SHRIKRISHNA GANESH CHOUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) raise similar challenges and relate to lands adjoining each other, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

(2.) Land admeasuring 7 hectare from Gat No.198 situated at Chandur- Railway, District Amravati, was the subject matter of acquisition by virtue of Notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 10.08.2003. The acquisition was for rehabilitation of villagers residing at village Sawanga. The Land FA815.14 with connected appeals 8/18 Acquisition Officer passed his award on 10.11.2005 and granted compensation @Rs.3,07,520/- per hectare and Rs.52,524/- was granted for the well standing on the land. The land owners filed reference proceedings seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 27.05.2014 in L.A.C.No.160/2007 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.168/- per square meter and then directed deduction of 60% compensation towards development charges. The land owners not being satisfied with the said amount of compensation have filed First Appeal No.815/2014 while the Acquiring Body has filed First Appeal No.895/2016 for challenging the judgment of the Reference Court.

(3.) Land admeasuring 1 H 94 R from Gat No. 198 came to be acquired pursuant to Notification dated 17.11.2005 that was issued under Section 4 of the said Act. The purpose of acquisition was rehabilitation of project affected persons from village Sawanga. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 26.03.2007 and granted compensation @ Rs.3,50,000/- per hectare and Rs.150/- for pot kharab land. The land owners not being satisfied with the amount of compensation granted preferred reference proceedings and that were numbered as Land Acquisition Case No.82/2008. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 20.05.2014 partly enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.202/- per square meter and then directed deduction of 60% compensation towards development charges. The land owners not being satisfied with the enhancement granted by the Reference Court have preferred First Appeal No. FA815.14 with connected appeals 9/18 1047/2014 while the Acquiring Body has challenged the judgment of the Reference Court by filing First Appeal No.690/2016.