1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 446/1993 1. Dashrath s/o Ukandi Paikrao, Age : 45 years, Occu. Agril. R/o Senodi, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Parbhani. ...Appellant. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Parbhani. 2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Upper Penganga Project, Parbhani. ...Respondents. Smt. Sunita D. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 22/1994 Shwaran s/o Ukandi Paikrao, Age : 50 years, Ocu. Agriculture, R/o Senodi, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Parbhani. ....Appellant. Vs. 1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Parbhani. 2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1, Upper Penganga Project, Parbhani. ..Respondents. 2 Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant. Ms. Sunita Shelke, A.G.P. for the respondent no.1 and 2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 8th June, 2010. ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. In First appeal no. 446/1993 the appellant is absent though he is served. Earlier his case was handled by Shri S.G. Deshmukh who is now no more. His case was also handled by Shri R.M. Borde who subsequently was elevated to the Bench. In view of this, the office issued notice to the appellant and it came back served. But the appellant is absent. He has not engaged any advocate. Since, I have heard connected appeal No. 22/1994 in which Shri A.S. Deshmukh is appearing for the appellant, I find it convenient and appropriate to appoint him as amicus curiae for representing the appellant in Appeal No. 446/1993. Both these appeals can be decided by this common judgment mainly because the lands in question are of village Senodi Tq. Kalamnuri Dist. Parbhani and were acquired for one project at about same time. 3 The appellants challenge the judgment and award passed by the Ld. Jt. Civil Judge.( Senior Division), Parbhani in L.A.R. No. 231/1984 3 (Appeal No. 446/1993) and the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Judge, Hingoli Dist. Parbhani in L.A.R. No. 247/1985 (Appeal No. 22/1994). 4 It is common ground that when these lands from village Senodi were acquired by the State of Maharashtra for construction of Upper Penganga project, initially the lands were acquired for which notifications under section 4 was issued in the year 1970-71. The lands in question in these two appeals were acquired in the year 1983 and 1984 for Upper Penganga project. Both the appellants submitted their claims with the Land Acquisition Officer demanding compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per acre. However, the Land Acquisition Officer did not accept their claim and awarded lessor amount. They therefore, preferred references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and as said above, they were decided by the two Ld. Judges mentioned above. 5. In appeal No. 22/1994 the Ld. Judge of the reference court awarded Rs.6,000/- per acre. He mainly placed reliance on the various judgments in the Land Acquisition References taken by the similarly placed parties. On the other hand, the Ld. Judge of the reference Court in appeal No. 446/1993 awarded Rs.5,000/- per acre. Even this Ld. judge mainly 4 placed reliance on previous judgments delivered by reference courts in Land Acquisition references filed by similarly placed litigants. The only question that is required to be decided in these appeals is, whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation and at what rate. 6. It is common ground that lands of village Senodi of Tq. Kalamnuri and adjoining villages were affected by land acquisition proceedings for Upper Penganga project. It is also common knowledge that various appeals were filed before this Court, by residents of village Senodi challenging the judgments delivered by reference courts in their references. A group of 16 first appeals was decided by the learned single judge of this Court on 16/01/2009. A copy of this judgment is produced before me and I noticed that as many as 7 appeals out of 16 were filed by residents of village Senodi. It is seen that the other appeals in that group were filed by residents of village Savargaon Borja, Takali Kanoba, Mahari (Khurd) the adjoining villages of Tq. Kalamnuri. 7 The learned judge of this court while deciding these appeals by a common judgment observed that these villages are of same area and further observed that "there is no grievance raised on behalf of the State Government that different villages from which in this group of appeals, lands have been acquired, are having different potentiality. In my view, the lands which are 5 acquired and subject matter of the present appeals, are having similar advantages.” 8 The Ld. judge then placed reliance on a common judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in a group of first appeal No. 128/1985, 129/1985, 130/1985. The learned judge observed that the lands belonging to both the groups had similar advantages and dis-advantages. The learned judge then placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Harindar Pal Singh, 2005 AIR SCW 5900. The learned judge observed as under. “There the Supreme Court has noticed that lands from the area acquired were at the development stage and from different villages. All of them were capable of being developed in the same manner. The Supreme Court ultimately in paras 15 and 16, held that all the lands acquired in that case can be considered as one single unit”. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court, the learned judge of this court held that the lands which were subject matter of the appeals before him and the lands which were subject matter of the first appeals No.128, 129, 130 of 1985, could be considered “one single unit”. The learned judge then decided to award same compensation to the appellants before him which was awarded by the Division Bench. The Division Bench had awarded 6 Rs.9,000/- per acre as compensation. Following the suit, the learned judge too awarded Rs.9,000/- per acre as compensation irrespective of location, quality, area advantages etc. of the individual lands. I am inclined to follow the suit mainly because the lands in question in the appeals before me are of village Senodi. It would, therefore be convenient for me to place these lands in the same unit as that of the unit formed by the lands in the group of appeals decided by the learned judge of this court. I think, it would be appropriate to award Rs.9,000/- per acre to the appellants here, as compensation for their lands. The appeals therefore, should succeed. ORDERE The appeals are partly allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to Rs.9,000/- per acre as compensation. Rest of the directions of the impugned award shall be made applicable to the above mentioned enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to cost. " [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/ok 7