LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-273

GANPAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On July 26, 2019
GANPAT Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants in both appeals are the original claimant, who had filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 398 of 2007 (New) (old No. 386 of 2006) and Land Acquisition Reference No. 387 of 2007 (New) (old No. 375 of 2006), respectively, before learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Link Court, Mukhed, District Nanded under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said reference came to be decided on 21-01-2012. It was partly allowed.

(2.) In first appeal No. 1883 of 2012, Land Survey No. 63 admeasuring 1H 01 R and 1H and in First Appeal No. 1884 of 2012 Land Survey No. 16/1/2 admeasuring 0H, 58 R from village Marajwadi, Tal. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded was acquired for submergence area of Lendi Major Project. At the time of hearing of present appeals, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants / claimants tendered across the bar the copy of the common Judgment delivered by this Court in First Appeal No.834 of 2010 with 13 more First Appeals. It was submitted that, this Court in the aforesaid common Judgment has relied on the determination of market value of the lands acquired from village Marajwadi for the Lendi Project arrived at in yet another common judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 988 of 2012 with First Appeal No. 989 of 2012. In both set of appeals this Court has determined the market rate at Rs.1,25,000/ per hectare for dry lands, Rs.1,87,500/ per hectare for semiirrigated lands and Rs.2,50,000/ per hectare for irrigated lands. The learned Advocate for appellants submitted that, the lands involved in all these appeals including land in present matters, being acquired for the same project vide same notification dt. 09-07-1998 and under the same Award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act, the compensation in these matters also needs to be enhanced at the same rate. He also submitted that, the lands, in these matters are quite similar in quality and potentiality as that of lands in those decided appeals. He therefore, prayed for the enhancement in the amount of compensation at par with the compensation enhanced in those decided appeals by this Court.

(3.) Learned Advcoate Shri. B. R. Surwase appearing for the Acquiring Body / respondent No. 3 does not dispute the factual correctness of the facts mentioned by Advocate Shri Chincholkar. However, he has pointed out that, in this reference also, the Reference Court has awarded the interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act wrongly from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification. It was pointed out that in the judgment in First Appeal No. 834 of 2010, necessary modifications were made in the award passed by the reference Court. He prayed for similar modification in this case also. He also submitted that in the said case, this Court had accepted the categorization made by the SLAO in the Award passed under Section 11 of the Act. The said categorization was accepted by appellants therein. Hence, it is to be done as per award. Learned Advocate Shri Chincholkar has no objection for the same.