Bombay High Court
V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer vs Ramdas Natthuji Borge And 4 Ors on 26 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6217
-- 1 -- FA 1252.2009 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1252 OF 2009
Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, Through its Executive
Engineer, Bembla Project Division, .. Appellant
Taq & Dist. Yavatmal
Versus
1. Ramdas Natthuji Borge,
Age 45 years, Occ. - Cultivator
2. Haridas Natthuji Borge,
Age 40 years, Occ. Cultivator
1 & 2 R/o. Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon
Dist. Yavatmal
3. Smt.Renukabai Shriram Khandare,
Age 55 years, R/o. Antargaon, .. Respondents
Tq. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal
4. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal
5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bembla Project, Yavatmal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Amol B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishwa Gadbaile, Advocate h/f Mr. K.S.Narwade, Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs.Mukta Kavimandan, AGP for respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATED : JUNE 26, 2025
PAGE 1 OF 7
-- 2 -- FA 1252.2009 (J).doc
ORAL JUDGMENT
(1) Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
(2) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and Award
dated 20/08/2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,
Yavatmal (for short, 'Court') in LAC No.263/2003, whereby the
reference was partly allowed, hence preferred this appeal.
(3) The respondent Nos.1 to 3/original applicants were the
owners of Bhukhand/Plot No.116 of Village Barad, Taq. Babhulgaon,
District - Yavatmal, admeasuring 83 Sq. Mtr. having construction over
it to the extent of 40.40 Sq.Mtr. The appellant acquired the said land
under the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1894') dated 31/12/1998.
Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as
'LAO') had passed the Award and granted compensation of ₹33,866/-.
Learned LAO awarded compensation @ ₹ 55 per Sq. Mtr. for open plot
and ₹ 715/- per Sq. Mtr. for the construction thereon.
(4) Being aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had
filed Reference Application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 for
enhancement of the compensation. After considering the material
PAGE 2 OF 7
-- 3 -- FA 1252.2009 (J).doc
placed on record, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the
application, whereby increased the compensation amount to ₹55 per
Sq.Ft. i.e. 592/- per Sq.Mtr. for open plot and ₹1500/- per Sq. Mtr. for
construction/structure over the said plot, along with the solatium. The
appellant, dissatisfied with the same and has preferred this appeal.
(5) Heard learned counsel Mr. Amol Patil, for appellant,
learned counsel Mr. Vishwa Gadbaile, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and
learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. Mukta Kavimandan, for
respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Perused the impugned judgment and award,
as well as the original record.
(6) Having considered the same, the following point arises
for the determination :-
1) Whether any interference is required in the
impugned judgment and order?
(7) Learned counsel Mr. Amol Patil for the appellant fairly
concedes that the appellant Authority has granted a rate of ₹ 500/- per
Sq. Mtr. for the acquisition of the open plot/land in the said village.
However, he vehemently submitted that the valuer failed to produce
the working notes of the inspection of the plot and structure thereon
before the Court, so also the valuer was unable to demonstrate the age
of the structure, and therefore, he submitted that enhancement of the
PAGE 3 OF 7
-- 4 -- FA 1252.2009 (J).doc
compensation beyond ₹500/- per Sq. Mtr. for the open plot is
excessive; thus, he urged to partly allow the appeal by modifying the
impugned judgment and order.
(8) Learned counsel Mr. Gadbaile, appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 3, submitted that the learned Reference Court has rightly
considered the evidence on record and passed the judgment; therefore,
he supports the order passed by the learned Reference Court. He
further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is covered
by the judgment in First Appeal in VIDC vs. Ramrao Ajabrao Korde
through LRs and others decided on 23/11/2022, and the order in First
Appeal No.960/2007 (The Executive Engineer Bembla Project Yavatmal vs.
Damodhar thr. LRs and others) decided on 05/12/2022. As such, he
argued that there is no merit in the appeal; hence, he implores that it
be dismissed.
