Sharad S/O Vitthalrao Maind v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Yavatmal And 2 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.539/2015

(1) Sharad Vitthalrao Maind, Aged about 48 years, Occ.- Agriculturist, R/o. Santosh nagar (Sant Tukaram Chauk) Balaji Provision, Khadki, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola. ... Appellant. -Versus1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Yavatmal.

2. The Executive Engineer, Bembala Project Division, Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal.

3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (Original Respondents On R.A.) Bembla Project, Yavatmal. .... Respondents. Mr. S.V. Ingole, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. M.A. Kadu, Advocate for respondent no.2.

Mrs. M. Deshmukh, AGP for respondents no.1 and 3. CORAM : AVINASH G GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 05-12-2022.

O R A L J U D G M E N T .

Heard Mr. Ingole, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kadu, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and Mrs. Deshmukh, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3.

2.

The factual position in the present appeal is as under - Bembla River Project, District Yavatmal Date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

27/02/2003 Property details Details of property LAO Award Ref. Court Award Dated Dated 22/09/2005 02-03-2012 Gat No.325 6.42 HR Rs.69,157/- per hectare Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare Village:

Pimpal Khuta Tahsil Babhulgaon District :

Yavatmal 3.

The appeal challenges the judgment of the Reference Court dated 02-03-2012, whereby the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for the agricultural land from Rs.69,157/- per hectare in respect of Gat Nos.325, as detailed above. 4.

The claimant claims enhancement of the rate at Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare based upon the judgment in LAC No.557/2009 (Krushna Natthuji Jadhav Vs. State) decided on 25/1/2016, which was in respect of Gat No.1 of village Pimpalkhuta, challenge in respect of which in First Appeal No.656/2018 was withdrawn on 23/10/2018 and so also the judgment of the reference Court in LAC No.145/2007 (Ganesh Pundlik Iratkar Vs. State) decided on 21/5/2014, appeal against which being First Appeal St. No.6188/2007, which was in respect of Gat No.263 has also been withdrawn on 8/01/2019, whereas Mr. Kadu, learned Counsel for the

acquiring body submits that the rate cannot be beyond Rs.2,10,000/- relying upon the judgment of this Court in Vasant Purushottam Pande Vs. Executive Engineer (First Appeal No.1182/2018 with connected matters) decided 28/1/2021, which was in respect of Gat no.265 at Pimpalkhuta, which was in respect of Dry Crop land, which is the status of the present land in question too.

5.

The village Map of village Pimpalkhuta has been provided by Shri S.V. Ingole, learned counsel for the claimant from which the comparative position of Gat Nos.325 with that of Gat Nos. 263 and Gat No.265 can be depicted as under :-

6.

The above would clearly depict that Gat No.325 is on the North-East end of the village, and is dry crop land. The fact that the land in question, is a dry crop land is further demonstrated by Exh-23, the 7/12 extract, which indicate that the cultivation therefrom, was what was available in respect of dry crop land and not otherwise, considering which, since a rate of Rs.2,10,000/- has been granted for dry crop land in Vasant Purushottam Pande (supra) as indicated above, the appellant would be entitled for that rate for the land of Gat No.325, as Krushna Natthuji Jadhav and Ganesh Pundlik Iratkar (supra) were for irrigated and semi irrigated land and therefore would not be applicable. 7.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment of the learned Reference Court is modified by increasing the rate of compensation for agriculture land to Rs. 2,10,000/- per HR. 8.

The respondent no.2 shall calculate the amounts as per the above judgment, and shall deposit the same in this Court within a period of six weeks from today. It is made clear that while calculating the aforesaid amount, interest as per Civil Application (F) No.895/2015 dated 10-04-2015 for the delayed period, shall not be calculated. The appropriate court fee upon the enhanced claim, in case payable will also

be paid by the claimants. The First Appeal is accordingly partly allowed in the above terms. No costs.

JUDGE Deshmukh