AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Nikhil Waghmare, holding for Mr. P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. V.T. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. G.S. Umale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the sides, I have gone through the record and proceedings as well as the appeal papers.
By the present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the appellants-acquiring body have challenged the judgment and award dated 14/03/2012 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, whereby the compensation for the acquired land has been determined at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare.
According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Reference Court has not properly determined the compensation. He submitted that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, in respect of acquisition of the land situated at Mouza Wardhmaneri, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha, came to be issued on 03/12/1999. Thereafter, on 31/07/2002, an award came to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Wardha Project, Wardha, whereby land admeasuring 0.24 H.R. belonging to respondent No.1 herein was acquired.
Being aggrieved by the said award, respondent No.1-claimant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired land.
The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation granted by the learned Reference Court is highly inadequate and improper. He invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment and award, wherein the learned Reference Court determined the market value of the dry crop land at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare, on the basis of the judgment rendered in L.A.C. No.65/2004. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award is unsustainable and requires to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that in an identical matter bearing First Appeal No.1051 of 2013 (Executive Engineer, V.I.D.C., vs. Bakaram Gangaram Sahembekar (Deceased) through Legal Heirs and others, decided on 28/06/2022, as well as in First Appeal No.901 of 2013 (Executive Engineer, V.I.D.C. vs. Murlidhar Laxmanrao Mehare and others, decided on 15/07/2026, this Court had upheld the determination of compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare and dismissed the appeals. Therefore, considering the compensation determined by the learned Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 14/03/2012, the same appears to be just and reasonable.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has not disputed the fact that compensation in respect of the adjacent acquired land was determined at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare. Therefore, considering the potentiality of the acquired land, I do not find that the learned Reference Court has committed any error in determining the compensation at the aforesaid rate.
It is pertinent to note that this Court has already dismissed First Appeal No.901/2013 in respect of the same project, involving similar facts and determination of compensation. Therefore, I do not find any reason to take a different view in the present matter or to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any substance in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The record and proceedings be remitted back to the learned Reference Court.