SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
Smt. Ragusa Bhagusa Sawle (Dead) through Legal Representative :- Himmat Ragusa Sawle – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 974 Of 2024
Decided On : 15-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. I. M. Ghongade, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Mukta Kavimandan, Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. M.A. Kadu, Advocate.

The principle of parity in compensation for land acquisition mandates that similarly situated properties receive comparable compensation rates.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Appeal against compensation awarded for land acquisition - The appellant challenged the compensation awarded for constructed area acquired for public purpose under the Kumbharkinhi Project, seeking parity with a previous judgment enhancing compensation for similar properties. (Paras 4, 7)

(B) Principle of parity - The court emphasized that similar properties should receive comparable compensation rates to ensure fairness in land acquisition cases. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The appellant's property, a constructed area of 30.66 sq. mtr. in village Kumbharkinhi, was acquired under a notification for public purpose, with initial compensation set at Rs.831/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court enhanced this to Rs.1662/- per sq.mtr. based on previous judgments.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant's property was similarly situated to another property for which compensation was previously enhanced to Rs.3200/- per sq.mtr. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the compensation to Rs.2880/- per sq.mtr. for the constructed area.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to the same compensation rate as awarded in a previous case for similar properties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principle of parity necessitates that similarly situated properties receive comparable compensation rates, thereby enhancing the compensation for the appellant's property.

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)

1. Admit. Heard finally with consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwha, District Yavatmal dated 26.10.2016 in Land Acquisition Case No.1874/2004 (old L.A.C. No.103/2003).

3. The challenge under this appeal is only about constructed area 30.66 sq. mtr., situated at village Kumbharkinhi, Taluka Darwha, District Yavatmal was acquired for public purpose under Kumbharkini Project. Under the same project, other lands as well as constructed houses were acquired under the same notification and same purposes.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant is relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No.364/2016 (Ganesh Pundlik Deeve Vs. Executive Engineer, Kumbharkinhi Dam Division Pusad, Tq. Pusad Distt. Yavatmal and others) dated 22.02.2021, wherein this Court after considering evidence and parity, enhanced the compensation regarding constructed structure of the same village at the rate of Rs.3200/- per sq. mtr. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that house of appellant is similarly situated with the house in First Appeal No.364/2016. He, therefore, prayed to award the same rate to the appellant.

5. Perused the impugned judgment and the judgment of this Court dated 22.02.2021, passed in First Appeal No.364/2016.

6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. I. M. Ghongade for appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Mukta Kavimandan for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Advocate Mr. M. A. Kadu for respondent No.3.

7. The admitted facts are that house Nos.149, admeasuring 24.64 sq. mtr. open plot area and 30.66 sq. mtr. constructed area of village Kumbharkinhi, Tahsil Darwha, District Yavatmal was acquired by notification dated 06.11.1998 according to the award passed on 30.12.2000. By the award of Land Acquisition Officer, Rs.80/- per sq.mtr. for open plot and Rs.831/- per sq.mtr. for construction was fixed and total amount of Rs.29,918/- was granted as compensation to the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Reference Court enhanced the amount and awarded compensation @ Rs.240/- per sq.mtr. for open plot area and @ Rs.1662/- per sq.mtr. for constructed area. However, on going through the judgment rendered in First Appeal No.364/2016 in respect of the property situated at village Kumbharkinhi, considered Rs.3,200/- per sq. mtr. rate for constructed area of same village. I am satisfied that this appeal is covered by the decision rendered in First Appeal No.364/2016. Therefore, the appellant is also entitled for same rate of compensation as the house of appellant was situated at same village and acquired for same purpose. Considering this fact and applying the principle of parity, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed with 10% depreciation i.e. Rs.2,880/- per sq.mtr. for constructed area. The impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court deserves to be partly set aside and modified.

8. The appeal is partly allowed.

9. The appellant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,880/- (Rs. Two thousand Eight hundred and Eighty only) per sq. mtr. for the constructed area of 30.36 sq. mtr., to that extent impugned judgment and award is modified along with statutory benefits, except the period for which the delay was caused in filing the appeal and it was condoned by this Court by order dated 26.09.2024.

10. The respondent No.3 is directed to calculate the appropriate compensation as per above rate and deposit the remaining amount in this Court within six months.

11. The appellant is required to pay the deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced amount of compensation.

12. After depositing the amount, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same and no any further application or order is required for directions to the registry.

13. The registry is directed accordingly to pay that amo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top