← Library
Bombay High CourtFA/637/2016allowed

Suresh Dynoba Parimal And Another v. The Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal And 2 Others

2022-12-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.637/2016 APPELLANTS :

1) Suresh Dynoba Parimal On R.A.

Age - 57 yrs., Occ - Agriculturist.

2) Prashant Suresh Parimal Age - 35 yrs., Occ - Agriculturist.

Both 1 & 2 R/o :- Kolhi, Tq - Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS : 1) The Executive Engineer (On R.A.) Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal.

2) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bembla Project, Yavatmal, Yavatmal.

3) The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Yavatmal, Tq. And Dist. - Yavatmal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.B. Nakshane, Advocate for appellants Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mrs. S.S. Jachak, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 01/12/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.

Heard Shri A.B. Nakshane, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri M.A. Kadu, learned counsel for the respondent no.1

and Mrs. S.S. Jachak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.2 and 3.

2.

The appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Reference Court dated 01/08/2012 in respect of agricultural land bearing Gat No.36 admeasuring 3.03 HR for Village Kolhi, on account of submergence in the Bembla River Project, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of which, was issued in the Official Gazette for the State of Maharashtra on 05/06/2003. The award was passed on 22/09/2005, granting total compensation of Rs.73,871/- per hectare, which has been enhanced by the learned Reference Court by the judgment dated 01/08/2012 to Rs.1,65,000/- for agricultural land.

3.

Shri Nakshane, learned counsel for the appellants has strongly relied upon the judgment of the learned Reference Court, dated 12/05/2015, in L.A.C. No.396/2007 (Janardhan Maroti Sahare & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through - Collector, Yavatmal & Ors.), which also is in respect of land bearing Gat No.105 admeasuring 1.21 HR of Village Kolhi in the same

project, from the same notification, in which the learned Reference Court, has enhanced the compensation for agricultural land at the rate of Rs. 2,68,000/- per hectare, First Appeal No.954/2017 (The Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal Vs. Janardhan Maroti Sahare & Ors.), against which, has been withdrawn, which has been recorded in the judgment dated 12/10/2018 by this Court, in view of which, it is apparent, that the present respondent no.1 has accepted the rate of Rs.2,68,000/- per hectare as the rate for agricultural land in Village Kolhi. 4.

Though, it is tried to be contended by Shri Kadu, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, that the land in the present case was dry crop land and that is the point of distinction why the rate of Rs. 2,68,000/- per hectare ought not to be granted, however, a perusal of the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No.396/2007 would indicate, that the land in that case was also a dry crop land, and therefore, there is no point of distinction available on this count. There is no other material brought to my notice by Shri Kadu, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, either from the evidence or from the document on record to enable me to take a different view,

considering which, it would be appropriate to enhance the rate of agricultural land to Rs.2,68,000/- per hectare. 5.

Hence, the first appeal is allowed by enhancing the rate of agricultural land to Rs.2,68,000/- per hectare. 6.

The respondent/acquiring body will make appropriate calculations and deposit the compensation in this Court within six weeks from today. While making the calculations, the waiver of interest for the period of 1095 days as recorded in the order dated 04/05/2016 on Civil Application No.285/2016 shall be taken into consideration. The difference in court fee shall be paid within one month thereafter, if any. No order as to costs. (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) Wadkar SUKHADEORAO WADKAR