G.M.I.D.C. Aurangabad Thr The Exe. Engineer, Lower Terna Project, Lift Irrigation Work, Osmanabad v. Nagarbai Nivrutti Mali Died Thr Her Lrs Subhadrabai And Others

1 CA8864.2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

9 FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.3420 OF 2016 G.M.I.D.C. AURANGABAD THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOWER TERNA PROJECT, LIFT IRRIGATION WORK, OSMANABAD .. Appellant

VERSUS

NAGARBAI NIVRUTTI MALI (DIED) THROUGH HER LRS SUBHADRABAI MARUTI MALI AND OTHERS ..Respondents ...

Advocate for Appellant :

Shri. P. V. Tapse Patil Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 5 :

Shri. N.S. Patil h/f Shri. R.P. Adgaonkar AGP for Respondent No.6 / State :

Shri. S.P. Sonpawale ...

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8864 OF 2016 CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.

Dated: July 13, 2017 PER COURT :

.

In view of the order passed below the application under Condonation of Delay, the matter is taken up for final hearing with consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the acquiring body and the learned Counsel appearing for respondents/claimants. Perused the

2 CA8864.2016.doc impugned Judgment & Award. The land, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, is admeasuring only 17 Are and the total compensation as has been awarded by the Reference Court is of Rs.34,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per Are. Perusal of the impugned Judgment shows that, the Reference Court had considered the sale instances placed on record by the claimant. Admittedly, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the State or the acquiring body. On perusal of the impugned Judgment, it does not appear to me that, the tribunal has committed any error in determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per Are.

Having regard to the fact that, the acquisition is of the year 1993, the land acquired is a small piece of land admeasuring 17 Are and further that, the amount involved in total is Rs.34,000/-, it does not appear to me that, this Court shall cause any indulgence in such matter. Even otherwise as I mentioned earlier, there is no unreasonableness in the conclusion recorded by the tribunal. I, therefore, do not see any reason to cause interference in the impugned Judgment. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed, however without any order as to the costs.

(ii) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( P. R. BORA, J. ) ggp