fa374.03.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.374/2003, FIRST APPEAL NO.296/2002, FIRST APPEAL NO.107/2003 AND FIRST APPEAL NO.788/2004 ------------------------------------------------------ FIRST APPEAL NO.374/2003 APPELLANT :- The State of Maharashtra, Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chandrapur. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS :- 1) Ramesh s/o Namdeo Hiwarkar, aged about 33 years, Occ - Agriculturist. 2) Subhash s/o Namdeo Hiwarkar, aged about 28 years, Occ - Agriculturist. 3) Prakash s/o Namdeo Hiwarkar, aged about 24 years, Occ - Agriculturist. 4) Smt. Sitabai Namdeo Hiwarkar, aged about 60 years, Occ - Household. All 1 to 4 above are R/o village  Datala, Tahsil and Dist. - Chandrapur. 5) Sou. Shobha w/o Maroti Akolkar, aged about 27 years, Occ - Household, R/o Lathi, Tah - Gondpipari, Dist  Chandrapur. fa374.03.odt 2 6) Sou. Zingabai Namdeo Mandaokar, aged about 25 years, Occ - Household, R/o Rajura, Tah - Rajura, Dist  Chandrapur. 7) Manda w/o Ramkrishna Bhoj, aged about 20 years, Occ - Household, R/o Nandgaon (Suryacha), Tah  Rajura, Dist  Chandrapur. ----------------------------------------------------------------- [Mrs. R.A. Deshpande, AGP for appellant] [Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Adv. for respondents] ----------------------------------------------------------------- FIRST APPEAL NO.296/2002 APPELLANT :- The State of Maharashtra, Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chandrapur. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS :- 1) Mahadeo s/o Motiram Hiwarkar, aged about 52 years, Occ - Agriculturist. 2) Smt. Tanabai wd/o Motiram Hiwarkar, aged about 63 years, Occ - Household. Both 1 & 2 R/o village  Patala, Tahsil and Dist. Chandrapur. ----------------------------------------------------------------- [Mrs. R.A. Deshpande, AGP for appellant] [Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Adv. for respondents] ----------------------------------------------------------------- FIRST APPEAL NO.107/2003 APPELLANT :- The State of Maharashtra, Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chandrapur. fa374.03.odt 3 ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS :- 1) Daulat s/o Vithu Hiwarkar, aged about 48 years, Occ - Agriculturist. Respondent no.1 R/o Village - Datala, Tahsil and Dist. Chandrapur. 2) Sakhubai wd/o Vithu Hiwarkar (Dead) through L.Rs. a) Shri Daulat Vithu Hiwarkar (Son) (D) a) Sau. Wanita Dadaji Awaghade, (Daughter) Aged 50 yrs. R/o Near Vitthal Mandir, Pathanpur, Chandrapur. b) Sau. Shanta Manohar Rohankar, (Daughter) Age 48 yrs., R/o Sinala Po. Durgapur, Tq. & Distt. Chandrapur. c) Smt. Sundarabai Nanaji Chapale (Daughter) (Deceased) through her LR's i) Sau. Shalini Shankar Chaudhari (Grand daughter) Age 26 yrs, R/o Sasti Tq. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur. ii) Sau. Archana Shankar Satpute, (Grand daughter) age 23 yrs, R/o Gadchandur, Tah. Korapna, Distt. Chandrapur. iii) Ku. Aantkala, Nanaji Chapale (Grand daughter) age 20 yrs., R/o MEL Qtrs. No.ROH 44, Chandrapur. ----------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S.B. Ahirkar, AGP for appellant] [Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Adv. for respondents] ----------------------------------------------------------------- fa374.03.odt 4 FIRST APPEAL NO.788/2004 APPELLANT :- State of Maharashtra, through The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (Thermal Power Station), Tahsil and District Chandrapur. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS :- 1. Namdeo s/o Sambhaji Yede, aged about 63 years, Occ : Agriculturist. 2. Smt. Sitabai wd/o Wasudeo Yede, aged about 63 years, Occ. Agriculturist. 3. Ku. Ranjana d/o Wasudeo Yede (D) Sau. Ranjana Maroti Barde, R/o Wagdhara, Juni Wasti, Post. Wani, Tah. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S.B. Ahirkar, AGP for appellant] [Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Adv. for respondents] ----------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 21.09.2011 O R A L J U D G M E N T 1. All these appeals arise out of the identical judgment and award dated 22.12.2000, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.49/1997, 52/1997, 50/1997 and 54/1997 respectively, by which the fa374.03.odt 5 reference Court enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs.30/- per sq. meter to Rs.90.75 per sq. meter. 