Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer, Bembla Project ... vs Vijay Vasantrao Hazare And Others on 6 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11729
1/6 42.Judg.fa.1636.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1636 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer, Bembla Project
Division, Yavatmal, Tahsil and District
Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Vijay Vasantrao Hazare
Aged about : 30 Years, Occu : Agriculturist;
R/o Samarth Wadi, Yavatmal, Tahsil and
District Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor
Irrigation Works No-II, Yavatmal, Tahsil and
District Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate a/w Mr. Yash Ghodichor, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. S. C. Joshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Mr. S. S. Bhalerao, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 06, 2025.
JUDGMENT
. Heard Mr. P. B. Patil, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. S. S.
Bhalerao, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. S. C. Joshi,
learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2/6 42.Judg.fa.1636.2019.odt
2. By the present Appeal, Appellant is challenging the Judgment and
Award dated 5/5/2016 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,
Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 241/2011.
3. The facts, which are not disputed in the present Appeal are that,
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the
Act of 1894') was published on 11/5/2000 for acquiring the land for
submergence of Bembla Project. In that acquisition proceeding, land of the
Respondent No.1 bearing Gat No. 836, admeasuring 1.93 HR situated at
mouza Pahur, Tahsil Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal was acquired. The Land
Acquisition Officer, in terms of compulsory acquisition of the land, has
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 56,931/- per hectare for 1.93 HR land
and Rs.16,344/- for trees.
4. The Respondent No.1, being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, preferred the reference under Section
18 of the Act of 1894 and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/-
per hectare. According to the Respondent No.1, his land being an irrigated
land and having good potentiality, the claim made by him is legal and proper.
The learned Reference Court on the ground of parity, by considering the
Judgment passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 131/2009, wherein the land
3/6 42.Judg.fa.1636.2019.odt
was acquired for the same purpose, awarded compensation of Rs.3,20,000/-
per hectare for land, however, by considering the fact that the Respondent
No.1 has restricted the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare
awarded the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare.
5. The Acquiring Body has preferred this Appeal mainly on the
ground that compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court at the rate
of Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare is exorbitant, because according to them, this
Court in the case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Yavatmal
V/s Anjali Sharad Ballal and others, 2013(2) Mh.L.J.456 has determined the
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per hectare. According to them, the
Appellant is entitled for compensation at the most at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/-
per hectare.
6. Per contra, the leaned Counsel for Respondent No.1 has
specifically pointed out that the Judgment, which the Appellant is relying
upon, is in respect of the valuation of the land having potentiality of dry crop
land. According to the Respondent No.1, land in question is an irrigated land,
and therefore, this Judgment is not applicable in the matter. Rather he stated
that if this Judgment is made applicable, then as per the settled position of law
for irrigated land, he is entitled for Rs.3,40,000/- per hectare.
4/6 42.Judg.fa.1636.2019.odt
7. The learned Counsel for Appellant has further stated that the land
owned by the Respondent No.1 is not an irrigated land, but it is a dry crop
land.
8. In view of this objection raised by the Appellant, with the able
assistance of the learned Counsel for both sides, I have gone through the
original record. As per notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 it
is specifically mentioned that compensation is awarded for the land, well and
fruit bearing trees. So also the 7/12 extract (Exhibit-23) shows that there was
a well and mango trees were standing in the land of Respondent No.1. So also
the Respondent No.1 has specifically demonstrated by way evidence that his
land is an irrigated land and for that purpose he entered into the witness-box.
The Respondent No.1 has cross-examined the present Appellant before the
Reference Court, however, nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate
that Respondent No.1 has wrongly claiming that acquired land is an irrigated
land.
9. Apart from above, it is admitted fact that the Appellant has neither
examined any witness to demonstrate that the land in question is not an
irrigated land nor any other document is placed on record to substantiate this
submission. Hence, in absence of any contrary evidence on record, there is no
5/6 42.Judg.fa.1636.2019.odt
reason to disbelieve the submission of the Respondent No.1 that the land
owned by him was an irrigated land.
10. The Respondent No.1, to substantiate his submission, has relied
upon the Judgment delivered by this Court in First Appeal No. 119/2018 on
25/9/2025. In the said Judgment, this Court was dealing with the land arising
out of the same Notification. This Court, by considering the fact that the land
involved therein was an irrigated land, has held that the Appellant therein is
entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.3,20,000/- per hectare.
11. Coming to the facts of the present case, Respondent No.1 has
fairly stated that though he was aware that he is entitled for compensation at
the rate of Rs.3,20,000/- per hectare, he has knowingly restricted his claim to
the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare. Therefore, considering this fact, I find no
need to interfere in the Judgment and order passed by the learned Reference
Court.
12. I am of the opinion that the learned Reference Court has rightly
considered the evidence and material placed on record and no apparent error
is found in the impugned Judgment. Hence, there is no merit in the present
Appeal. The same stands dismissed.
6/6 42.Judg.fa.1636.2019.odt
13. The Appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation
amount with the Registry of this Court as per the Award of Reference Court
dated 5/5/2016 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 241/2011 within a
period of three months.
14. The Respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the amount which
is already deposited before this Court as well as the balance amount as and
when deposited by the Appellant.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/11/2025 20:42:13
