VIRBHADRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appellant is the original claimant who had filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 343 of 2007 (New) (old No. 331 of 2006) 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 01-08-2015. It was partly allowed. Compensation was given @ Rs.1,12,822/- per hector.

(2.) Land Survey No. 21/A admeasuring 1H 40 R from village Marajwadi, Tal. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded was acquired for submergence area of Lendi Major Project. At the time of hearing of present appeal the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant / claimant tendered across the bar the copy of the common Judgment delivered by this Court on 16-01-2019 in First Appeal No. 3133 of 2009 with 18 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 dt. 01-10-2018. 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 semi-irrigated lands and Rs.2,50,000/ per hectare for irrigated lands. The learned Advocate for appellant submitted that, the lands involved in all these appeals including land in present matter, being acquired for the same project vide same notification dt. 09-07-1998 and under the same Award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25-10-2004 under Section 11 of the Act, the compensation in this matter also needs to be enhanced at the same rate. He also submitted that, the land, in this matter is 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 Ms. Ranjana Reddy appearing for the Acquiring Body / respondent No. 3 does not dispute the factual correctness of the facts mentioned by Advocate Shri Chincholkar. However, she 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 notification. It was pointed out that in the judgment in First Appeal No. 3133 of 2009 (group), necessary modifications were made in the award passed by the reference Court. She prayed for similar modification in this case also. She 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 appellant. Hence, it is to be done as per award. Learned Advocate Shri Chincholkar has no objection for the same.