AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final hearing with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant is the land owner whose land came to be acquired for the submergence of Arunavati project. The land was acquired pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’) which was published in the month of September-1991 and the award was passed on 31.03.1993. The compensation against the land acquired was paid by the respondents and the same is received by the appellant under protest and he has filed the instant appeal claiming enhanced compensation.
By this appeal, the appellant has sought for modification and correction of the judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darwha in L.A.C. No.1169 of 2004 and claimed enhanced compensation.
Shri J.A. Malnas, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the controversy involved in the instant appeal is covered by the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 30.08.2016 in First Appeal Stamp No.5286 of 2015 [Sk.Ninnu Sk. Manna (Dead) Thr. LR’s Versus The State Court’s order dated of Maharashtra & Others] since both the cases are arising out of same acquisition same project.
In view of this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondents were directed to verify and make a statement. Accordingly, the counsel for the respondent no.3-Executive Engineer, Arunavati Project submitted that the controversy involved in the instant appeal is covered by the said judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is being decided.
While deciding First Appeal Stamp No.5286 of 2015, this Court had observed that the land owners whose lands were acquired for the same project vide same notification had approached this Court in First Appeal No.89 of 1995 [State of Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd.Shabbir Sk.Aziz & Others] and this Court by judgment dated 03.04.2009 had concluded that the land owners were entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,40,000/- per Hectare alongwith statutory benefits. In view of this, First Appeal No.89 of 1995 was decided by granting enhanced compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- per Hectare to the appellants therein.
The position of law is clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh & Others Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2017) 4 SCC 717] by observing that when the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the landowners unless there are strong reasons.
Accordingly, since the counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the instant appeal is covered by the judgment dated 03.04.2009, there is no impediment to pass similar order. Hence, following order is passed:-
I. The judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by the reference Court is modified and it is held that the appellant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,40,000/- per Hectare alongwith all statutory benefits.
II. The appellant is directed to pay the deficit Court fees and the certified copy of this judgment be given to the appellant only after payment of deficit Court fees.
The first appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms and disposed of. The parties to bear their own costs.