Bombay High Court
Vidc Nagpur Thr. Exe. Engineer, Medium ... vs Sudhakar Nagorao Mundhe And Others on 31 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:1620
-1- 22.FA.783.2022.Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 783 OF 2022
APPELLANTS : 1. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, Nagpur through its
Executive Engineer, Medium Project
Division, Yavatmal (now Yavatmal
Project Construction Division,
Yavatmal).
2. The Executive Engineer, Medium
Project Division, Yavatmal (now
Yavatmal Project Construction
Division, Yavatmal).
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. Sudhakar Nagorao Mundhe, Aged
about 54 years, Occupation :
Agriculturist, R/o. Kolambi, Yavatmal,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through
Collector, Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist.
Yavatmal.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation No.1, Yavatmal, Tq.
& Dist. Yavatmal.
**************************************************************
Mr. Vinay Dahat, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. V.D. Darne, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. K.R. Lule, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
**************************************************************
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : 31st JANUARY, 2024.
-2- 22.FA.783.2022.Judgment.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
. In this appeal, challenge is to the impugned judgment
and award dated 19.01.2017, passed by learned Joint Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Yavatmal (for short "the Reference Court"),
whereby the reference filed for enhancement of the compensation
was partly allowed.
02] The land belonging to respondent No.1, bearing Gat
No.159/2, admeasuring 1.73 HR, situated at village Kolambi, Tq.
and Dist. Yavatmal, was acquired pursuant to the notification
published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
dated 21.09.2006 for the purpose of the Kolambi Minor Irrigation
Tank. The Award was passed on 07.07.2007. The Land
Acquisition Officer determined the price of the land at Rs.55,600/-
per hectare for 1.69 HR land, Rs.1,500/- per hectare for 0.04
potkharab land, Rs.44,029/- for well, and Rs.2,771/- for trees.
03] I have heard Mr. Vinay Dahat, learned advocate for the
appellants, Mr. V.D. Darne, learned advocate for respondent No.1
and Mr. K.R. Lule, learned AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Perused the record and proceedings.
-3- 22.FA.783.2022.Judgment.odt
04] Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the
Reference Court has not enhanced the compensation in respect of
the trees. Learned advocate submitted that the price of the land
determined by the Reference Court is within four times the price of
the land determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and,
therefore, in view of the Government Resolution dated
23.02.2017, the Court may pass appropriate orders. In short, it is
submitted that this appeal with regard to the price of the land is
covered by that Resolution. As far as the well is concerned, learned
advocate submitted that the claimant, on the basis of the evidence
of the valuer, has claimed the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for
the well. However, after considering the evidence, the
compensation for well was quantified at Rs.58,000/-. It is
submitted that it is excessive and exorbitant.
05] I have minutely perused the record and proceedings. As
far as the compensation awarded in respect of the land is
concerned, there is no need to interfere with the same, inasmuch as
it is within four times of the compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer. As far as the compensation for the well is
concerned, I have gone through the evidence of the valuer and the
claimant. In their evidence, the year of the construction of the well,
-4- 22.FA.783.2022.Judgment.odt
the nature of the construction, the material used for the well, and
other details of the well have been established.
06] The perusal of the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court would show that the Reference
Court has taken the entire evidence and other factors into
consideration to determine the price of the well. On re-
appreciation of the evidence, I do not see any reason to interfere
with the finding recorded by the Reference Court. In view of this, I
do not see any substance in the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Vijay
Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/02/2024 16:21:28
