Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation against the judgment of the Reference Court in LAC No. 2153/2004. The land of respondent no.1, Madhukar Natthuji Gole (since deceased, represented by his legal heirs), situated at Gat No.155, area 2 hectres 21 R, out of which 1 hector 70 R was acquired for the Ner Project. Notification under Section 4 was published on 2nd March 1995, and the award was passed on 31st January 1998, granting compensation at Rs. 28,000 per hectare. The respondent challenged the award before the Reference Court, claiming Rs. 5,00,000 per hectare. The Reference Court partly allowed the reference and granted compensation at Rs. 1,50,000 per hectare for the acquired land of 1 hector 07 R (which was a typographical error for 1 hector 70 R). The appellant appealed against this enhancement. The High Court heard the appellant's counsel and noted that the respondent's counsel pointed out earlier decisions of the same court in First Appeal Nos. 470/2005, 464/2005, and 1000/2007, where lands in the same village (Pathard) acquired for the same project were granted similar compensation. The court found that the present appeal was without merit and dismissed it with costs. The court also corrected the typographical error in the area of land from 1 hector 07 R to 1 hector 70 R, clarifying that the respondent is entitled to compensation for 1 hector 70 R of land.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Enhancement - Precedent - The acquiring body challenged the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court for land acquired for the Ner Project. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent was entitled to compensation as per earlier judgments of the same court in First Appeal Nos. 470/2005, 464/2005, and 1000/2007, which dealt with lands in the same village acquired for the same project. The court also corrected a typographical error in the area of land from 1 hector 07 R to 1 hector 70 R. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to challenge the compensation awarded by the Reference Court in light of earlier judgments of the same court regarding similar lands acquired for the same project.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs. The court also corrected the typographical error in the area of land from 1 hector 07 R to 1 hector 70 R, clarifying that the respondent is entitled to compensation for 1 hector 70 R of land.
Law Points
- Compensation for land acquisition
- Precedent judgments
- Mistake in typing area of land
- Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (09) 176
First Appeal No. 454 of 2005
Shri A.B. Patil for appellant; None present for respondents (but earlier mentioned Advocate Shri Deshpande for respondent no.1 and AGP Miss Prabhu for respondent no.2 and 3)
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Project Division, Pusad, District Yeotmal
Madhukar Natthuji Gole (Dead) through LRs: Pramod Madhukar Gole, Mukund Madhukar Gole, Keshav Madhukar Gole, Shobhabai Vithalrao Thakare; The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Yeotmal; The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Department No.1, Yeotmal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against judgment of Reference Court enhancing compensation for land acquisition.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the Reference Court's award of compensation at Rs. 1,50,000 per hectare instead of Rs. 28,000 per hectare granted by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Previous Decisions
Reference Court partly allowed the reference and granted compensation at Rs. 1,50,000 per hectare for acquired land of 1 hector 07 R (typo for 1 hector 70 R).
Issues
Whether the appellant is entitled to challenge the compensation awarded by the Reference Court in light of earlier judgments of the same court regarding similar lands acquired for the same project.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was excessive.
Respondent argued that the compensation was in line with earlier judgments of the same court in First Appeal Nos. 470/2005, 464/2005, and 1000/2007, which dealt with lands in the same village acquired for the same project.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the respondent is entitled to compensation as per earlier judgments of the same court in First Appeal Nos. 470/2005, 464/2005, and 1000/2007, which dealt with lands in the same village acquired for the same project. The appeal was without merit and dismissed with costs.
Judgment Excerpts
In view of the judgment of this court in above said appeals, the appeal is without any merit. Hence, dismissed with cost.
It appears that the Reference court has committed mistake while typing the area of land. Instead of 1 hector 70 R it is typed in that judgment 1 hector 07 R. Therefore mistake be corrected.
Procedural History
Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act published on 2nd March 1995. Award passed on 31st January 1998 by Land Acquisition Officer granting compensation at Rs. 28,000 per hectare. Respondent challenged award before Reference Court in LAC No. 2153/2004, which partly allowed reference and granted compensation at Rs. 1,50,000 per hectare. Appellant filed First Appeal No. 454 of 2005 before the High Court against that judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 54
