IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12829-12830 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.5247-5248/2022)

SURYAKANT (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The land of the appellants in Survey No.101 of village Chincholi, Tehsil Digras, Yavatmal, Maharashtra was acquired for Arunavati Project. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs.7,500/- per hectare. On reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, compensation was enhanced to Rs.35,000/- per hectare.

3. The dissatisfied land owners, including the appellants, approached the High Court. It seems that a contention was raised relying upon two earlier decisions dated 03.05.2018 and 12.09.2018 passed in First Appeal Nos.515/2005 and 776/2008, that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare.

4. The High Court accepted the contention and has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2024.11.28 18:18:15 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

5. Thereafter, the appellants filed a review

1

application in August, 2021 claiming that they are in fact entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare, in view of the decision of the High Court in Anil s/o Amrutrao Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2015) 2 Mh.L.J. 675. The High Court declined the review application stating that there was no error on the face of the record and that there was nothing to indicate that the subject land was an irrigated land. The High Court further observed that the question whether the acquired land was irrigated or dry land cannot be adjudicated in the review petition.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned senior counsel for the respondents.

7. It seems that there are certain contentious issues which need to be revisited by the High Court in light of the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties. While the appellants urge that the acquired land was irrigated and their claim for grant of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare is squarely covered by earlier decision of the High Court, learned senior counsel for the respondents strenuously urges that the judgment relied upon by the appellants is distinguishable and that they have rightly been granted compensation by the High Court, at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare.

8. In light of the observations made hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to remit the case to the High Court for fresh adjudication of the issue as to whether the

2

appellants are entitled to compensation at a rate higher than Rs.50,000/- per hectare.

9. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 20.12.2024.

10. We request the High Court to decide the matter afresh, preferably within a period of four months, after giving the parties one opportunity to place on record additional documents.

11. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms.

...................J. (SURYA KANT)

...................J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

New Delhi; November 21, 2024

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).5247-5248/2022

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-09-2019 in FA No.466/2008 03-02-2022 in MCA No.45/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur]

SURYAKANT (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.38600/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 21-11-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv.
• For Respondent(s) Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
• Mr. Uday B. Dube, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Selvin Raja, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

• 1. Leave granted.
• 2. The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
• 3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (signed order is placed on the file)