Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Shri. Murlidhar Devasthan Thr. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 28 November, 2022

Author: Avinash G. Gharote

Bench: Avinash G. Gharote

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2019

      Murlidhar Devasthan through Trustees
    1 Suresh Bhimrao Kakde
      Age 56 Yrs Occ. Agriculture
    2 Dilip Bhanudas Kakde
      Age Yrs. Occ. Agriculture
    3 Nandkishor Keshao Kakde                          .. APPELLANTS
      Age yrs. Occ. Agriculture
    4 Mahendra Ramrao Kakde
      Age 47 Yrs. Occ. Agriculture
      All R/o Ghuikhed, Tq. Chandur Rly.
      Dist. Amravati
                         Versus
1     The State of Maharashtra,
      Through the Collector, Camp, Amravati

2     Special Land Acquisition Officer,
      Uppar Wardha Project No.4,                    .. RESPONDENTS
      Amravati Collector's Compound, Amravati,
      Tq. Dist. Amravati
3     The Executive Engineer,
      Bembla Project, Division, Yeotmal,
      Tq. Dist. Yeotmal

Mr. N.S. Bhelkar, Advocate for appellants
Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr. M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent No.3

                         CORAM:     AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                         DATE :     28th November, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. N.S. Bhelkar, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 2 201-A-fa-879-19-Judgment.odt and Mr. Kadu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3

2. The factual position in the present appeal is as under -

           Bembla River Project, District Yavatmal
 DATE OF NOTIFICATION U/S 4 OF THE LAC ACT         26/10/2005

 Property        Area of             LAO granted by      Ref. Court
 details         property             Award Dated        granted by
                                      06/09/2008       Award Dated
                                                        10/03/2017
 Plot No: 447    Plot   Area   : Rs.140/- per          Rs.500 per
 Village:        97.50 Sq.mtr.   Sq.mt                 Sq.mtr.
 Ghuikhed
 Tahsil          Construction:       Rs.2188.43   per Rs.2954.43
 Chandur         57 Sq.mtr.          Sq. mtr.         per Sq. mtr.
 Railway
 District :
 Amravati

3. The appeal challenges the judgment of the Reference Court dated 10/3/2017, whereby the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for the open plot to Rs.500/-per sq.mtr. and has granted compensation for the constructed area at the rate of Rs.2954.43 per sq.mtr., in respect of plot No. 447, as detailed above.

4. In First Appeal No. 1378 of 2018 (Sharad Gangadhar Gulhane Vs. State) and First Appeal No. 389 of 2018 (Lilabai Omkarrao Giri and others Vs. State) decided on 06/09/2021, this Court, while considering the claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of plots at village Ghuikhed had decided the compensation to Rs.575/- per sq.mtr. The fixing of the said rate, of open plot, was based upon the fact that the said village is located on the border of 3 201-A-fa-879-19-Judgment.odt the State Highway i.e. Aurnagabad - Nagpur Highway, about half KM from the highway from there is an approach road to the village and considering the sale deed dated 30/03/1995 of the same village, the compensation was enhanced considering the escalation / increase per year for a period of 10½ years and the aforesaid rate of Rs.575/- per sq.mtr. for open plot has been fixed.

5. In the instant matter, no material, has been brought to my notice existing on record, for me to take a different view than that what has been already taken by this court in First Appeal No. 1378/2018 (Sharad Gangadhar Gulhane Vs. State).

6. The evidence of Shri Chandrashekhar Wankhede, the valuer, who claims the market rate to be Rs.1000/- per sq.mtr. for open plot, a perusal whereof would demonstrate that he has not inquired about any sale instance, from the same village, or from the neighboring village, in order to arrive at the rate as been quoted in his report. He further, admits in his cross-examination that for the purpose of determining the value of the plot, the value of the neighboring properties, has to be ascertained which has not been done by him. Neither he has inquired from the Gram Pachayat, when the construction has been made, apart from which, there is nothing in his report or on record to indicate the nature of the construction, considering which, there is no reason, to accept the value of construction pegged by him or any reason whatsoever for the rate 4 201-A-fa-879-19-Judgment.odt accepted by the learned Reference court insofar as construction is concerned, to be interfered, though on the higher side, as there is no appeal or cross objection by the acquiring body.

7. That being the position, in view of the rate of open plot village Ghuikhed, having already being determined by this court at Rs.575/- per sq.mtr. the appellant, would only be entitled to that benefit and nothing else.

8. In the result, the impugned judgment under reference is modified by enhancing the rate of open land as granted by the learned Reference Court at Rs.500/- per sq.mtr. to Rs.575/- per sq.mtr, as held in Sharad Gulhane (supra). Rest of the judgment of the learned Reference Court is maintained.

9. The difference in the amount of compensation, and all ancillary benefits arising therefrom as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as applicable thereto be calculated and deposited in the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from today.

JUDGE MP Deshpande Digitally signed by:MILIND P DESHPANDE Signing Date:08.12.2022 10:38