Manikrao Masnaji Sustarphod v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.719 OF 2013 Manohar s/o Shankarappa Rakte ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
... RESPONDENTS .......
Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for appellant Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2 Mrs. Sunita D. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3. .......
AND FIRST APPEAL NO.734 OF 2017 Keshav s/o Ganpati, Died, by L.R.
Prayagbai w/o Keshav ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
... RESPONDENTS .......
Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for appellant Mr. A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. S.G. Karlekar, Advocate for respondent No.3. .......
AND FIRST APPEAL NO.714 OF 2019 Bhagwan s/o Piraji Nuqulwad ... APPELLANT
:: 2 ::
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
... RESPONDENTS .......
Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for appellant Mr. A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2 Mrs. Sunita D. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3. .......
AND FIRST APPEAL NO.3900 OF 2019 Manikrao s/o Masnaji Sustarphod ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
... RESPONDENTS .......
Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for appellant Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. Sham B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3. .......
CORAM :
R. G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE :
3rd DECEMBER, 2021 PER COURT :
Heard. All these appeals have been preferred by the original claimants whose house properties have been compulsorily acquired for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer offered the amount of compensation as under :
:: 3 ::
Amount of compensation offered Rs.1,27,987/- Rs.73,249/- Rs.58,641/- Rs.46,873/- 2.
Having been dissatisfied with the offer, the house owners preferred respective Land Acquisition References for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court allowed the References except one i.e. L.A.R. No.49/2008, granting enhancement as shown in Column No.2 in the tabular form below :
Amount enhanced by Reference Court Rs.29,846/- Rejected Rs.14,660/- Rs.11,718/- 3.
The claim in L.A.R. No.49/2008 was rejected on the ground of mis-description, particularly giving the house
:: 4 ::
number. It is, however, not disputed that, the house which has been acquired was one and the same and it was only a mistake. In all these references, the Valuer has made valuation of the house properties that have been acquired and gave his report. The valuation of the respective house properties given by the expert is shown in Column No.3 below.
As per valuation report Rs.2,94,457/- Rs.1,14,958/- Rs.1,70,210/- Rs.1,48,114/- 4.
This Court, in First appeal No.1250/2009, vide judgment and order dated 6/10/2016, has observed that, the valuation report needs to be accepted, and on acceptance of the very report, enhanced the compensation in terms of the valuation made by the expert. The said matter was arising from one and the same acquisition proceedings. The house property therein was also from the very village. A similar treatment is, therefore, required to be given in all these
:: 5 ::
appeals. In view of the same, the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court in three of the matters and in one rejected matter is enhanced to one which has been given by the Valuer. In view of the same, the First Appeals are allowed in terms of the following order : 5.
The amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is enhanced as per the chart below :- Total amount of compensation granted by this Court Rs.2,94,457/- Rs.1,14,958/- Rs.1,70,210/- Rs.1,48,114/- 6.
Rest of the terms of the impugned award to stand unaltered.
( R. G. AVACHAT ) JUDGE fmp/-