Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Thr Its Executive Engineer v. Bhagwan S/O Lakshman Nagave, And Others

2024:BHC-NAG:4965 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1048 OF 2012 W ITH CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 42 OF 2024 ..........

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1048 OF 2012 APPELLANT :

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.2, Chikhali, Buldhana.

//VERSUS// RESPONDENTS : 1.

Bhagwan S/o. Lakshman Nagave, Aged about 56 Years, Occupation :

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

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 No.1.

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

************************************************************** WITH CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 42 OF 2024 CROSS-OBJECTOR :

Bhagwan S/o. Lakshman Nagave, Aged about 56 Years, Occupation :

Agriculturist, R/o. Kardi, Tq. & Dist. Buldhana.

-2- //VERSUS// RESPONDENTS : 1.

Viderbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division-II, Chikhali, Buldhana.

2.

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works, Buldhana.

************************************************************** Mr. R.B. Dhore, Advocate with Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the Cross-objector.

Mr. Ritesh Kalra, Advocate for Respondent No.1. 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 14.01.2011, 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 Date 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 14.01.2011

-3Village: Kardi, Tahsil & District :

Buldhana Gat No.44 0H 16R Rs.22,000/- per hectare Rs.2,80,000/- per hectare 03] Respondent No.1 filed the reference before the Collector, Buldhana. The Collector, Buldhana, made over the reference to the Civil Court. It is the case of respondent No.1 that his land was irrigated. According to him, the price of the land determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. According to him, the market price of the acquired land was more than Rs.3,00,000/- 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.2,80,000/- per hectare. 04] The appellant/Acquiring Body, being aggrieved by this judgment and award, has filed this appeal. Respondent No.1 has filed the cross-objection.

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] On going through the record and proceedings, it is seen that the land was acquired for the purpose of Kardi Minor Irrigation Tank. The date of award in both the cases is same. It is, therefore, apparent that the land in First Appeal No.968/2012 is similarly situated with the land of the claimant. The Reference Court has held that the land of the claimant was irrigated land. The land in First Appeal No.968/2012 was also irrigated land. In my view, the Reference Court has rightly determined the market price of the land. As such, no interference is warranted in the wellreasoned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.

As a result of this, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 08] As far as the cross-objection is concerned, on going through the judgment and award, I conclude that the Reference Court has awarded just, proper, and reasonable compensation on the basis of the two sale deeds discussed in First Appeal No.968/2012. As such, the contention of the cross-objector that the market price of the dry crop land would be Rs.

-5cannot be accepted. His contention that he is entitled to get double the price of dry crop land in respect of the acquired land as such cannot be accepted. The cross-objection, therefore, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(G. A. SANAP, J.) Vijay