Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Kishore Vishwasrao Shirpurkar, And ... on 30 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6461
-- 1 -- FA 244.2014 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2014
Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through its Executive
Engineer, Lower Wardha Project .. Appellant
Division, Wardha,
Tah. & District : Wardha
Versus
1) Kishore Vishwasrao Shirpurkar,
Age 30 years, R/o.Boragaon(Hatala),
Tah.Arvi, District - Wardha
2) The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Wardha .. Respondents
District - Wardha
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Wardha, District - Wardha
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.A.kadu, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. V.S.Kukday, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mrs.Hemlata Dhande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATED : JUNE 30, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
(2) The appellant/respondent in the reference petition,
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (For short, ' VIDC') being
PAGE 1 OF 7
-- 2 -- FA 244.2014 (J).doc
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21/12/2012 passed by the
learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Reference Court') in L.A.C.No.74/2007, whereby allowed the
reference of the petitioner therein and directed the respondent Nos.1 to
3 therein to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.12,06,695/- to
the applicant/claimant as an additional/enhanced compensation
towards acquisition of the land along with other benefits, preferred this
appeal.
(3) On 15/01/1999, Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act of 1894') was published in
the Official Gazette of the land of Mouja Borgaon (Hatala), Tahsil Arvi,
District - Wardha. After complying with the necessary procedure, the
award was passed on 25/02/2003 and granted compensation of
Rs.50,500/- per hectare to the landholders. Accordingly, a
compensation amount of Rs.81,305 was awarded to the respondent,
No.1, Kishor, for the acquisition of 1.61 hectares of land.
(4) The respondent No.1, being dissatisfied with the award
above, had preferred a Reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894
before the Reference Court, which allowed the claim bearing L.A.C.
No.74/2007 and granted enhanced compensation of Rs.33,40,000/- for
the acquired land. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred
this appeal.
PAGE 2 OF 7
-- 3 -- FA 244.2014 (J).doc
(5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
original record and proceedings, including the award and evidence.
Having considered the same, the following point arises for my
determination:-
(1) Whether any interference is required in the impugned
judgment?
(6) Learned counsel Mr. Kadu, for the appellant, vehemently
contended that the learned Reference Court has erred in relying on the
Sale Deed Exh. 33 of Mouja Bhaipur Grampanchayat, Savlapur (Rith)
Taluka Arvi, District - Wardha, which was executed on 03/01/2008.
Moreover, the said land was located near Arvi Taluka and adjacent to
the N.A. Plotting, therefore, he submitted that the findings recorded by
the learned Reference Court are incorrect and contrary to the evidence
on record. He further took me through the 25 sale instances considered
by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) while awarding the compensation.
He further submitted that the award granted by the LAO was just and
proper. On the other hand, the order passed by the learned Reference
Court is contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore, the same is
liable to be set aside in the appeal.
(7) On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Kukday, for the
respondent No.1 / original petitioner, vehemently contended that the
learned Reference Court, after considering the evidence, has rightly
PAGE 3 OF 7
-- 4 -- FA 244.2014 (J).doc
enhanced the compensation amount. He has taken me through
paragraphs Nos.7, 11, and 12 of the impugned judgment and
submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court
were just and proper, and no interference is required in it in the
appellate jurisdiction.
(8) Having heard the rival submissions of the parties, I have
gone through the record, evidence of the respondent No.1. On perusal
of his evidence, it is apparent that the respondent No.1 was relying on
the sale instance dated 03/01/2008 of Mouja Bhaipur Grampanchayat,
Savlapur (Rith) Taluka Arvi, District - Wardha which was executed 9
years after issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act of
1894. Moreover, the village of Bhaipur is located near Arvi. The second
sale instance on which applicant/respondent No. 1 is relying is that of
village Mouja Pachegaon, which is adjacent to the village of Borgaon
(Hatala). The said sale Deed was executed on 07/03/1998, wherein the
valuation of the 'three-acres' land was shown as Rs.2,70,000/-,
(Rs.2,25,000 per hectare) i.e., less than what was granted by the
learned Reference Court. I have also gone through the findings
recorded by the learned Reference Court; it appears that the learned
Reference Court, while enhancing the compensation, erred in relying on
the Sale Deed of 2008 instead of the sale instance of 1998. A Bare
perusal of the said Sale Deed (Exh. 33) reveals that it was executed on
PAGE 4 OF 7
-- 5 -- FA 244.2014 (J).doc
3rd January 2008. The four boundaries of the said land indicate that it
was located on the Arvi-Deurwada Road (towards the north), as well as
to the West and South of the said plot/land, and layouts of the plots
exist. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant,
the land is located near Arvi town as compared to Borgaon (Hatala)
village.
