Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Industrial Development ... vs Sudam Bhatu Rathod And 2 Others on 16 February, 2017
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 149 of 2005
Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
through its Chief Executive Officer, having its
Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate,
By-pass Road, Amravati
versus
Respondents : 1) Darasingh Deosing Jadhav, aged 44 years,
Agriculturist
2) Ashok Deosing Jadhav, aged about 42 years,
Agriculturist
Both residents of Ghatodi, Tahsil Pusad, District
Yavatmal
3) The Collector, Yavatmal
4) The Land Acquisition Officer i.e. The Sub-
Divisional Officer, Pusad.
Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant
::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 :::
2
Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2
Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Government Pleader for respondent nos. 3 & 4
------
First Appeal No. 749 of 2004
Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, having its Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate, By-pass Road, Amravati versus Respondents : 1) Baliram Chandu Rathod, aged 55 years
2) Meram Chandu Rathod.. Since deceased, through his Legal Representatives - (2-a) Madan Meram Rathod, aged 55 years (2-b) Ganesh Meram Rathod, aged 52 years (2-c) Vijay Meram Rathod, aged 49 years (2-d) Ramesh Meram Rathod, aged 45 years (2-e) Dharmendra Meram Rathod, aged 42 years All residents of Jawahar Nagar (Dhundi), Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal
3) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
4) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 3 Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 (a-e) Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 3 and 4
-----
First Appeal No. 186 of 2004 Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, having its Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate, By-pass Road, Amravati versus Respondents : 1. Sudam Bhatu Rathod, aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Ganesh Ward, Pusad, District Yavatmal
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondent 1 Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and 3
-----
First Appeal No. 217 of 2004 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 4 Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, having its Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate, By-pass Road, Amravati versus Respondents : 1. Subhash Balaji Ganganwar, aged 55 years, Agriculturist, resident of Ganesh Ward, Pusad, District Yavatmal
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondent 1 Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and 3
-----
First Appeal No. 225 of 2004 Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, having its Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate, By-pass Road, Amravati versus ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 5 Respondents : 1. Bansi son of Bhasu Chavan, aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Ghatodi, Tah. Pusad, District Yavatmal
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondent 1 Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and 3
-----
First Appeal No. 227 of 2004 Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, having its Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate, By-pass Road, Amravati versus Respondents : 1. Baliram Chandu Rathod, aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Dhundi, Tah.Pusad, District Yavatmal
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 6 Officer, Pusad Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondent 1 Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and 3
-----
First Appeal No. 719 of 2004 Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, having its Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate, By-pass Road, Amravati versus Respondents : 1. Dharmendra Meram Rathod, aged 32 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Dhundi, Tah. Pusad, District Yavatmal
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondent 1 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 7 Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and 3
-----
First Appeal No. 723 of 2004 Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, having its Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate, By-pass Road, Amravati versus Respondents : 1. Mohan Shama Chavan, aged 40 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Ghatodi, Tah. Pusad, District Yavatmal
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondent 1 Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and 3
-----
First Appeal No. 732 of 2004 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 8 Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, having its Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate, By-pass Road, Amravati versus Respondents : 1. Haridas Rajusingh Rathod, aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Poharadevi, Tah. Manora, District Akola
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondent 1 Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and 3
-----
First Appeal No. 773 of 2004 Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, having its Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate, By-pass Road, Amravati ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 9 versus Respondents : 1. Ramesh Maram Rathod, aged 38 years, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Dhundi, Tah. Pusad, District Yavatmal
2) State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondent 1 Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and 3
-----
First Appeal No. 251 of 2005 Appellant : Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, having its Regional Office at Amravati Industrial estate, By-pass Road, Amravati versus Respondents : 1. Putalibai Hunasingh Chavan, aged 72 years
2. Dharmibai Chandusingh Jadhav, aged 52 years
3. Saribai Kisan Rathod, aged 47 years, ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 10
4) Yashodabai Bhavsingh Rathod, aged 45 years
5) Dhuribai Sudam Rathod, aged 44 years
6) Anitabai Sudam Jadhav, aged 42 years
7) Lilabai Bhiku Jadhav, aged 42 years
8) Ashabai Hiraman Rathod
9) Savitabai Madhukar Rathod, aged 37 years
10) Mangilal Nandusingh Chavan, aged 43 years
11) Vinod Nandusingh Chavahan, aged 39 years
12) Shantabai Nandusingh Chavhan, aged 57 yrs
13) Punsabai Nandusing Chavhan, aged 37 years Nos. 3, 4 residents of Wada, Tahsil Mahagaon No. 5 resident of Balgavhan, Remaining all residents of Warud, Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal
14) The Collector, Yavatmal
15) Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad, District Yavamal Shri M. M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant Shri D. G. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 13 Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 14 and 15
-----
::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 11
Coram : A. S. Chandurkar, J Dated : 16th February 2017 Oral Judgment
1. All these appeals can be decided by this common judgment in view of earlier adjudication in First Appeal No. 588 of 2003.
2. Various lands in village Ghatwadi, Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal came to be acquired for setting up of industrial unit of the appellant Corporation. Notification under Section 32 (2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 was published on 3.11.1989. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his Award dated 28.10.1992 granted a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the claimants filed Reference applications seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. By the impugned judgment of the Reference Court enhanced the compensation ranging from Rs. 90,000/- per acre to Rs. 98,000/- per acre. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the Corporation has filed these appeals.
3. Shri M. M. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court was on higher side and without there being sufficient evidence on record to justify the same. He submitted that the sale instance of a small piece of ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 12 land of an adjoining village - Vithala dated 4.1.1985 was relied upon by the Reference Court for enhancing the compensation. According to him, considering the location of the acquired land, the enhancement as granted by the Reference Court cannot be sustained.
4. Shri D. G. Patil, learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that the Reference Court after considering the entire evidence on record has awarded the aforesaid compensation. He submitted that in First Appeal No. 588 of 2003 this Court while considering the aspect of fair compensation for the land acquired from village Asarpend, Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal has held an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre to be just and reasonable compensation. The acquired lands were from the adjoining village and, therefore, the claimants would be entitled for higher compensation. However, the claimants have not filed appeal seeking such enhancement. He, therefore, submitted that the appeals were liable to be dismissed.
Ms Mrinal Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for the Land Acquisition Officer.
5. The following point arises for consideration:
Whether the adjudication by the Reference Court ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 13 deserves to be interfered with in these appeals ?
6. In First Appeal No. 588 of 2003 decided on 30 th September 2015, this Court after considering the location of the acquired land and after referring to the same sale instance dated 4.1.1985, had found that the amount of compensation for the lands acquired from village Asarpend could be granted at Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. In the present appeal, the acquired lands are from the adjoining village - Ghatwadi. The Reference Court has considered the identical sale instance in these cases which was considered while adjudicating First Appeal No. 588 of 2003. Considering the nature of evidence on record and as the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre was determined as fair compensation for the adjoining village, I do not find that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court in these appeals can be reduced.
7. Hence, for the reasons assigned in First Appeal No. 588 of 2003 decided on 30th September 2015, I do not find any scope for interfering with the impugned judgment. The point as framed stands answered accordingly.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. The claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount of ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 ::: 14 compensation deposited by the appellant with accrued interest thereon.
A. S. CHANDURKAR, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2017 00:41:14 :::