2. In support of the appeals, learned A.G.P. vehemently argued that the reference Court relied upon the earlier award in relation to Survey no.319, the suit land wherein was accessible by approach road. According to the learned A.G.P. a valid classification was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer between the land which was accessible by road directly and the land which was not accessible by road in order to arrive at the figure for assessing the compensation. The learned A.G.P. further argued that in the impugned judgment and award this aspect has not been taken into consideration in the proper perspective by the reference Court and the said Court abruptly awarded the rate Rs.90.75 per sq. meter, which is not justified. According to the learned A.G.P., the claimants did not adduce any evidence in support of their case that the suit land was accessible by approach road. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants supported the impugned judgment and award and argued pointing out my attention to fa374.03.odt 6 paragraph no.7 of the impugned judgment and award in which the Land Acquisition Officer Shri Shamrao Atram who was examined himself admitted in the cross-examination that the suit land is situated near the square of M.I.D.C. road and Larsen and Toubro Industry road. He further submitted that the State Highway is at a short distance from the suit land. He then argued that looking to the location of the land around M.I.D.C. and development that was taking place at least in the year 1993 when Section 4 notification was issued the rate at Rs.10/- per sq. ft. or Rs.91/- per sq. ft. cannot be said to be unreasonable and on the contrary, the same is just. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. I have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Following points arise for my determination. (1) Whether the reference Court committed an error in awarding Rs.90.75 per sq. meter in relation to the suit lands and whether enhancement of compensation made by him was on higher side ? (2) What order ? fa374.03.odt 7 5. It appears from the evidence on record that the suit lands are located near M.I.D.C. square, Chandrapur and the road going to Larsen and Toubro Industry. It further appears that the State Highway going to Rajura from Chandrapur is also nearby. Section 4 notification was issued in the year 1993 and it is not in dispute that at that time M.I.D.C. was established at Chandrapur. Leading Industries like Larsen and Toubro or ACC Cement etc. were already established at that time. The suit lands being located near M.I.D.C. square and besides the road leading to Larsen and Toubro Industry certainly indicate non-agricultural potential of the suit land. It is an admitted position that the suit lands were acquired for residential purpose for extension of Chandrapur town. That being so, the rate granted by the reference Court, namely 90.75 per sq. meter does not appear to me to be on higher side. Whether or not the suit land was accessible looses its relevance in the facts of the instant case because M.I.D.C. was already established so also the other leading industries. It is not the case of the appellant/State that the suit land was situated at a long distance from M.I.D.C. in fa374.03.odt 8 a village so that the infrastructure of the approach road etc. was essential. On the contrary, it appears that the suit land is situated beside M.I.D.C. and Industry like Larsen and Toubro. There are several reasons therefore for this Court to believe that the accessibility of road to the suit lands should not have weighed in the mind of the Land Acquisition Officer to award less compensation. To sum up, I do not find any error with the reference Court in coming to conclusion that Rs.90.75 per sq. meter or Rs.10/- per sq. ft. that too for residential purpose was just compensation, payable to the claimants. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in any of these appeals. In the result, I make the following order. O R D E R (i) First Appeal Nos.374/2003, 296/2002, 107/2003 and First Appeal No.788/2004 are dismissed. No order as to costs. (ii) Civil Application F. No.1375/2011 and Civil Application F. No. 1417/2011 for withdrawal of amount are allowed. JUDGE ssw