Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Thru Its Executive Engineer v. Chagan S/O Chintaman Sanase (Since Dead ) Thr Lrs Smt. Shantabai Wd/O Chagan Sanase And Others

2024:BHC-NAG:4953 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1411 OF 2013 APPELLANT :

Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.2, Chikhali, Buldana.

//VERSUS// RESPONDENTS : 1.

Chagan S/o. Chitaman Sanase (Since Dead) through his LR's.

1(a) Smt. Shantabai Wd/o. Chagan Sanase, Aged about 66 Years, Occupation :

Household, R/o. Dhad, Tq. & Dist.

Buldhana.

1(b) Sau. Mangala W/o. Vijay Sirsat, Aged about 56 Years, Occupation :

Household, R/o. Karajgaon, Tq.

Bhokardhan, Distt. Jalna.

1(c) Sau. Pushpa W/o. Haridas Rajgure, Aged about 53 Years, Occupation :

Household, R/o. Sillod, Tq. & Dist.

Jalna.

1(d) Kailash S/o. Chaganrao Sanase, Aged about 43 Years, Occupation :

Agriculturist, R/o. Dhad, Tq. & Dist.

Buldhana.

1(e) Sau. Asha W/o. Suresh Bhale, Aged about 40 Years, Occupation :

Household, [R/o.7, CIDCCO, Ambedkar Nagar, Aurangabad] R/o.

G1/7, Ayodhya Nagar, Aurangabad.

Amendment carried out as per R (J) Order dt.

30.07.13

-21(f) Sau. Vaishali Bandu Sonavane (After Marriage), Ku. Vaishali Bandu Sonune (maiden name), Aged about 36 Years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Nr. Maroti Mandir, Harshul, Tah. & Dist. Aurangabad.

1(g) Subhash S/o. Chaganrao Sanase, Aged about 35 Years, Occupation :

Agriculturist, R/o. Dhad, Tq. & Distt.

Buldhana.

2.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Minor Irrigation Works, Buldhana.

************************************************************** Mr. Ritesh Kalra, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. R.B. Dhore, Advocate with Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(g).

Mr. Ganesh Umale, AGP for Respondent No.2.

************************************************************** CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J .

DATED : 27 th MARCH , 2024.

ORAL

JUDGMENT

.

In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and award dated 05.01.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Buldhana (for short "the Reference Court"), whereby the claim for enhancement of compensation was partly allowed. 02] The factual position in the present appeal is as under:- Kardi Minor Irrigation Tank, District Buldhana

-3Date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

16.09.1993 Address of property Details of property LAO Award Ref. Court Award Dated Dated 27.03.1996 05.01.2011 Village: Kardi, Tahsil & District :

Buldhana Gat No.46 08H 56.8R Rs.18,000/- per hectare Rs.1,40,000/- per hectare 03] The respondents/claimants filed the reference before the Collector, Buldhana. The Collector, Buldhana, made over the reference to the Civil Court. It is the case of the claimants that their land was dry-crop land. According to them, the price of the land determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. According to them, the market price of the acquired land was more than Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court, on the basis of the evidence, partly allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation from Rs.22,000/- to Rs.1,40,000/- per hectare. 04] The appellant/Acquiring Body, being aggrieved by this judgment and award, has filed this appeal.

05] I have heard learned advocates for the parties. Perused the record and proceedings.

06] Learned advocates for the parties submit that this appeal is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in First Appeal

-4No. 968/2012 [Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation thr. its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.2, Chikhali, Buldhana Vs. Subhash Narayan & Anr. On 27.03.2024]. 07] Learned advocate for the claimants submitted that the land in this appeal as well as the land in First Appeal No.968/2012 were acquired by the same notification and for the same purpose. Learned advocate submitted that the land in this appeal was dry-crop land and the land in First Appeal No.968/2012 was irrigated land. It is pointed out that the compensation awarded for irrigated land is Rs.2,80,000/- per hectare, and this Court has confirmed the same. It is submitted that, therefore, the compensation awarded for dry-crop land @ Rs.1,40,000/- per hectare is just, proper, and reasonable. It was 50% less than the compensation awarded for irrigated land.

08] On going through the record and proceedings, it is evident that the land was acquired for the purpose of Kardi Minor Irrigation Tank. The date of award in both the appeals is same. This appeal, in my view, is covered by the decision in First Appeal No.968/2012. The Reference Court has rightly determined the market price of the acquired land. As such, no interference is warranted in the well-reasoned judgment and award passed by the

-5Reference Court. As a result of this, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (G. A. SANAP, J.) Vijay