KASHINATH S/O NAGNATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals have been preferred by the original claimants feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kandhar and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Link Court, Mukhed in respect of the Land Acquisition References pertaining to the house properties.

(2.) Mr.G.N. Chincholkar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that these appeals are arising out of the same project and from the same village. There is vast difference in price of suit house granted by the acquiring body and Valuer. The appellants-original claimants examined the Government Approved Valuer Shri Shrisant V. Barbade as PW- 2 before the Reference Court and the Government Approved Valuer submitted its report stating that the compensation of suit house No.133/3 is Rs.89,355.00, but the said report is not considered by the Reference Court. This Court was pleased to allow First Appeal No.719/2013 and First Appeal No.1488/2020 with connected appeals, thereby accepting the report submitted by the Valuer in respect of the house properties and this Court enhanced the compensation as per the valuation report. The learned counsel further submits that the same treatment needs to be given in these appeals.

(3.) Shri.R.D. Biradar h/f Shri U.P. Giri, advocate for respondent nos.3 in F.A. No.2425/2021 and 2486/2021, Shri Sham B. Patil, advocate for respondent no.3 in First Appeal Nos.3036/2021, 1229/2022 and 2461/2021, 2486/2021, 3036/2021, 2460/2021, Shri. A.B. Chate, AGP for respondent/State in F.A. Nos.2461/2021, 2486/2021 and 3036/2021 and Shri. P.M. Kulkarni, AGP for respondent/State in F.A. No.1229/2022 and 724/2022 fairly concede the position about the earlier decision delivered by this Court in First Appeal no.719/2013 and with connected matters. The learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is adequate, hence there is no need to interfere in that order.