Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 778 (BOM)

Lachama v. State Of Maharashtra

2018-03-16

Z.A.HAQ

body2018
JUDGMENT Z. A. Haq, J -Heard Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for the appellant and Shri M.A. Kadu, A.G.P. for the respondents. 2. Admit. 3. The original claimant has filed this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. 4. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act of 1894") published on 25th June, 1981, 2.42 hector land of appellant came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 18th September, 1986 determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.12, 000/per hector, recording that the land which was acquired was a dry crop land. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The reference Court found that the amount of compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and enhanced it to Rs.22, 500/per hector. Again, the appellant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the reference Court, has filed this appeal. 5. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that in First Appeal No.91/1998, decided by this Court on 3rd August, 2011, compensation at the rate of Rs.65, 000/per hector is awarded for dry crop land which was situated at village Deurwadi at a distance of about 2 kilometers from Digras town and as the appellant''s land was situated at village Deurwada, which is adjoining to village Deurwadi, the appellant is entitled for compensation at the same rate i.e. Rs.65, 000/ per hector. 6. The learned A.G.P. has submitted that while delivering the judgment in First Appeal No.91/1998, this Court relied on the earlier judgment given by Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.32/1990 in which it was held that the claimant was entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.65, 000/per hector, and though the land which was subject matter of First Appeal No.32/1990 was situated in the same vicinity, was acquired for the same project and by the same notification, the land was irrigated land not drycrop land and this was not pointed out when First Appeal No.91/1998 came to be decided. The learned A.G.P. has pointed out the judgment delivered by this Court in First Appeal No.89/2008 on 17th November, 2017 in which it is clarified that for dry crop land, the compensation would not be at the rate of Rs.65, 000/per hector. 7. The learned A.G.P. has pointed out the judgment delivered by this Court in First Appeal No.89/2008 on 17th November, 2017 in which it is clarified that for dry crop land, the compensation would not be at the rate of Rs.65, 000/per hector. 7. After hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents, I find that the following point arises for consideration: (i) Whether the order passed by the reference Court determining the amount of compensation receivable by the appellant at Rs.22, 500/ per hector is just and proper ? 8. It is not in dispute that the land of the appellant / claimant is acquired for Arunavati Irrigation Project for which the land which was subject matter of First Appeal No.89/2008 was acquired. Similarity of the lands viz-a-viz fertility and potentiality is also not in dispute. 9. Accepting the submission made by the learned A.G.P., I concur with the conclusions recorded in the judgment given in First Appeal No.89/2008 and considering the material on record, hold that the appellant / claimant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.43, 000/per hector alongwilth all the statutory benefits. 10. The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. The appellant shall deposit the deficit court fees. 11. While calculating the amount for which the appellant / claimant is entitled, the Authority shall take note of the order passed by this Court on 24th January, 2018 which records that the appellant / claimant will not be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of 9536 days. 12. The certified copy of the judgment shall be issued to the appellant only after the deficit court fee is deposited.