State Of Mah v. Mrs Rukminibai Narayan Rane And ORS
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 01 Vimalbai Waman Chaudhari, age: 50 years, 02 Subhash Waman Choudhari, age: 25 years;
03 Narayan Waman Choudhari, age: 23 years;
04 Ushabai Prakash Mahajan, age: 40 years;
FIRST APPEAL NO.1193 OF 2005 01 Dnyandeo Dayaram Chaudhari, age: major,
{2} 02 Ganpati Dayaram Chaudhari, age: major;
03 Priyanka Suresh Choudhari, age: major;
04 Shantabai Dayaram Mahajan, age: major;
05 Jyoti Suresh Choudhari;
age: major, 06 Bharati Suresh Choudhari;
age: major, 07 Prashant Suresh Choudhari;
age: major, 08 Savita Suresh Choudhari;
age: major, 09 Jaishree Kishor Dake, age: major, Occ: All Agriculturists, R/o Varadshin, Tq.Bhusawal, FIRST APPEAL NO.1194 OF 2005 01 Kashinath Sandu Chaudhari, age: major,
{3} Occ: Agriculturist, FIRST APPEAL NO.1195 OF 2005 01 Rukminibai Narayan Rane age 75 years,\ Dwarkabai Sitaram Choudhari age 72 years Sagunabai Pandhari Bhole age 68 years Chandra Chindu Patil age 60 years Vimal Sopan Zambre age 45 years Maru Pandurang Patil age 58 years, Kamal Baliram Patil age 56 years.
{4} FIRST APPEAL NO. 1196 OF 2005 Namdeo Motiram Shekokare age 70 years, occ. Agriculturist r/o Vadashim, Tq. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon FIRST APPEAL NO. 1197 OF 2005 Pralhad Sandu Choudhari age major, occ. Agriculturists
{5} FIRST APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2005 01 Sukhdeo Shankar Dhangar age 56 years, 02 Suresh Namdeo Dhangar age 35 years 03 Sanjay Namdeo Dhangar age 30 years R/o Varadshhim, Tq. Bhusawal, FIRST APPEAL NO. 1199 OF 2005 01 Arjun Dashrath Patil age 45 years,
{6} 02 Madhav Pandurang Patil age 35 years FIRST APPEAL NO. 1200 OF 2005 01 Madhav Pandurang Patil age 45 years 02 Bhagwan Pandurang Patil age 40 years 03 Smt. Janabai Pandurang Patil age 60 years 04 Arun Dashrath Patil age 50 years Mr.A.M.Phule, A.G.P. for appellants.
Mr.M.R.Malpani, advocate holding for Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for Respondents.
{7} CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 16th FEBRUARY, 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT :
1.
Heard Mr. Phule, learned AGP for the appellant-State and Mr. Malpani, learned counsel holding for Mr. Kale, for respondentsclaimants. 2.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that all these appeals can be disposed of by common judgment and order since, all these appeals relate to acquisition of lands for Waghur project. Only the difference in these matters and the matters disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (III), Jalgaon and another Vs. Bhagwat Vithal Sonwane, 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 308, is that in these matters the acquisition was under section 4 notification dated 17.08.1997 and, in the case before Division Bench, the acquisition was under section 4 notification dated 21.08.1997. This is hardly any significant difference.
3.
Learned counsel for the parties point out that the issue raised in these appeals stand covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Bhagwat (supra). In the said decision, the Division Bench, in respect of acquisition for the very same project and under the very same notification has determined compensation for Bagayat land at Rs. 4,00,000/- per Hectare, Jirayat land at Rs. 2,00,000/- per Hectare and for Pot Kharab land at Rs. 1,00,000/- per Hectare.
{8} 4.
In all these matters, the determination of compensation by the reference Court is also the same as determined by the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwat (supra). Therefore, for reasons set out in the decision of the Division Bench, these appeals are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.
5.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( M.S. SONAK, J. ) dyb