IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

CROSS APPEAL NO. OF 2018

DISTRICT: AURANGABAD.

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 54 OF THE LAND

ACQUISITION ACT.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF JUDGEMENT AND AWARD PASSED
IN LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO. 290/2007,
DATED 5/11/2015 PASSED BY CIVIL
JUDGE,S.D,AURANGABAD.

1. Laxmikant Yashwant Bagal

Age-60 years,occu- Pensioner
R/o. Plot No. 151, Tilak Nagar
Veer Savarkar Chowk, Aurangabad.

2. Smt. Lata Laxmikant Bagal

Age-46 years, Occu-Household
R/o. Plot No. 151, Tilak Nagar
Veer Savarkar Chowk, Aurangabad. ….. Appellants

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra through

Collector Aurangabad.
2. Administrator, City & Industrial
Development Corporation. ….. Respondents

To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
OTHER HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

HUMBLE APPEAL OF THE

APPELLANT ABOVE NAMED.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1) The Appellants submits that, the Respondent filed an appeal

bearing First appeal No. 1371 of 2016 challenging the impugned
Judgement and order passed by IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division
Aurangabad on the ground that the same is untenable at law.

2) The Appellants being aggrieved by the judgement and award

passed by III rd joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Aurangabad in L.A.R
No. 290 of 2007, hereby files a cross appeal on following amongst other
grounds:-

GROUNDS

I) That the impugned Judgement and award is not proper and the
same is untenable at law.

II) That the learned lower court has committed an error while granting
compensation by take an average between the relevant market value.The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Major Kapil Mehra and others vs
Union of India reported in 2014 SCC 837 laid down the factors to be
considered while fixing market value of acquired land which are as
follows (i) Existing geographical situation of land ii) Existing use of land
iii) Already available advantages like proximity to National or state
Highway or road or developed area. iv) Market value of other land
situated in same locality. The court further held that where land
acquired are of different types and of different locations, averaging is not
permissible.

III) The learned court has failed to consider the properties similar to
that of the Appellant, thereby resulting in arbitrary and discriminatory
treatment. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Narendra and
Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2017(9) SCC
426 laid down that it is settled law that the compensation under the Act
of 1894 had to be fair and just. Fairness requires that all those similarly
situated are treated similarly.

IV) The Appellants submits that the impugned judgement and award
are liable to be quashed and set aside.

V) That the Appellants craves leave and liberty of this Honourable Court
to add, amend, alter or delete any of the contentions at the time of
hearing or final hearing in the interest of Justice and facts of and
circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE APPELLANTS AS

IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Dated: /06/2018 TALEKAR AND ASSOCIATES

Place: AURANGABAD ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS

FOOT NOTES :-
1. Appeal is valued at Rs._______/- for the purposes of Jurisdiction
and appeal is valued at Rs.________/- for the purposes

II) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Bhag Singh and Ors. v.
Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in (1985) 3 SCC 737 has
emphasised on the fact, in a case where the other party is the State
Government, relief granted to the Petitioner, should always be
determined on the relevant market value irrespective of what is claimed
by the petitioner is his pleadings.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhimasha v. Special Land

Acquisition Officer and Others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 797 laid
down the principle that a higher compensation than claimed by the
owner in his pleadings can be awarded by the Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krishi Utpadan Mandi

Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal reported in (2000) 7 SCC 756 laid down that
High Court granting compensation more than what is claimed cannot be
said to be illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Act.