Partly allowed

Shriram S/O Namdeo Kuradkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Amravati and Others

Bombay HC9 Jan 2024FA/901/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation appeal for open plot and construction in village Ghuikhed taken for Bembla Project. Following two earlier first appeals of the same village, court enhanced plot compensation from Rs.500 to Rs.575 per sq.mtr. and retained 35% enhancement on construction.

What did the court decide?

Open plot compensation enhanced to Rs.575 per sq.mtr. with statutory benefits and interest; deposit within two months; deficit court fee payable/deductible.

Shriram S/O Namdeo Kuradkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:866

¶2

24C.FA.901.2023.Judgment.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 901 OF 2023

¶6

APPELLANT

¶7

: Shriram S/o. Namdeo Kuradkar, Aged 71 years, Occ.: Agriculturist, R/o. Ghuikhed, Tq. Chandur Railway, Dist. Amravati.

¶8

//VERSUS//

¶9

RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶10

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Wardha Project No.4, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.

¶12

¶13

Ms. Shreya Bhagat, Advocate h/f. Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶14

Mr. Ganesh Umale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶15

************************************************************** CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J. DATED : 9 th JANUARY , 2024.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Heard Ms. Shreya Bhagat, learned advocate holding for

¶18

Mr. P.R. Agrawal, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Ganesh Umale, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. M.A.

¶19

24C.FA.901.2023.Judgment.odt

¶20

¶21

Kadu, learned advocate for respondent No.3. Perused the record and proceedings.

¶22

02] In this appeal, challenge is to the impugned judgment and award dated 18.04.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati (for short “the Reference Court”), whereby the claim for enhancement of compensation was partly allowed.

¶23

03] The factual position in the present appeal is as under:-

¶24

Be	mbla Project, Dis	trict Yavatmal
Date of Notificati Acquisition Act, 1	on under Section 894.	4 of the Land	19.04.2007
Address of property	Details of property	LAO Award Dated 06.09.2008	Ref. Court Award Dated 18.04.2016
House No.297 Village:	Open plot: 137.90 sq. mtr.	Rs.140/- per sq. mtr.	Rs.500/- per sq. mtr
Ghuikhed, Tahsil Chandur Railway, District : Amravati	Construction : 133.20 sq. mtr.	Rs.1,43,997/-	Rs.1,94,395/-

¶25

04] According to the appellant, the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court in respect of the open plot of land and construction is grossly inadequate. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that as far as the open plot of land from the same village is concerned, the Co-ordinate Bench of

¶26

3- 24C.FA.901.2023.Judgment.odt

¶27

this Court in First Appeal No.1378/2018, decided on 06.09.2021 [Sharad Gangadhar Gulhane Vs. The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Camp, Amravati] has awarded the compensation @ Rs.575/- per sq. mtr. Learned advocate submitted that, therefore, this appeal to the extent of open plot of land is concerned, has been fully covered by the decision in First Appeal No.1378/2018. As far as the compensation in respect of the construction is concerned, learned advocate submitted that after taking the evidence into consideration, the Reference Court without any reason has granted enhancement on the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the extent of 35% only. Learned advocate submitted that the enhancement ought to have been 41% on the amount of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the construction. This aspect has not been considered in First Appeal No.1378/2018.

¶28

05] Learned advocate Mr. Kadu for respondent No.3, relying upon a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.846/2019, decided on 02.12.2022 [Shamrao Laxman Navghare and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Camp, Amravati] of the same village, has pointed out that in this appeal, the Co-ordinate Bench of this

¶29

24C.FA.901.2023.Judgment.odt

¶30

¶31

Court has confirmed the enhancement @ 35% granted by the Reference Court on the amount of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Learned advocate submitted that, therefore, parity has to be maintained. Learned advocate submitted that, therefore, the enhancement @ 35% may be maintained.

¶32

06] On going through the decisions rendered in the above two first appeals, it is seen that this appeal is fully covered. As far as the construction is concerned, there is no need to modify the order passed by the Reference Court. As far as the open plot of land is concerned, the compensation awarded @ Rs.500/- per sq. mtr. is required to be enhanced to Rs.575/- per sq. mtr.

¶33

07] Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed . The appellants are entitled to get the compensation in respect of the open plot of land @ Rs.575/- (Rs. Five Hundred Seventy Five Only) per sq. mtr. with all other statutory benefits and interest. The amount in terms of this order be deposited within two months from today.

¶34

08] It is made clear that while calculating the aforesaid amount, interest and other statutory benefits for the period of delay of 1337 days caused in filing this appeal, shall not be calculated and granted.

¶35

5- 24C.FA.901.2023.Judgment.odt

¶36

09] The appellant/claimant is required to pay the deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced amount of compensation. If the deficit Court fee is not paid by the appellant/claimant, then the same shall be recovered/deducted from the enhanced compensation amount.

¶37

10] The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to

¶38

costs.

¶39

Vijay

Shriram S/O Namdeo Kuradkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram S/O Namdeo Kuradkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramrao S/O Shripat Kakde Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Buldhana and Others

V. I. D. C. through Its Executive Engineer, Amravati Medium Project Division (Irrigation Department Vs Nalinibai Wd/O Marotrao Amrutkar and 2 Others

Sk.Chand S/O Sk. Lal(Dead) Smt. Bibi Fatema Wd/O Sk. Chand (Dead) Thro. Lrs Sk. Mastan S/O Sk.Chand Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Vitthal Ramaji Kamathe vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ps Tiosa, Tq Tiosa Dist. Amravati

Smt. Sheelabai Ramkrushna Niswade vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Collector, Amravati and Others

Moreshwar S/O Natthuji Chanekar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Amravati and Others