(9) It is pertinent to note that learned counsel for the
appellant candidly conceded that the appellant Authority has granted a
rate of ₹500/- per Sq.Mtr. to other land/plot holders for the acquisition
of their open plot/land in the said village under the same acquisition
proceedings. The learned Judge, after considering the evidence on
record in para 11, held that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to get
compensation of ₹55 per Sq.Ft. for the open plot and are entitled to get
PAGE 4 OF 7
-- 5 -- FA 1252.2009 (J).doc
compensation of ₹1,500 for the structure standing on the said plot to
meet the ends of justice.
(10) I have perused the evidence of applicant No.2, Haridas,
as well as the valuer, Mr. Chandrashekhar Panjabrao Wankhade, who
has obtained a Civil Engineering Degree and is doing the job of
Consulting Engineer, Building Planner, Designer and Property Valuer. In
paragraph 3 of the affidavit, Chandrashekhar categorically deposed that
the house was constructed on the said plot in 1988, with an area
admeasuring 40.40 Sq.Mtr. (i.e. 435 Sq.Ft.). In para 2 of the affidavit,
he categorically deposed that the plot was located in the Gavthan area
and therefore, he determined the valuation of the plot and the
structure thereon. He further deposed that the market rate of the land
existing in the Gavthan of village Pahur was ₹1076/- per Sq. Mtr.
(₹100/- per Sq.Ft.). Accordingly, he determined the value of the land
to be ₹89,300/-. However, during cross-examination, his testimony
neither specifically denied nor was shattered, and therefore, it
remained unchallenged. Thus, it seems that during his cross-
examination, his testimony to the extent of valuation of the land and
construction therein remained unshattered.
(11) On perusal of the judgment in VIDC vs. Ramrao (supra),
this Court has confirmed the order of the Reference Court for grant of
PAGE 5 OF 7
-- 6 -- FA 1252.2009 (J).doc
compensation to the open plot to ₹424/- per Sq. Mtr. from ₹70/- per
Sq.Mtr. and ₹2900/- per Sq.Mtr. for the constructed area. However, in
the case at hand, the learned Reference Court has awarded
compensation of ₹1500 per Sq. Mtr. for constructed area and after
considering the evidence of the valuer, awarded compensation @ ₹592/-
per Sq.Mtr. for the open plot. Similarly, in the case of Executive
Engineer Bembla Project, Yavatmal vs. Damodhar (supra), the learned
Reference Court awarded ₹500/- per Sq. Mtr. for open plot was
considered just, proper, and reasonable. Therefore, having considered
the facts of the case, it appears that if the rate for the constructed area
is increased from ₹1,500 to ₹2,900 per sq. Mtr., then it would not make
any difference in the total compensation awarded by the learned
Reference Court under the head of open plot and structure. The
difference in the rate in the constructed area (i.e. 2900-1500=1400
excess) would compensate for the excess compensation of ₹92/- per
Sq.Mtr. (592-500=92) granted for the open plot, therefore, I do not
find substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant in
this regard. Moreover, the evidence of the valuer was not shaken or
shattered during his cross-examination regarding the market rate of
the open plot and the construction thereon. Similarly, the appellant
failed to produce a valuation report prepared by the competent officer
on record regarding the open plot and the structure situated on it, to
substantiate its claim. Had the appellant been relying on the inspection
PAGE 6 OF 7
-- 7 -- FA 1252.2009 (J).doc
report carried out by the Engineer, they would certainly have produced
it before the Reference Court. However, the non-production of the said
report leads to drawing an adverse inference against it.
(12) Considering the above discussion, it is evident that the
appellant failed to demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the
learned Reference Court is exorbitant to interfere with it in the
appellate jurisdiction. On the other hand, it can be noted that the plot
involved in the case had a better location and greater potential; thus, it
cannot be said that the compensation awarded is unreasonable to
interfere with it in the appeal. Therefore, the judgment and award
passed by the learned Reference Court appear to be just, legal, and
proper, and no interference is required in it. Hence, I answer point
No.1 in the negative. Consequently, the First Appeal being bereft of
merit, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 7 OF 7
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/07/2025 14:37:28
