Bombay High Court
Diwakar Pandurang Chambhare vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 9 July, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6497
1 8fa866.2014..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 866 OF 2014
Diwakar Pandurang Chambhore,
Aged about 51 yrs,
R/o. Kolhi, Tq. Babhulgaon,
District Yavatmal .....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal,
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bembla Project, Yavatmal
3. Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project,
Behind Date College, Yavatmal,
Tq. Dist. Yavatmal .....RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vishwa Gadbaile, Advocate h/f Mr. K.S. Narwade
Mr. V.B. Rathi, Advocate h/f Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
Ms. M.R. Kavimandan, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : 09.07.2025
JUDGMENT (Per: Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Heard learned counsel for both parties.
2. The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 15.01.2013, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior
Division, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 471/2007, whereby
2 8fa866.2014..odt
partly allowed the Reference Petition, has preferred this appeal.
3. The appellant/petitioner in reference is the owner of Gut
No. 30, admeasuring 1H 62R, situated at the village Kolhi, Tq.
Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as " the land").
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have issued notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act")
and Government Gazette dated 05.06.2003. Pursuant to the said
notification, respondents acquired the appellant's land. The Land
Acquisition Officer, by award dated 22.09.2005, awarded
compensation of Rs. 72,735/- per hectare and granted consequential
benefits.
4. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the appellant has filed
reference under Section 18 of the Act, before Reference Court for
enhancement of the compensation, after considering the evidence on
record, the Reference Court has partly allowed the reference and
enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 1,65,000/- per hectare instead of
Rs. 72,735/- per hectare and granted other benefits also. The
Appellant, being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, has
preferred this Appeal.
3 8fa866.2014..odt
5. Heard Mr. Vishwa Gadbaile, Advocate h/f Mr. K.S.
Narwade, learned counsel for appellant, Mr. V.B. Rathi, Advocate h/f
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 3, and Ms. M.R. Kavimandan,
AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State. On perusal of the record
and hearing both sides, the following point arises for determination:
Whether any interference is required in the impugned
judgment and order?
6. Learned counsel for the appellant is relying upon the
judgment passed in the Land Acquisition Case (L.A.C.) No. 396/2007
(Janardhan Maroti Sahare and Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through
Collector Yavatmal and Ors) and the judgment passed by this Court in
First Appeal No. 862/2016 (Narendra Shankarrao Dagwar Vs. The
Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal) and submitted
that the said judgments cover his case since his land is having the
same potential and acquired under the same acquisition
proceedings, therefore, he has urged for grant of enhanced
compensation for land @ Rs. 2,68,000/- per hectare as granted by
the Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 396/2007 ( supra) and considered
by this Court in F. A. No. 862/2016 (supra).
7. In response to this, learned counsel for respondent No. 3
does not dispute said facts and what has been held in L. A. C. No.
4 8fa866.2014..odt
396/2007 (supra) and F. A. No. 862/2016 (supra), and submitted
that the learned Reference Court, as well as this Court, has granted
compensation at Rs. 2,68,000/- per hectare to the dry crop land so,
the same compensation can be awarded in this appeal as was given
in the above-referred proceedings regarding dry crop land. He does
not dispute that the land acquired in the present case is dry crop
land.
In view of the facts above and the fact that Reference Court
as well as this Court in similar matters has granted compensation @
Rs. 2,68,000/- per hectare, therefore, in my view, it would be proper
to while awarding the compensation to the appellant, in such an
eventuality, the rate granted to the appellant has required to be
enhanced. Consequently, the compensation in that regard has to be
enhanced, which would not cause prejudice to the rights of any of
the parties.
8. Thus, having considered the fact that the judgment of this
Court covers this matter, it would be proper to allow the appeal by
enhancing the compensation @ Rs. 2,68,000/- per hectare instead of
Rs. 1,65,000/-per hectare by maintaining the rest of the order. As a
result, I answer the point partly in the affirmative accordingly.
5 8fa866.2014..odt
9. As such, the Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment
and order dated 15.01.2013 in Land Acquisition Case No. 396/2007
is hereby modified to the extent of grant of compensation @ Rs.
2,68,000/- per hector instead of Rs. 1,65,000/- per hector. The rest
of the judgment shall remain as it is.
10. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the difference in the
amount of compensation, if any, that should be deposited in this
Court, within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of this judgment.
11. On deposit of the amount, the same shall be paid to the
appellant within four weeks thereafter, on his furnishing bank
account details to the Registry. The appeal is disposed of. No order
as to costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Belkhede
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/07/2025 13:27:40
