Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Industrial Development ... vs Parwatibai Wd/O Mahadeo Gond (Wadiwa) ... on 11 October, 2019
Author: M. G. Giratkar
Bench: M. G. Giratkar
1 jg.fa 345.05, 7.11, 860.11 & 979.12.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 345 OF 2005
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through its Chief
Executive Officer. Having it's Regional
Office at Amravati Industrial Estate
By-pass road, Amravati. ... Appellant
VERSUS
(1) Devidas Rambhau Ninginkar
aged about 55 years, Occupation
Agriculturist resident Wadgaon
Road Yavatmal Tehsil and
District Yavatmal.
(2) State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Yeotmal.
(3) The Special Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal. ... Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant
Shri S. C. Bhalerao, Advocate for the respondent no. 1
Mrs. G. R. Tiwari, AGP for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2011
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation Having its Office at
Marol Industrial Estate, Andheri East,
Mumbai and having its Regional Office
at By pass road, Amravati, through
its Chief Executive Officer. ... Appellant
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2019 04:31:25 :::
2 jg.fa 345.05, 7.11, 860.11 & 979.12.odt
VERSUS
(1) Sagunabai Wd/o Ukanda Masram
(Dead through LR)
Sanjay S/o Mahadeorao Masram,
Aged about 28 years,
Occupation Service,
resident of Wadgaon Road
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
(2) State of Maharashtra
Through it's Collector,
Yavatmal.
(3) The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal. ... Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant
Shri R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 1
Mrs. G. R. Tiwari, AGP for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2011
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation Through its Chief
Executive Officer Marol Industrial Estate,
Andheri (East), Mumbai
Having its Regional Office at
By-pass Road, Yavatmal. ... Appellant
VERSUS
(1) Parwatibai wd/o Mahadeo Gond (Wadiwa)
Aged about 66 years, occupation agriculturist
resident of Wadgaon Road
Tq. & Distrist Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2019 04:31:25 :::
3 jg.fa 345.05, 7.11, 860.11 & 979.12.odt
(2) The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
(3) The Sub Divisional Officer and
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal. ... Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant
None for the respondent no. 1
Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, AGP for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 979 OF 2012
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation having its office at Marol
Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai
and having Office at Lohara, Yavatmal,
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal, through its Chief
Executive Officer. ... Appellant
VERSUS
1. Goma Asha Gond
(Since Dead, Through LR's)
1-A Smt. Bayabai w/o Goma Gond (Masram)
Age-71 years, Occ-Household
1-B Namdev s/o Goma Gond (Masram)
Age-51 years, Occ-Labour
1-C Pundlik s/o Goma Gond (Masram)
Age-48 years. Occ-Labour
All Residents of Wadgaon(Mothe),
Post- Wadgaon,
Tq. & Distrist Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2019 04:31:25 :::
4 jg.fa 345.05, 7.11, 860.11 & 979.12.odt
(2) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Collector, Yavatmal.
(3) The Sub-Divisional Officer and
Land Acquisition Officer,
Yavatmal. ... Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant
None for the respondent nos. 1-A to 1-C
Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, AGP for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.
Date of reserving the judgment : 17/09/2019 & 25/09/2019. Date of pronouncing the judgment : 11/10/2019.
Judgment All these appeals are filed by the acquiring body - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation against the judgment of reference Court, Yavatmal.
2. The facts giving rise to all the appeals can be summarized as under :
First Appeal No. 7/2011
Land of respondent no. 1 bearing Gat No. 1/1 admeasuring area 4H 84R of Village Pangari, Tahsil and District Yavatmal was acquired for the ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2019 04:31:25 ::: 5 jg.fa 345.05, 7.11, 860.11 & 979.12.odt purposes of extension of MIDC project. Notification under Section 32(2) of the MIDC Act was published on 30-11-1994. Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 27-11-1997 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 41,700/-
per hectare. The respondent no. 1 challenged the said award claiming that the acquired land was adjacent to Nagpur-Bori-Tuljapur Highway. It is surrounded by godown etc. In short, it was claimed that the acquired land was having non-agriculture potential and, therefore, claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,50,000/- per hectare. The reference Court has recorded its finding holding that the nearby villages i.e. Lohara and Wadgaon are having more value but not considered those sale deeds and granted compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare.
In First Appeal No. 860/2011, the reference Court has granted compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare. In First Appeal No. 979/2012, the reference Court has granted compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare and in First Appeal No. 345/2005, the reference Court has granted compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- per hectare.
