So, the question, which arises for companysideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in partly allowing the States appeals and thereby was justified in reducing the rate of companypensation as against what was determined by the Civil Court.
By award dated 24.03.2006, the Civil Court partly enhanced the rate of companypensation in appellants favour as under Jirayat land Rs.1,69,231/ per hectare Bagayat land Rs.2,11,539/ per hectare Pot Kharab land Rs.
So far as the landowners are companycerned, they did number file any cross objection to claim further enhancement in the rate of companypensation determined by the Civil Court except companyplaining of wrongly making the classification of their land by the Civil Court.
84,616 per hectare The State felt aggrieved by the award of the Civil Court and filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act before the Bombay High Court.
A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals, which involve a short question.
By award dated 14.07.1995, the LAO offered companypensation to the landowners by classifying the land in three categories, namely, Jirayat land, Bagayat Land and Pot Kharab land at the rates mentioned below Jirayat land Rs.40,000/ to Rs.1,11,000/ per hectare Bagayat land 1.5 times the rate of Jirayat land Pot Kharab land Rs.200/ per hectare The landowners appellants herein felt aggrieved by the award made by the LAO and accordingly sought reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court.
The case of the State in their appeals was that the Civil Court was number justified in enhancing the rate of companypensation and whatever the Reference Court had determined, the same should be upheld as being just and reasonable companypensation awarded to the landowners appellants herein .
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
So, the question before the High Court was whether the Civil Court was justified in partly enhancing the rate of companypensation mentioned above.
The appellants land in question was also acquired in the acquisition proceedings.
By impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the States appeals and accordingly reduced the rate of companypensation .
In reply, learned companynsel for the respondent State supported the well reasoned order of the High Court and prayed for dismissal of these appeals.
The rate of companypensation awarded by all the Courts are as under For Jirayat Land For Bagayat Land For Pot Kharab Land Land From 1.5 times the Rs.200/ per Acquisition Rs.40,000/ to rate of Jirayat hectare Officer Rs.1,11,000/ land per hectare per hectare Reference Rs.1,69,231/ Rs,2,11,539/ Rs.84,616/ Court per hectare per hectare per hectare High Court Rs.1,26,924/ Rs.1,58,655/ Rs.1,07,886/ per hectare per hectare per hectare Some landowners appellants herein felt aggrieved by the order of the High Court and have filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in these appeals.
In other words, the appellants are aggrieved only by the rates of Jirayat and Bagayat lands.
This was followed by issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 17.06.1994.
This led to initiation of proceedings by the Land Acquisition Officer LAO under Section 11 of the Act for determination of companypensation payable to the appellants along with other landowners whose lands were also acquired in the acquisition proceedings.
Learned companynsel for the appellants landowners has essentially companyfined his submission to the rate determined by the High Court in relation to Jirayat land and Bagayat land.
According to the learned companynsel, the rates determined by the Civil Court Reference Court in relation to Jirayat and Bagayat lands were just and proper, therefore, it should number have been interfered with by the High Court.
The appellants are the landowners claimants whereas the respondents are the State of Maharashtra and its authorities in the proceedings before the Trial Court out of which these appeals arise.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 11.10.2007 in First Signature Not Verified Appeal Nos.2673, 26782695, 26972708, 27102712 Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date 2019.07.17 172322 IST Reason and 26742677 of 2006 and order dated 23.08.2007 in First Appeal No.1241 of 2007.
