subject matter Land Reference No. 508 of 1989. By the
said impugned Order, the Reference Court has held that the
Respondents-Claimants are entitled to additional compensation to be
calculated at a particular rate for particular type of land. The
claimants are also held entitled to 30 % solatium and 12% additional
component. Statutory interest of 9% p.a. for first year and 15% p.a.
30-FA-1595-2008.doc
from the second year is also granted.
3. Few facts necessary for disposal of this Appeal are as
under. The subject matter lands at Village Bharvir were acquired by
State for Vaitarna Hydro Electric Project / Kadwa Medium Project.
The notification under section 4 of the said Act was published on
31.03.1983. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short "SLAO")
passed award granting meagre amount of Rs. 17,100/- to the
Respondent Original Claimant, which was challenged by filing
aforesaid Land Reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The
Reference Court, after hearing both sides and on appreciation of
evidence has enhanced it to Rs. 55,860/-.
4. The learned AGP appearing for the State has assailed the
impugned Judgment and order on various grounds as raised in the
Appeal memo. It is submitted that the Reference Court was not
justified in granting the additional compensation. It is further
contended that sale instances relied upon by the Respondents-
Claimants should not have been relied upon. On the other hand,
learned counsel for the Respondents-Claimants supported the
impugned Judgment and Order.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused
the impugned Judgment and Order. It shows that the Reference
Court has taken into consideration relevant dates vis-a-vis sale
instances as also that the subject matter lands were jirayat lands
(non-irrigated) and accordingly has reduced the amount by 20%
while arriving at compensation payable.
30-FA-1595-2008.doc
6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, considering that
both amount granted by SLAO as well as enhanced amount granted
by Reference Court are meager amounts and that the amount of
enhancement is based on valid reasons based on appreciation of
evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
Judgment and Order passed by the Reference Court.
7. Hence the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of
the dismissal of Appeal, the Respondent/s/Claimant/s or their legal
heirs as the case may be, is/are at liberty to withdraw the amount of
compensation, if deposited by the State in the Reference Court along
with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn. Needless to mention
that the impugned Judgment and order becomes executable.
8. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
