AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length.
By the present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short), read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the C.P.C.” for short), the appellants/claimants prayed for enhancement of compensation to Rs.18.00 lakh on the ground that respondent No.3-acquiring body acquired their potential and irrigated land to the extent of 8.50 hectares.
Needless to say, on 17/02/2011, the learned Reference Court/ Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yavatmal, passed the judgment and award in L.A.C. No.22/2009 and determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for the acquired land admeasuring 8.50 hectares out of Gat No.227/2 of Village Dabha. The learned Reference Court also determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mango tree for 10 mango trees and awarded 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation.
The learned Reference Court further held that the appellants/ claimants were entitled to additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of publication of the notification, dated 19/11/1999 under Section 4 of the Act on the enhanced compensation till the date of award, i.e. 18/05/2003. The Reference Court further awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of the award dated 18/05/2003 on the amount due (i.e. enhanced compensation + 30% solatium + additional compensation at 12% per annum from the date of notification till the date of award after deducting the amount of compensation already paid). The appellants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount due from 19/05/2004 till the date of payment of the entire compensation.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants/ claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.18.00 lakh.
The acquiring body also filed First Appeal No.1072/2013, challenging the judgment and award dated 17/02/2011 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.22/2009. On 16/10/2019, this Court passed the judgment and decree in First Appeal No.1072/2013 considering the rates of lands of other villages acquired by respondent No.3-acquiring body for the same project and in the same village, and enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,37,000/- per hectare, on the basis of the judgment and order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.557/2007 and other connected appeals.
Since this Court has already determined the compensation on the basis of the previous judgment passed in First Appeal No.557/2007 and has held that the appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,37,000/- per hectare, this Court is of the view that the quantum of compensation determined by this Court in the appeal filed by the acquiring body is just and proper. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with or to further enhance the said compensation.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants further relied upon the judgment dated 09/10/2025 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.426/1996, (Dattaram Tatyaji Paul (Dead), through L.Rs. vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), wherein, in paragraphs 8 and 9, this Court has observed as under:
“8.At the outset, the learned counsel for respondent no.4 raised the objection that in view of order of this court in First Appeal No.87/1996 decided on 17.09.2010, the judgment and order of the reference court is already modified in the matter. The said modification is done by this court itself. As a result, the order of the reference court is now merged in the order dated 17.09.2010 passed in First Appeal No.87/1996. Hence, applying the law of merger, the present appeal now cannot be decided by this court. The only remedy is now available to the appellant to approach before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the facts and circumstances of the matter.
9.In support of submission, respondent no.4 has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balbir Singh and another vs. Baldev Singh (Dead) through his legal heirs and others, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 543, particularly para 27 and 28 reads as under:
27.The doctrine of merger is founded on the rationale that there cannot be more than one operative decree at a given point of time. The doctrine of merger applies irrespective of whether the appellate court has affirmed, modified or reversed the decree of the trial court. The doctrine has been discussed and explained succinctly by this Court in Surinder Pal Soni v. Sohan Lal.
28.In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, while explaining the doctrine of merger, this Court held thus: (SCC p. 370, para 12)
‘12. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below. However, the doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view.’
Therefore, I do not find any reason to modify the judgment and order dated 16/10/2019 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.1072/2013 or to determine any other amount of compensation. Hence, I find that the appellants have failed to make out any substantial ground for interference with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.