(9) Having considered the said averments in the Sale Deed,
in my view, the Reference Court has erred in relying on the Sale Deed
dated 03/01/2008 instead of the Sale Deed of 98 of village Pachegaon
at Exh. 27, which was produced by the respondent No.1 himself before
the learned Reference Court, as the notification under section 4 was
published on 15/01/1999. The said Sale Deed was executed on
07/03/1998 and corresponds to the Notification under Section 4 of the
Act of 1894. Therefore, it would be proper on the part of the Reference
Court to consider the said Sale Deed of 98 instead of the sale deed of
2008, which was executed 9 years after the issuance of the notification
and at a distinct location and having higher potentials, while
considering the question of grant of compensation to the respondent
No.1.
(10) The learned Reference Court erred in observing that LAO
neither entered the witness box nor adduced any evidence. In fact, it
was incumbent on the respondent No.1 to adduce cogent and reliable
PAGE 5 OF 7
-- 6 -- FA 244.2014 (J).doc
evidence in support of his contention, but he failed to produce any
cogent evidence on record. It is evident that respondent No. 1 failed to
discharge the burden cast upon him while adducing the evidence;
however, the learned Reference Court erred in relying on the sale
instance of 2008 instead of the sale instance of 1998. Thus, the
findings recorded by the learned Reference Court cannot be sustained
in the eyes of the law and interference is required in the said order in
that regard.
(11) At this stage I would like to refer the judgment passed by
this Court in VIDC Wardha vs. Vikram Laxmanrao Deshmukh 2020(1)
Mh.L.J.931 in respect of the same acquisition proceeding, wherein this
Court after considering the various judgments of the Apex court as well
as this court and material on record held that the landholder is entitled
for the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare and remaining part
of the judgment was maintained as it is. The case in hand and the facts
in the above judgment are similar, arising out of the same acquisition
proceeding; therefore, in my view, the case of the claimant, i.e. original
applicant/respondent No.1, is covered by the said judgment. While
reaching this conclusion, the Court has also considered the sale
instance dated 07/03/1998, wherein 1H 21R land was sold for a
consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/-. Herein, also, respondent No.1 adduced
the same evidence before the learned Reference Court, and therefore,
PAGE 6 OF 7
-- 7 -- FA 244.2014 (J).doc
this case is squarely covered by the mandate laid down by this Court in
the judgment. Moreover, the said judgment was neither challenged by
the parties nor set aside to date; therefore, it would be proper to hold
that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to receive compensation at Rs.
2,50,000 per hectare instead of Rs. 8 Lakh per hectare.
(12) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
judgment and award dated 21/12/2012 passed by Civil Judge Senior
Division, Wardha in L.A.C.No.74/2005 is hereby quashed and set aside
to the extent of the grant of the compensation @ Rs.8,00,000/- per
hectare and modified that the appellant shall pay compensation
@ Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare, along with consequential benefits. The
remaining part of the judgment is maintained as it is.
(13) Needless to clarify that by orders dated 04/07/2014 and
29/07/2014, the respondent No.1 was permitted to withdraw 1/4th of
the amount deposited by the appellant in the Court by furnishing surety
in the like amount. Accordingly, the appellant is permitted to recover
the amount paid in excess, if entitled to do so, in accordance with the
law.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 7 OF 7
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/07/2025 17:54:24
