With the Changing Land Policies, Compensation Must Be Increased per Hectare. The land compensation was increased from Rs.10,500 per hectare to Rs.50,000 per hectare by the Reference Court, which the High Court Of Bombay upheld. The honorable judge ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J pronounced this judgment on 25.01.2022 in JAGRAM BALU JADHAO V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ( First Appeal No.90 Of 2018 ).
Facts of this case – The appellants were the proprietors of land under Survey No.19/2 in village Mokh, Tq. Digras, Yavatmal District. The Acquiring Body (Respondent No.4) purchased the land mentioned above, which measures 6H 7R, to submerge the Arunavati Project. On the 23rd of January, 1986, the Notification under Section 4 was issued, and the Award was announced on the 3rd of August, 1988. The compensation was set at Rs.10,500 per hectare by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO). The appellants filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Act mentioned above after they were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation established by the LAO.
Shri. A. R. Chavhan, learned Advocate for the appellants, has relied on the judgment of this Court (Coram: Arun D. Upadhye, J.) dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 (Dattaram S/o Tatyaji Paul V. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.), wherein this Court (Coram: Arun D. Upadhye, J.) increased the compensation in respect of the land under The increase was based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal Nos.5146-5147 of 2011. The appellants’ learned Advocate contends that the land under Survey No.93/4 is similar and near the relevant area. He further claims that the same Notification was used to purchase the land under Survey No.93/4 for the same reason.
This Court decided the compensation in respect of Survey No.93/4 at Rs.70,000/- per acre in a decision dated 17.09.2010 in First Appeal No.87 of 1996, according to Shri. M. A. Kadu learned Advocate for respondent no.4. He claims that the appellants in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 had their compensation increased by concealing that compensation for the same land had been set at Rs.70,000/- per hectare in First Appeal No.87 of 1996, a judgment dated 17.09.2010. As a result, he claims that the judgment dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 cannot be used to determine the market rate of the relevant land.
The Learned Judge ruled that the petition for increased compensation is primarily based on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No.5146-5147 of 2011 and the ruling dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996. The verdict in First Appeal No.426 of 1996, issued the 20th of February, 2009, concerns agricultural property in village Mokh under Survey No.93/4, which was also acquired by the same Notification. Dattaram Tatyaji Paul, the landowner, filed a Section 18 reference, LAC 193/1992, and the Reference Court, by order dated 15.09.1995, increased the compensation to Rs.90,000/- per hectare.
It is widely established that an order granting relief mistakenly or by mistake does not confer any legal right on others to get the same ease. A wrong that has been committed in the past cannot be repeated. “Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and anr. V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81.” As a result, the petitioner is not entitled to further compensation based on the judgment in First Appeal No.426 of1996, which was acquired by overturning the prior decision in First Appeal No.87 of 1996.
The appeal is somewhat admissible in this situation. Compensation for land measuring 6H 7R from Survey No.19/2 of village Mokh has been increased from Rs.50,000/- per hectare to Rs.70,000/- per hectare, including interest from the date of admission of the appeal till ultimate realization. The respondent/Acquiring Body must deposit the increased compensation with interest as described above within four months.
Click here to view the Judgement
Reviewed by Rangasree.