3. Heard learned Advocate Shri Agnihotri for the appellant. He has pointed out following judgments.
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2019 04:31:25 :::
6 jg.fa 345.05, 7.11, 860.11 & 979.12.odt (1) Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others [(1994) 4 SCC 595], (2) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, Distrrict Badaun through its Secretary Vs. Bipin Kumar and another [(2004) 2 SCC 283], (3) Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others [(2018) 3 SCC 278], (4) Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another [(2009) 15 SCC 769], (5) Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of Indai [(2005) 12 SCC 59], (6) Shaji Kuriakose and another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And others [(2001) 7 SCC 650], (7) Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nalgonda (A.P.) Vs. Morisetty Satyanarayana and others [(2002) 10 SCC 570], (8) State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Misra and others [(1995) 5 SCC 203], (9) First Appeal No. 56/2006 (M.I.D.C. Vs. Kailashchandra R. Choudhary and ors.) and other connected matters decided by this Court on 24-4-2018, (10) First Appeal No. 253/2001 with Cross Objection No. 3/2007 (M.I.D.C. Vs. Shri Prabhakar N. Diwase and ors.) decided by this Court on 21-11-2015 and (11) First Appeal No. 267/2004 (M.I.D.C. Vs. Narayan Balaji Upganlawar and ors.).
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2019 04:31:25 :::
7 jg.fa 345.05, 7.11, 860.11 & 979.12.odt Learned Advocate Shri Agnihotri has submitted that while granting compensation, the Court has to see the non-agriculture potentiality of the land, quality of land, irrigation facility etc. Learned Advocate has submitted that the claimants have not produced any sale deed of Village Pangari to prove their contentions. At last, he submitted that the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside by allowing the appeals.
4. Heard learned Advocate Shri S. C. Bhalerao for the respondent no. 1 in First Appeal No. 345/2005. He has submitted that the land of the claimant/respondent no. 1 was acquired for M.I.D.C. Therefore, it is clear that acquisition was for non-agricultural purpose. This itself suggest that the acquired land was having non-agricultural potentiality.
5. Heard learned Advocate Shri R. D. Bhuibar for the respondent no. 1 in First Appeal No. 7/2011. He has submitted that the land of Village Pangari and Bhoyar was acquired by the appellant for the same project by same notification. Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation by the same award. Therefore, they are entitled for the same rate of compensation. Learned Advocate has submitted that in the cited judgment by the side of appellant in First Appeal No. 56/2006 along with connected appeals, this Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare for ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2019 04:31:25 ::: 8 jg.fa 345.05, 7.11, 860.11 & 979.12.odt the acquired land of Village Bhoyar. Land of Village Bhoyar was acquired by same notification along with land in Village Pangari.
6. In First Appeal Nos. 7/2011, 860/2011 and 979/2012, the reference Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare for the acquired land of Village Pangari. This Court has granted compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare in First Appeal No. 56/2006 decided on 24-4-2018 along with connected appeals. All other cited judgments by the side of appellant are considered by this Court in First Appeal No. 56/2006 along connected appeals. Those lands were of Village Bhoyar acquired by the appellant for the same project. The lands of Village Bhoyar and Village Pangari are adjacent to each other. The acquisition itself was for non-agricultural purpose. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of (1) Digamber and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [AIR 2013 SC 3532] and (2) Ali Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2017) 4 SCC 717], the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare granted by the reference Court as like the compensation granted to the land of Village Bhoyar is perfectly legal and correct. Hence, First Appeal Nos. 7/2011, 860/2011 and 979/2012 are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2019 04:31:25 :::
9 jg.fa 345.05, 7.11, 860.11 & 979.12.odt
7. In respect of First Appeal No. 345/2005, the reference Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per hectare. The land of the respondent no. 1 was situated at Village Pangari and the same was acquired by the same notification and by the same award. Therefore, the respondent no. 1 is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare. Learned Advocate Shri Bhalerao has cited the decision of Digamber and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (supra) and submitted that land of respondent no. 1 was acquired for industrial development project. In the cited judgment, the land was acquired for Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. It is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the acquisition itself was for commercial purpose, therefore, compensation granted by the reference Court is perfectly legal and correct. The land of the respondent no. 1 was situated at Village Pangari. Nothing is produced on record to show that said land was having more value. The land of Village Pangari of other claimants/land owners were acquired. The respondent no. 1 is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare as like other land owners. Their lands also acquired by the appellant for the same project. In that view of the matter, First Appeal No. 345/2005 is partly allowed. Impugned judgment of reference Court in L.A.C. No. 3/2000 granting compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is directed to pay ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2019 04:31:25 ::: 10 jg.fa 345.05, 7.11, 860.11 & 979.12.odt compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare to the respondent no. 1/land owner. Remaining part of the judgment is maintained as it is.
JUDGE wasnik ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2019 04:31:25 :::