Dismissed

Bhagwan Ananda Tayade v. v.I.Dc., through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Division -Ii, Buldhana and Others

Bombay HC27 Mar 2024XOB/33/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant challenged the enhancement of compensation for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Relying on a similar precedent, the High Court affirmed the Reference Court's award and dismissed both the appeal and the cross-objection.

What did the court decide?

None granted; Appeal and Cross-objection dismissed.

Bhagwan Ananda Tayade Vs v.I.Dc., through Executive… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:4977

¶2

FA.178.2013. Judgment.odt

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2013 WITH C ROSS-OBJECTION NO. 33 OF 2024

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2013

¶7

APPELLANT : Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.2, Chikhali.

¶8

//VERSUS//

¶9

RESPONDENTS : 1. Bhagwan Ananda Tayade, Aged about 51 Years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kardi, Tq. & Dist. Buldhana. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works, Buldhana.

¶10

¶11

Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. R.B. Dhore, Advocate with Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Ganesh Umale, AGP for Respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

WITH

¶15

CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 33 OF 2024

¶16

: CROSS-OBJECTOR Bhagwan Ananda Tayade, Aged about 51 Years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o. Kardi, Tq. & Dist. Buldhana.

¶17

FA.178.2013. Judgment.odt

¶18

¶19

//VERSUS//

¶20

RESPONDENTS : 1. Viderbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division-II, Chikhali, Buldhana.

¶21

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works, Buldhana.

¶22

¶23

Mr. R.B. Dhore, Advocate with Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the Cross-objector.

¶24

Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Ganesh Umale, AGP for Respondent No.2.

¶25

************************************************************** CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J. DATED : 27th MARCH , 2024.

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and award dated 24.12.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Buldhana (for short “the Reference Court”), whereby the claim for enhancement of compensation was partly allowed.

¶28

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

¶29

Kardi Minor Irrigation Tank, District Buld	hana
Date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.	16.09.1993
Address of property Details of property LAO Award Dated 27.03.1996	Ref. Court Award Dated 24.12.2010

¶30

FA.178.2013. Judgment.odt

¶31

¶32

Village:Kardi,	Gat No.47	Rs.22,000/-	Rs.2,80,000/-
Tahsil & District : Buldhana	1H 02R	per hectare	per hectare

¶33

03] Respondent No.1 filed the reference before the Collector, Buldhana. The Collector, Buldhana, made over the reference to the Civil Court. It is the case of respondent No.1 that his land was irrigated. According to him, the price of the land determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. According to him, the market price of the acquired land was more than Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court, on the basis of the evidence, partly allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation from Rs.22,000/- to Rs.2,80,000/- per hectare.

¶34

04] The appellant/Acquiring Body, being aggrieved by this judgment and award, has filed this appeal. Respondent No.1 has filed the cross-objection.

¶35

05] I have heard learned advocates for the parties. Perused the record and proceedings.

¶36

06] Learned advocates for the parties submit that this appeal

¶37

is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in First Appeal

¶38

FA.178.2013. Judgment.odt

¶39

¶40

No. 968/2012 [Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation thr. its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.2, Chikhali, Buldhana Vs. Subhash Narayan & Anr. on 27.03.2024]

¶41

07] On going through the record and proceedings, it is seen that the land was acquired for the purpose of Kardi Minor Irrigation Tank. The date of award in both the cases is same. It is, therefore, apparent that the land in First Appeal No.968/2012 is similarly situated with the land of the claimant. The Reference Court has held that the land of the claimant was irrigated land. The land in First Appeal No.968/2012 was also irrigated land. In my view, the Reference Court has rightly determined the market price of the land. As such, no interference is warranted in the wellreasoned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. As a result of this, the appeal is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶42

08] As far as the cross-objection is concerned, on going through the judgment and award, I conclude that the Reference Court has awarded just, proper, and reasonable compensation on the basis of the two sale deeds discussed in First Appeal No.968/2012. As such, the contention of the cross-objector that the market price of the dry crop land would be Rs.1,80,000/-

¶43

5- FA.178.2013. Judgment.odt

¶44

cannot be accepted. His contention that he is entitled to get double the price of dry crop land in respect of the acquired land as such cannot be accepted. The cross-objection, therefore, is dismissed . No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶45

(G. A. SANAP, J.)

¶46

Vijay

Bhagwan Ananda Tayade v. v.I.Dc., through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Division -Ii, Buldhana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Ananda Tayade v. v.I.Dc., through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Division -Ii, Buldhana 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

Diwakar S/O Rajjana Bomkanthiwar Vs Sau. Seema W/O Madam Regundawar and Anr.

Varsha Mukundrao Gawande Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corp. Thr. Its Executive Engineer, Amravati Irrigation Division Vs Pandurang Jhabuji Katre and 2 Others

Sheikh Aslam Sheikh Mustashekh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Malegaon Washim

Namdeo Bhimrao Jadhao Thr. His Lrs. Sumanbai Wd/O Namdeo Jadhav and Others Vs v.I.Dc., through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Division -Ii, Buldhana and Others

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Nagpur Thr. Its Manager (Legal) Vs Manohar S/O Janbaji Vyawahare Thr. P.O.A. Gangabai W/O Manohar Vyawahare and Another