(1) Heard Mrs. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Najbile, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mrs. Dhande, learned AGP for respondent No.2/State.

(2) The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(3) The appellant–Corporation has challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 29.04.2014 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in L.A.C. No.903/2009, whereby the compensation awarded by the reference Court came to be enhanced.

(4) According to the appellant, the learned Reference Court erred in holding that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. It is contended that the compensation awarded for the orange trees was determined on the basis of the valuation made by the approved Government Valuer. It is further submitted that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is based on surmises and conjectures and is not supported by the evidence on record. Accordingly, the appellant–Corporation has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 29.04.2014.

(5) A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that, by a judgment, the learned Reference Court disposed of L.A.C. Nos.903 of 2009, allowing the reference applications with costs. By clauses (ii) to (vi) of the operative part of the judgment, the learned Reference Court specified the amount of compensation awarded in each of the aforesaid Land Acquisition Cases. In addition to the said compensation, the reference Court is also directed the non-applicants to pay 30% solatium and additional component compensation @ 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, till the date of passing award. Further the non-applicants, have also been directed to pay interest on the enhanced amount @ 9% per annum from the date of award and 15% per annum for the subsequent years till its realisation.

(6) Mr. Najbile, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, has invited the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.759 of 2016, when according to Mr. Najbile, this Court dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 12.12.2018, on the basis of judgment delivered on 26.09.2016 in First Appeal No.744 of 2016. Therefore, Mr. Najbile, leaned counsel for the respondent No.1 states that though this case is in respect of acquisition of adjoining village but, however, the rate has been determined by the reference Court came to be maintained.

(7) Mrs. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, however, strongly, opposed the said submission on the ground that First Appeal No.759 of 2016 and First Appeal No.744 of 2016 are not arising from the same notification and therefore, the ratio of this first appeal may not be applied to the case under consideration.

(8) However, thereafter, Mr. Najbile, learned counsel for respondent No.1, relied upon the impugned judgment and order dated 05.05.2026 passed by this Court in Civil Application No.1262 of 2021 in First Appeal (St.) No.20987 of 2019, wherein this Court refused to condone the delay by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, particularly, in paragraph Nos.261 to 263 of the said judgment.

(9) However, the judgment and award passed in LAC No.902 of 2009 on 29.04.2014, by the reference Court has attained finality. Mrs. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, further replied to the query of the Court that, as on date the judgment dated 05.05.2026 in Civil Application No.1262 of 2021 in First Appeal (St) No.20987/2019, has not been challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, there is a presumption in favour of the respondents/claimants that the appellant-corporation has accepted the judgment and award dated 29.04.2014 passed in LAC No.902 of 2009. There is no dispute that the LAC No.902 of 2009 is arising out of the same notification, which is under consideration in the instant case.

(10) In that view of the matter, the appellant having accepted the judgment and award passed by the reference Court in LAC No.902 of 2009, the judgment concerned with the instant appeal dated 29.04.2014 in the aforesaid above stated Land Acquisition Case No.903/2009 can also be maintained.

(11) In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.

(12) The claimant is permitted to withdraw the remaining amount of compensation, if any, with accrued interest thereon.

(13) No order as to costs.

Cross Objection (XOB) No. 65 OF 2023

Mr. Najbile, learned counsel for cross-objector, fairly states that he is not pressing the cross-objection. Accordingly, the cross-objection stands dismissed as not pressed.

(14) No order as to costs.