JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur Bench in First Appeal No. 1302 of 2009 by which the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the original owners/original claimants and has enhanced the amount of compensation for the lands acquired mainly relying upon the prevailing Ready Reckoner rates of the land, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the lands owned by the respondents herein-original landowners situated at Yavatmal, Maharashtra were acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for BSNL. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award determining the total compensation @ Rs. 14,33,703/- (at Rs. 13.32 per sq. ft.). At the instance of the landowners, a reference was made to the Reference Court. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 21/- per sq. ft.

2.1 In a further appeal to the High Court at the instance of the original claimants, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 174/- per sq. ft. (more than 800% of the Reference Court compensation and about 1300% of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer).

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 174/- per sq. ft. BSNL has preferred the present appeal.

3. Shri R.D. Agrawala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of BSNL has vehemently submitted that the High Court has seriously erred in enhancing the amount of compensation solely relying upon the prevailing Ready Reckoner rates. It is submitted that the sole basis for more than 800% increase by the High Court is the prevailing Ready Reckoner rates of land, which as such is not permissible as held by this Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 595 and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan vs. Bipin Kumar, (2004) 2 SCC 283.

3.1 Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-BSNL has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reliance could have been placed on the Ready Reckoner as PW-3 a Government Officer specifically admitted that the actual rates of transaction of sales in market are different from the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner and that the correct market price is not reflected from the Ready Reckoner. It is submitted that PW3 further specifically admitted that the Ready Reckoner was prepared only for collecting stamp duty. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has seriously erred in enhancing the amount of compensation solely relying upon the Ready Reckoner prices of the area in question.

3.2 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-BSNL that in the present case, the High Court has relied upon and/or considered the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shalini Vaman Godbole vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Special Unit, Solapur and Others, (2009) 5 Mah. L.J. 884 rather than not following the decisions of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan (supra), which are binding on all Courts of the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

3.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

4. Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has adopted the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-BSNL and submitted that the High Court has committed a serious error in awarding such an exorbitant compensation.

5. Present