Bombay High Court
Ananda Tukaram Bamdale (Dead) Thr. Lrs. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 12 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:579
25.fa.902.2022 judge.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 902 OF 2022
Ananda Tukaram Bamdale (dead),
Through his legal heirs,
1) Deorao S/o. Ananda Bamdale,
Aged : 66 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,
2) Bhimrao S/o. Ananda Bamdale,
Aged : 63 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,
3) Kautikrao S/o. Ananda Bamdale (dead),
Through his legal heirs,
3-1) Smt. Kavita Wd/o. Kautikrao Bamdale,
Aged : 30 Yrs., Occ.: Household,
3-2) Ku Sheetal W/o. Kautikrao Bamdale,
Aged : 18 Yrs., Occ.: Student,
All are R/o. Kardi, Post - Dhad,
Tah. & Dist. Buldana
.... APPELLANTS
// V E R S U S //
State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Buldana ... RESPONDENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr S. P. Pawar, Advocate for the appellants
Mr M. A. Kadu, AGP for the State/respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : 12/01/2024
25.fa.902.2022 judge.odt
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Heard.
2 ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Advocates for the parties.
3 The land of the appellants bearing Gat No.72
admeasuring 2.48 H.R. was acquired for construction of storage
tank vide award dated 01.04.1993. Notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 19.03.1992. The
land acquisition officer awarded the compensation @ of Rs.15,000/-
per hector. The appellants filed the reference for enhancement of
the compensation. The reference Court partly allowed the reference
and enhanced the compensation to Rs.88,920/- per hector.
According to the appellants, they are entitle to get more
compensation. In this appeal, the judgment and order passed by the
reference Court dated 08.02.2005 has been challenged.
4 I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
Perused the record and proceedings.
25.fa.902.2022 judge.odt
5 Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that this
appeal is covered by the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Cross Objection No. 38 of 2013 in First
Appeal No. 970 of 2008 (Krushna S/o. Vishwanath Sananse
through LR's .v/s. The State of Maharashtra), decided on
13.12.2019. Learned Advocate submitted that the land in this
appeal and the land in Cross Objection No. 38 of 2013 in First
Appeal No. 970 of 2008 are situated in close proximity. Learned
Advocate pointed out that both the lands are seasonally irrigated
lands and therefore, the appellants are entitled to get the
compensation awarded by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Cross Objection No. 38 of 2013 in First Appeal No. 970 of 2008
i.e. @ of Rs.1,80,000/- per hector. Learned Advocate pointed out
that the compensation of Rs.15,000/- is paid for acquisition of the
well which was situated in this land.
6 Learned AGP submitted that there is no evidence to
establish that the land was irrigated. Learned AGP submitted that
the crop pattern reflected in the 7/12 extract does not indicate that
25.fa.902.2022 judge.odt
the land was irrigated. Learned AGP submitted that the
compensation paid for acquisition of Well by itself would not be
sufficient to conclude that the land was irrigated.
7 It is undisputed that the land in this appeal and land in
the cross objection relied upon are situated at village Karadi The
lands are situated in close proximity. The only question that needs
to be addressed is whether the land of the appellants was irrigated
land or not. I have gone through the oral and documentary
evidence. The crop pattern can be seen from the 7/12 extract. The
searching cross examination was conducted in an attempt to bring
on record the material against the appellants. The advocate
conducting the cross examination has brought some material which,
in my view, goes against the respondent. Appellant -Deorao Ananda
Bamdale was asked about the place they were sending the sugar
cane. He has answered to the said question and stated that they
were sending sugar cane to Sillod Sugar Factory, Buldana. It is seen
that the compensation was paid for acquisition of well. The
existence of well in the acquired land is the important fact in favour
25.fa.902.2022 judge.odt
of the appellants. It is not the case of the respondent that there was
no water to the well. In my view considering the material on record,
the case of the appellants that the land was seasonally irrigated
deserves acceptance.
8 In view of this, I conclude that the land in this appeal
and the land in the appeal which was subject matter of Cross
Objection No. 38 of 2013 in First Appeal No. 970 of 2008 are
similarly situated. The appellants, therefore, would be entitled to
get the compensation @ of Rs.1,80,000/- per hector for their land.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
9 The respondent is directed to pay the compensation @
of Rs.1,80,000/- per hector with interest and other benefits as
quantified by the reference Court. The appellants will not be
entitled to get the interest and other benefits for the delayed period
i.e. 5525 days.
10 Decree be drawn up accordingly.
11 The respondent is directed to deposit the amount of
25.fa.902.2022 judge.odt
difference within six months with the Registry of this Court.
12 The appellants/claimants are required to pay the deficit
Court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation. If the deficit
Court fee is not paid by the appellants/claimants, then the same
shall be recovered/deducted from the enhanced compensation
amount.
13 The first appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Namrata
Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/01/2024 18:59:25
