IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR

1   fa831.06.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2006 Maharashtra Industrial Development C...

368KB Sizes 0 Downloads 25 Views

1

 

fa831.06.odt

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

FIRST APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2006

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, having its office at Marol Industrial Estate, Anheri East, Mumbai and having its Regional Office at Udyog Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur,  through its Chief Executive Officer, 

APPELLANT

...VERSUS... 1.

Arun Ganpatrao Shende, aged 42 years, Occ. Agriculturist, (deceased) through L.Rs.

1A

Smt. Usha Wd/o. Arun Shende, aged 46 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

1B

Gurudas Arun Shende, aged 27 years, Occ. Labour, Both R/o. Maregaon, Tah. Mul, District Chandrapur.

1C

Sau. Madhur w/o. Vijay Bhoyar, aged 23 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Nalfadi, Tah. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur.

1D

Sau. Nima Satyawan Kamade, aged 20 years, Occ. Household, R/o Chamorshi, Tah. Chamorshi, Distt. Chandrapur.

2

Shriram Ganpatrao Shende, aged 39 years, Occ. Agriculturist (deceased) through L.Rs.

::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2016

::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2017 14:39:38 :::

2

2A.

Smt. Manda Wd/o Shriram Shende,' aged 36 years, Occ. Household,

2B.

Idit S/o Shriram Shende, aged 13 years, Occ. Student.

2C

Ku. Geeta S/o Shriram Shende, aged 17 years, Occ. Student.

2D

ku. Neela d/o Shriram Shende, aged 19 years, Occ. Hosuehold,

fa831.06.odt

All R/o. Moregaon, Tah. Mul, Distt. Chandapur. 2E

Sau. Gita Siddheshwar Bhoyar, aged 20 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Mul, Tah. Mul, Distt. Chandrapur. Applicant 2B and 2C are minors Represented through their guardian mother Respondent No. 2A

3.

Smt. Bharathabai Ganpatrao Shende, aged 70 years, R/o. Maregaon, Tah. Mul, Distt. Chandrapur.

4.

The State of Maharashtra, Through Sub Divisional Officer, Chandrapur      

RESPONDENTS

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Shri M.M.Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant. Shri R.S.Charpe, counsel for Respondents  Smt. N.P.Mehta, AGP for Respondent No.4 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J. st DATE    : 21       MARCH 2016 .

::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2016

::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2017 14:39:38 :::

3

fa831.06.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT

1]

In  Land  Acquisition  Case  No.  25  of  1996,  under

Section   34   of   the   Maharashtra   Industrial   Development Corporation Act, 1968,  the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation   for   dry   crop   land.   The   Reference   Court   has granted   enhancement   at   the   rate   of   Rs.30,000/­   per   hectare against the rate of Rs.15,000/­ per hectare granted by the Land Acquisition Officer.   The acquiring body is before this Court to challenge the enhancement so granted.

2]

Shri Agnihotri,  the  learned counsel appearing for

the appellant M.I.D.C, the acquiring body, raises the point that, there is no basis to hold that the lands in question were irrigated lands.

3]

Shri Agnihotri, however, does not press the point

regarding limitation decided by the trial Court on the ground that the Exh. 59 and the other documents placed on record shows that the notice was issued to the claimant asking him to remain present on 04.04.1994 to receive the amount of compensation. Thus, from 04.04.1994 the reference  was filed within the period of limitation.

::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2016

::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2017 14:39:38 :::

4

4]

fa831.06.odt

With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have

gone through the findings recorded by the Reference Court.  In Paragraph No. 16, the Reference Court has held as under; "16.  In the instant case, the applicants came with the case that   the   lands   acquired   by   the   Land   Acquisition   Officer belonging to them are irrigated land. The applicants have filed the 7/12 extract (Exh.21 to Exh.25) on the record.   I have   carefully   gone   through   the   7/12   extract.   The   7/12 extract (Exh.21) is in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.  296/1  which  is  situated  at village Maregaon. The   7/12   extract   (Exh.21)   clearly   shows   that   the   land bearing   Survey   No.   296/1   admeasuring   0.56   HR   is irrigated land. The Land Acquisition Officer has also shown Survey No. 296/1 of village Moregaon as irrigated land in award   (Exh.26).     All   the   land   except   Survey   No.   57 admeasuring  0.86  HR  situated  at  village  Akapur  are  dry crop land. The 7/12 extract (exh.25) clearly shows that the land bearing Survey No. 57 belonging to the applicants is irrigated land. The Land Acquisition Officer has also shown Survey No. 57 of Village Akapur as an irrigated land on the award (Exh.26) at page no.11"

The  finding  is  based  upon 7/12  extract  as  well  the  award  at Exh.26 which clearly indicate that two survey Nos. i.e. 296/1 and   part   of   Survey   No.   57   were   irrigated   lands.     It   cannot, therefore, be said that the Reference Court has committed an error in holding that the lands were irrigated lands.   In   view   of   above,   there   is   no   substance   in   the appeal. The same is dismissed.

JUDGE Rvjalit

::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2016

::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2017 14:39:38 :::